Page Range | 19467-19856 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 19855 - National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, 2016 | |
81 FR 19853 - National Financial Capability Month, 2016 | |
81 FR 19851 - National Child Abuse Prevention Month, 2016 | |
81 FR 19849 - National Cancer Control Month, 2016 | |
81 FR 19660 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 19605 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 19605 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 19526 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Transportation Conformity Update | |
81 FR 19467 - Submission of Credit Card Agreements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) | |
81 FR 19582 - Community Bank Advisory Council Meeting | |
81 FR 19700 - In the Matter of the Designation of Salah Abdeslam as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended | |
81 FR 19714 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
81 FR 19495 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Transportation Conformity Update | |
81 FR 19600 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit | |
81 FR 19527 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Island Marble Butterfly, San Bernardino Flying Squirrel, Spotless Crake, and Sprague's Pipit as Endangered or Threatened Species | |
81 FR 19699 - Delegation of the Secretary of State's Authorities in Title 8 of the United States Code Sections 1182e and 1182f to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor | |
81 FR 19601 - Notification of a Cancellation of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board's Economy-Wide Modeling Panel | |
81 FR 19604 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees (Renewal), EPA ICR 2080.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0545 | |
81 FR 19608 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 19603 - Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
81 FR 19552 - Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
81 FR 19701 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
81 FR 19490 - OMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Technical Amendment | |
81 FR 19618 - Proposed Amendment to the Willamette Valley Native Prairie Habitat Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for the Fender's Blue Butterfly in Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon | |
81 FR 19616 - Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for The Terrace of Scotts Valley in the City of Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California | |
81 FR 19602 - Environmental Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting | |
81 FR 19500 - Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Clarification of Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Period | |
81 FR 19498 - Final Flood Elevation Determinations | |
81 FR 19612 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 19612 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
81 FR 19612 - Oregon; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
81 FR 19581 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 19502 - Special Conditions: Ultramagic, S.A., Mark-32 Burner Series | |
81 FR 19700 - Thirty-Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (224) Airport Security Access Control Systems | |
81 FR 19700 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: General Operating and Flight Rules | |
81 FR 19705 - FY 2016 Railroad Safety Technology Grant Funds | |
81 FR 19611 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 19551 - Foreign-Trade Zone 17-Kansas City, Kansas, Application for Reorganization, (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework | |
81 FR 19583 - Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 19552 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 19622 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace, St. Ignace, MI | |
81 FR 19621 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University, MS | |
81 FR 19624 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, IL | |
81 FR 19632 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS; Correction | |
81 FR 19629 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE., and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19625 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19631 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE., and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19619 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE., and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19626 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE., and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19627 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE., and State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19628 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, AL | |
81 FR 19636 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA | |
81 FR 19633 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA | |
81 FR 19638 - Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Adoption of a Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona | |
81 FR 19714 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 706-GS(T) | |
81 FR 19620 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan | |
81 FR 19713 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2000-37 (Modified by Revenue Procedure 2004-51) | |
81 FR 19716 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 97-45 | |
81 FR 19715 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
81 FR 19638 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Oman; Termination of Investigation | |
81 FR 19713 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form (GMC 6-25-09) | |
81 FR 19651 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and Kewaunee Power Station | |
81 FR 19697 - Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program: SBA Model Form of Agreement of Limited Partnership for an SBIC Issuing Debentures | |
81 FR 19651 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 19640 - Notice of Proposed Revisions for the LSC Grant Assurances for Calendar Year 2017 Basic Field Grants | |
81 FR 19698 - Texas Disaster # TX-00463 | |
81 FR 19699 - Oklahoma Disaster # OK-00099 | |
81 FR 19605 - Submission for OMB Review; Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews | |
81 FR 19606 - Information Collection; Right of First Refusal of Employment | |
81 FR 19595 - Notice of Public Meeting To Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities | |
81 FR 19580 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
81 FR 19587 - Notice of Public Meeting To Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities | |
81 FR 19588 - Surplus Plutonium Disposition | |
81 FR 19712 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 | |
81 FR 19550 - 2017 Census of Governments | |
81 FR 19594 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
81 FR 19594 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory | |
81 FR 19579 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
81 FR 19547 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17A | |
81 FR 19639 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge | |
81 FR 19703 - Commercial Driver's License: Oregon Department of Transportation; Application for Exemption | |
81 FR 19598 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
81 FR 19597 - Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
81 FR 19596 - Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 19595 - Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 19599 - Percheron Power, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
81 FR 19599 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
81 FR 19597 - Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Leidy South Project | |
81 FR 19598 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 19599 - Combined Notice of Filings # 1 | |
81 FR 19702 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
81 FR 19485 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Michigan Towns; Alpena, MI; and Muskegon, MI | |
81 FR 19486 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rapid City, SD | |
81 FR 19484 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Wilmington, OH | |
81 FR 19542 - Designating the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River Stock of Beluga Whales as a Depleted Stock Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act | |
81 FR 19557 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Site Characterization Surveys Off the Coast of Massachusetts | |
81 FR 19711 - Notice of Request for the Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
81 FR 19709 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
81 FR 19710 - Notice of Request for the Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
81 FR 19586 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCES System Clearance for Cognitive, Pilot, and Field Test Studies | |
81 FR 19607 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 19641 - Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 19681 - FactorShares Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 19488 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA | |
81 FR 19587 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and Programs | |
81 FR 19583 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; 2016-17 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/17) Field Test Data Collection | |
81 FR 19602 - Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses | |
81 FR 19698 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 19639 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; Ecomments Requested; Immigration Practitioner Complaint Form (OMB1125-0007) | |
81 FR 19486 - Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act | |
81 FR 19656 - OHA Investment Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 19678 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Require Listed Companies to Publicly Disclose Compensation or Other Payments by Third Parties to Board of Director's Members or Nominees | |
81 FR 19690 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the Elkhorn Dow Jones RAFI Commodity ETF of Elkhorn ETF Trust | |
81 FR 19653 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
81 FR 19665 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting Requirements for the Collection and Transmission of Data Pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program | |
81 FR 19671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend Rule 86 To Add Additional Order Types to the NYSE BondsSM | |
81 FR 19661 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend BATS' Rules Regarding the Auction Process for Securities Subject to an Initial Public Offering | |
81 FR 19664 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Partnerships | |
81 FR 19695 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, JPMorgan Diversified Return International Currency Hedged ETF, and JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency Hedged ETF Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M | |
81 FR 19652 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 19610 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute | |
81 FR 19609 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 19653 - Product Change-Priority Mail and Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 19585 - President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities | |
81 FR 19549 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 19519 - Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Regional Haze | |
81 FR 19492 - Clean Air Plans; 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California | |
81 FR 19495 - Approval of Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections | |
81 FR 19584 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Native American Career and Technical Education Program Application (1894-0001) | |
81 FR 19550 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 19549 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee to Discuss Preparations for a Public Hearing Regarding the Civil Rights Impact of Civil Forfeiture Practices in the State | |
81 FR 19516 - Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan Engines | |
81 FR 19514 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 19512 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 19509 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 19505 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 19488 - Safety Zone; Bayou Teche, Crude Oil Spill; Jeanerette, LA | |
81 FR 19518 - Claims for Compensation Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act | |
81 FR 19482 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 19470 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 19641 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
81 FR 19472 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 19467 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 19718 - Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance | |
81 FR 19818 - Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties |
Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of expiration of suspension.
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z require credit card issuers to submit their currently-offered credit card agreements to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau), to be posted on the Bureau's Web site. In April 2015, the Bureau suspended that submission obligation for a period of one year. That suspension has expired, and the next submission is due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016 (
Credit card issuers are required to submit to the Bureau the agreements they offered to the public as of March 31, 2016, on or before May 2, 2016.
Thomas L. Devlin, Counsel, or Kristine M. Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at 202-435-7700.
In April 2015, the Bureau amended Regulation Z (12 CFR part 1026), which implements TILA, and the official interpretation to that regulation, to temporarily suspend card issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year
The suspension began with the submission that would have been due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2015, and ended with the submission that would have been due on the first business day on or after January 31, 2016. Accordingly, card issuers must resume submitting agreements to the Bureau with the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016 (
Regulation Z provides that card issuers shall submit their currently-offered agreements “in the form and manner specified by the Bureau.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that, during the assembly process, several gaps between the two parts of the girt bar fittings for the aft passenger doors were found to exceed tolerances. This AD requires an inspection of the gap between the two parts of the girt bar fittings on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) aft passenger doors, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect gaps between the girt bar fittings. Detachment of a girt bar could lead to the separation of the slide or slide-raft from the fuselage, making the emergency exit inoperative, which could impede an emergency evacuation.
This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines (UAL) proposed to update the reference to the service information to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014. UAL also suggested that the service information update would also update the effectivity for the applicable inspection.
We agree to reference the latest service information, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, which updates the effectivity, and have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly. We have also added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to provide credit for actions done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, dated May 28, 2014, and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
UAL requested clarification on the inspection task's initial gap requirement tolerance and the required gap tolerance for trimmed latches. UAL stated that it seems the initial inspection in Task 531289-832-601/602-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies that a gap equal to or less than 4 millimeters (mm) (0.158 inch) is acceptable without the need for further action, but other tasks for post-trimming and post-latch-replacement inspections specify replacement if the gap is less than 1 mm (0.0394 inch). UAL noted that those inspection tasks reference a figure in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, which specifies the gap should be between 1 mm (0.0394 inch) and 4 mm (0.158 inch). UAL also stated that the trimming action in Task 531289-831-601-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies trimming the latch again if the gap is still greater than 4 mm (0.158 inch), which seems to conflict with a figure that gives one trim dimension without any tolerance. UAL further stated that it should be clearer that the latch should be trimmed as many times as required with a maximum trim dimension of 0.5 mm (0.0197 inch) until the required gap tolerance is achieved.
We agree to provide clarification. Figure A-SBCAA of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies 0.5 mm (0.0197 inch) as the limit of the edge margin, which must not be exceeded while trimming the latch part during the gap adjustment. We find that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, is clear on the initial gap tolerance, which specifies corrective actions if the gap is initially greater than 4 mm (0.158 inch). The corrective actions include trimming and determining the gap after trimming. If the gap is less than 1 mm (0.0394 inch) or greater than 4 mm (0.158 inch) after trimming, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, specifies additional corrective actions. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard.
UAL stated that the NPRM and the referenced service information (Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1289, dated May 28, 2014, and Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014) do not identify part number D531125020000 as obsolete, which is identified in the illustrated parts catalog (IPC) as an acceptable part. UAL pointed out that the referenced service information introduces new part numbers D5348027920-200/400 as part of a corrective action, but does not specify the new part numbers as a part of an action to require new or revised latch or girt bar assembly parts. UAL asserts that, without a revised IPC or specific steps in the service information, there is a risk that the old part number could be used in the future, and lead to an incorrect gap after accomplishing the inspection required by this AD.
We agree to clarify the issue. This AD refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. We have determined the information specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014, is adequate. In addition, the requirements of an AD take precedence over any specifications in an IPC, which is not an FAA-approved document. We recommend that operators work with the manufacturer to ensure there are no discrepancies in the IPC. It is the responsibility of operators to apply necessary controls to maintain the airplane in accordance with the required configuration of an AD. No change has been made to this final rule in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the gap in the girt bar fittings of the aft passenger doors, LH and RH sides, and corrective actions.
We estimate that this AD affects 838 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $213,690, or $255 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $435, for a cost of $775 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, except those on which Airbus Modification 154966 has been embodied during production.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that, during the assembly process, several gaps between the two parts of the girt bar fittings for the aft passenger doors were found to exceed tolerances. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect gaps between the girt bar fittings. Detachment of a girt bar could lead to the separation of the slide or slide-raft from the fuselage, making the emergency exit inoperative, which could impede an emergency evacuation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the gap in the girt bar fittings of the aft passenger doors, left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
For any airplane that has been modified to a configuration where one or both LH and RH aft passenger doors are permanently inoperative or deactivated: If any aft passenger door is reactivated, after reactivation but before further flight, do the detailed inspection of the reactivated aft passenger door(s) and all applicable corrective actions, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, dated May 28, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-0178, dated July 25, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1289, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(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.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for a certain The Boeing Company Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplane. This AD requires installing fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, and doing applicable wiring changes, on the left, right, and center wing forward spars, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective April 20, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 20, 2016.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 20, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
AD 2011-01-16, Amendment 39-16573 (76 FR 1993, January 12, 2011), requires installing fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses on the wing forward spars and forward and aft auxiliary fuel tanks. The applicability of AD 2011-01-16 did not include the Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplane identified in the applicability of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, and doing wiring changes, on the left, right, and center wing forward spars, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank. 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
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures, see this service information at
The airplane identified in the paragraph (c) applicability of this AD is currently not registered in the United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe condition is addressed if this airplane is placed on the U.S. Register in the future. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, the sole airplane affected by this AD is not on the U.S. Register. However, if the affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, we estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 20, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplane, fuselage number 2155 (variable number 80E718, serial number 53192), certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install fuel level float and pressure switch in-line fuses, and do applicable wiring changes, on the left, right, and center wing forward spars, forward auxiliary fuel tank, and aft auxiliary fuel tank. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, dated April 14, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2011-01-16, Amendment 39-16573 (76 FR 1993, January 12, 2011).
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-226, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires modifying the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
This AD is effective May 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
In preparation of AD actions such as NPRMs and immediately adopted rules, it is the practice of the FAA to obtain technical information and information on the operational and economic impact from design approval holders and aircraft operators. We discussed certain issues related to this final rule in a meeting held December 1, 2015, with Airlines for America (A4A) and other members of the aviation industry. This final rule addresses the issues discussed during that meeting that are relevant to this final rule. A summary of this meeting can be found in the rulemaking docket at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
A4A, representing U.S. cargo operators, stated that the FAA intends to issue rulemaking requiring U.S. cargo operators to do additional fuel safety modifications to meet the latest aircraft certification requirements.
We infer that A4A considers that requiring airplanes to meet the latest certification requirements is not warranted and that the SNPRM should therefore be withdrawn. We assume that by “the latest aircraft certification requirements,” A4A is referring to the relatively new requirements for FRM contained in 14 CFR part 125.
We do not agree that the SNPRM should be withdrawn. This AD is not specifically intended to require that the affected airplanes meet the flammability requirements of 14 CFR part 125. It is instead intended to address an unsafe condition as required by 14 CFR part 39 identified by the FAA under the policy contained in the FAA's Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (14 CFR part 21, SFAR 88) AD decision policy (Policy Memorandum ANM-100-2003-112-15) (
A4A stated that Airbus and Boeing have indicated to them that the service bulletins for the wire separation modification that is part of the cargo airplane alternative actions will be intrusive and expensive and will not significantly improve safety. A4A stated that the safety analyses performed by the aircraft manufacturers do not classify the proposed modifications as safety critical. A4A noted that those service bulletins will not be issued as “Alert” service bulletins. Additionally, A4A stated that foreign regulatory authorities, aircraft manufacturers, and airlines do not support that a safety issue remains.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the SNPRM because the airplane manufacturers have determined that an unsafe condition does not exist and the SNPRM will not significantly improve safety. We do not agree that the SNPRM should be withdrawn. We acknowledge that Boeing does not consider the condition associated with FQIS on these airplanes to be unsafe. We disagree with Boeing's assertions, for the reasons discussed extensively in our response to Boeing's similar comment in the SNPRM, under “Request to Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk.” We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A does not expect that foreign regulators will require modification of affected foreign-registered aircraft, and stated that the competitive position of U.S. cargo operators will be harmed as a result. A4A stated that foreign regulatory agencies did not mandate retrofit of FRM for cargo airplanes, and therefore A4A did not expect that those authorities will mandate FQIS changes for their operators. A4A's comment made reference to documents published by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC), and the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) as evidence that those agencies are not planning action to address any unsafe condition associated with FQIS.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the NPRM because other foreign regulatory agencies have determined that an unsafe condition does not exist with regard to FQIS as addressed by the proposed AD.
We were unable to examine the EASA document A4A attempted to reference because the reference number was incomplete. We do not agree that the CAAC and JCAB documents indicate a position on the unsafe condition addressed by the SNPRM. Both of those documents simply state a requirement for existing type certificate holders to review fuel tank designs that is similar to the FAA's SFAR 88. Those documents do not state positions on any unsafe conditions or AD proposals identified by the FAA, the CAAC, or the JCAB.
A4A stated that the U.S. air cargo industry is currently in an extremely competitive global market. Additional lower deck capacity on passenger aircraft, especially through Middle East hubs, has significantly increased the need for cargo industry capacity. Several cargo carriers have ceased operations, and many others have parked some aircraft. U.S. carriers compete directly with foreign cargo operators. A4A stated that any additional costs on U.S. cargo operators that are not incurred by foreign operators will make U.S. operators less competitive and will lead to the loss of jobs in the U.S.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the proposal to require corrective action on cargo airplanes because non-U.S. cargo operators will not be required to make similar modifications, and the FAA AD action would harm the competitive position of U.S. cargo operators, resulting in the loss of U.S. jobs.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM for corrective action on cargo airplanes. As part of the AD development process, the FAA works with the affected manufacturer to develop a cost estimate for the corrective actions in a proposed AD. The FAA considers all possible corrective actions proposed by a manufacturer in an attempt to minimize the cost burden on operators. In some cases the FAA even makes a specific suggestion to a manufacturer for a less costly alternative. In the end, the manufacturer is responsible for development of an appropriate corrective action.
While the FAA attempts to minimize the costs associated with a required corrective action for a U.S. product, ultimately the FAA has the responsibility as the civil aviation authority (CAA) of the state of design to address unsafe conditions through AD action. Other CAAs overseeing foreign operators will typically apply the FAA AD or develop a similar AD for U.S. products operated under each CAA's jurisdiction. Other CAAs rely heavily on the knowledge and judgment of the CAA of the state of design to identify unsafe conditions and appropriate corrective actions for products of that state. The FAA is not aware at this time of any affected CAAs that do not plan to issue a corresponding mandate to address the unsafe condition associated with FQIS identified in the proposed AD. Even if such a situation occurs, the FAA would not use a foreign CAA's position as a justification for not addressing an unsafe condition identified by the FAA. While we acknowledge such a situation could harm the competitive position of a U.S. operator, we are still obligated by U.S. law and by international treaties to address the identified unsafe condition. We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A stated that the proposed modifications are very costly, and noted that United Parcel Service (UPS) has estimated a total cost of $16 million for its fleet of four aircraft types that are potentially affected by the SNPRM and other similar planned ADs. A4A pointed out that U.S. cargo operators have already spent tens of millions of dollars on fuel tank safety improvements. UPS alone has spent $35.5 million to comply with 51 SFAR 88 ADs on the four fleet types potentially affected. A4A noted that cargo operators already have recurring expenses for Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Safety (EAPAS) maintenance program tasks that continue to help ensure fuel tank safety. A4A added that cargo operators have already invested in improved and more expensive fuel tank component repair and overhaul processes.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the SNPRM because the costs of addressing previously identified fuel tank unsafe conditions has been high, and that the additional cost to address the FQIS latent-plus-one issue will also be high, with very little safety benefit.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM. We acknowledge that the total industry cost to address other fuel tank system unsafe conditions has been high. The SFAR 88 studies for Boeing airplanes identified several basic design deficiencies in lightning protection that could cause an ignition source in a fuel tank in the event of a lightning strike, and several issues with fuel pump systems and fuel valve systems where a single failure could result in an ignition source in a fuel tank. Fuel pump issues are suspected to have caused several fuel tank ignition events, so these issues were considered to be the highest priority for the development of corrective actions and related AD actions. The FAA considers the cost of addressing those issues to be clearly justified. Deficiencies in maintenance programs and inappropriate component repair actions that could lead to inadvertent significant increases in the risk of an ignition source in a fuel tank were also identified, and the cost of airworthiness limitations to address those issues is also considered to be justified.
The SFAR 88 studies and the FAA's subsequent decision-making process identified FQIS vulnerability of Model 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes as an unsafe condition requiring corrective action. While the more recently designed of these airplane models have significant improvements in FQIS design details, they all have similar FQIS design architecture with respect to the identified failure scenario. That architecture is vulnerable to a combination of a latent in-tank wiring failure and a subsequent wiring failure outside of the tank that connects a high power source to the FQIS tank circuit creating an ignition source in a fuel tank. This failure combination was determined by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to have been the most likely cause of the Model 747 fuel tank explosion accident
The FAA issued AD 98-20-40, Amendment 39-10808 (63 FR 52147, September 30, 1998); and AD 99-03-04, Amendment 39-11018 (64 FR 4959, February 2, 1999); to address this issue on early Model 747 and Model 737 airplanes, respectively, which used the same FQIS as the accident airplane. The FAA subsequently (in 2003) determined that this same architectural vulnerability was an unsafe condition for high flammability fuel tanks on all Boeing jet transports existing at that time. This determination was consistent with the published FAA policy for SFAR 88 corrective actions and with the current FAA TARAM guidelines for identification of unsafe conditions on transport airplanes.
The FAA deferred acting on this unsafe condition until after the FRM rulemaking activity was complete because introduction of FRM had the potential to change the classification of many of the affected fuel tanks to low flammability. When the final decision for the FRM rule did not include a requirement for FRM on all airplanes, the FAA resumed the planned actions to address the identified FQIS unsafe condition on the airplanes that were not required to have FRM.
The FAA considers the safety benefit of the SNPRM to be significant for both passenger and cargo airplanes. We estimate that the installation of compliant FRM will provide approximately an order of magnitude reduction in the risk of a fuel tank explosion on anticipated flights with a latent failure of an FQIS circuit in the center fuel tank. We estimate that the periodic BITE checks in the cargo airplane alternative actions will result in a 75- to 90-percent reduction in the number of flights that operate with a latent in-tank failure that makes them vulnerable to a single additional wiring hot short failure creating an ignition source in the center fuel tank. We estimate that the proposed wire separation modification in the cargo airplane alternative actions will reduce the risk of a hot short (and a resultant ignition source) on flights that have a latent in-tank failure by 50 to 75 percent. This estimated reduction in the risk on anticipated flights with a latent in-tank failure is sufficient to reduce the risk below the FAA's TARAM individual flight risk guideline level for urgent action. As discussed below in our response to “Request to Remove Alternative Actions for Cargo Airplanes,” we determined that further changes to further reduce the risk below the TARAM individual flight risk corrective action guideline of 1 in 10 million per flight hour would significantly increase the costs of compliance and are not necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A stated that there have been no fuel tank ignition incidents since the previously issued fuel tank safety ADs were implemented. A4A stated that this provides direct evidence that FAA projections for additional incidents were overstated and that SFAR 88 changes have worked. They further stated that no unsafe condition exists, asserting that service experience has shown that the fuel tank safety issues have been sufficiently addressed with significant previous modifications, recurring maintenance, controlled overhaul processes and repair processes, and maintenance program tasks.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the SNPRM because previously required actions have adequately addressed the need for improvements in fuel tank safety.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM. Until recently, fuel tank ignition incidents on U.S.- and European-manufactured transport airplanes have occurred roughly once every five to six years, with the most recent event in May 2006 (a Model 727 airplane in India in 2006, a Model 737 airplane in Thailand in 2001, a Model 747 airplane near New York in 1996, and a Model 737 airplane in the Philippines in 1991). It has now been ten years since the most recent event.
We agree that a significant improvement in fuel tank safety has occurred due to actions that have reduced the potential for ignition sources associated with single failures of fuel pumps and fuel pump power systems. That improvement alone would be expected to increase the average interval between fuel tank ignition incidents to more than ten years. However, the fact that no incidents have occurred since 2006 is not statistically significant, and is not sufficient to predict that additional events will not occur. In addition, even assuming the average interval between events is significantly improved to the extent that the overall fleet risk is considered acceptable, we would still address unsafe conditions identified based on the published FAA policy for SFAR 88 corrective actions and the current FAA guidelines for identification of unsafe conditions on transport airplanes when the individual flight safety risk exceeds our guidelines, as in this case. We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A stated that the NTSB previously issued the following safety recommendations related to flammability, wiring, and wiring maintenance:
• A-96-174—Preclude flammable fuel air mixtures in fuel tanks. Closed—Acceptable Action: FRM Rulemaking. Safety Recommendation A-96-174 can be found at
• A-98-038—Separation of FQIS wires to the max extent possible. Closed—Acceptable Action: SFAR 88 Rulemaking.
• A-98-039—Require surge protection systems for FQIS wires. Closed—Acceptable Action: SFAR 88 Rulemaking. Safety Recommendation A-98-039 can be found at
• A-00-106—Assess wiring criticality and separation. Closed—Acceptable Action: EAPAS/FTS Rulemaking. Safety Recommendation A-00-106 can be found at (
• A-00-108—Repair of potentially unsafe wiring conditions. Closed—Acceptable Action: EAPAS/FTS Rulemaking. Safety Recommendation A-00-108 can be found at
A4A noted that all applicable NTSB safety recommendations are closed with acceptable actions taken by the FAA. A4A stated that none of the NTSB safety recommendations called for the FAA to address wire separation for the FQIS.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the SNPRM because the NTSB considers the overall fuel tank safety issue to be adequately addressed by previous actions.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM. A4A appears to have
A4A stated that the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and other regulatory agencies are having difficulty calculating the true safety value associated with the proposed FQIS AD. A4A stated that its position is that all the unsafe conditions have been mitigated, operationally and across industry, and all previous rules have been effective. A4A added that, in light of the operators' financial and technical investment to mitigate the unsafe conditions in all areas, the SNPRM is difficult to understand technically relative to the amount of mitigation that would be required, in light of a true risk assessment. A4A stated that the FAA is alone in believing that a safety issue still exists.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we withdraw the SNPRM because it has not been justified by a risk assessment and because previously required actions have adequately addressed the need for improvements in fuel tank safety.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM. We provided a detailed response to similar comments and described the FAA's risk assessment in the SNPRM in the sections “Request to Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk,” “Request to Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Not Supported by Risk Analysis,” and “Request to Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): No Unsafe Condition,” as well as in earlier paragraphs in this discussion. We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule.
A4A stated that the alternative wire separation modifications allowed for cargo airplanes would not meet the “new design criteria.” (We assume that A4A is referring to the wire separation requirements for repairs and modifications that are included in the fuel tank system airworthiness limitations required by recent ADs for the various Boeing models.) A4A stated that in the Model 757 service bulletin under development by Boeing, only about “5 percent” of FQIS wires can be separated from other systems by a distance of 2 inches, and that the majority of the wire bundle relocation will achieve only up to 0.5-inch spacing. A4A stated that because the wire separation requirements are not met, partial exemptions from the requirements of 14 CFR 25.981 are required to allow approval of these wire separation service bulletins. Based on the reduced separation distance and the need for exemptions, A4A considered the proposed wire separation requirements included in the cargo airplane alternative actions to be a symbolic gesture with no significant safety benefit, while at the same time being expensive and intrusive. A4A further stated that operators have reviewed the associated draft service bulletins and are concerned about the lack of a design target or adequate rationale for the actions proposed by the FAA. Finally, A4A stated that Boeing had stated to them that Boeing does not understand what design changes the FAA wants or why the FAA considers there to be a safety issue.
We infer that A4A is requesting that we remove the alternative actions for a wire separation modification on cargo airplanes because A4A believes the wire separation actions associated with the cargo airplane alternative actions in the SNPRM would have no significant safety benefit since inadequate physical wire separation is provided.
We do not agree to withdraw the SNPRM. A4A appears to have misunderstood the intent of the FQIS wire separation requirements added to the airworthiness limitations as a critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL). The FQIS wire separation CDCCL provides a set of wire separation requirements that are intended to be used as a default when modifying or repairing an aircraft to ensure that the intended level of separation of the FQIS wiring from other wiring is maintained. The Model 757 CDCCL (28-AWL-05) contains a simple 2-inch separation requirement as originally proposed by Boeing. While Boeing has not proposed changes to the Model 757 FQIS wire separation CDCCL, the corresponding CDCCL (28-AWL-05) for Model 737-700, -800, and -900 airplanes has numerous additional provisions approving other design approaches (typically combinations of wire sleeving and smaller separation distances) that Boeing or operators proposed and that the FAA approved. Each time wire separation configuration options were approved for Boeing, alternative CDCCL wording was approved as an AMOC with the AD that required the addition of the CDCCLs to operators' maintenance programs. A similar AMOC will be granted for the approved modifications to the FQIS for Model 757 airplanes.
A4A also appears to have misunderstood the reason that exemptions would be required to allow approval of the cargo airplane wire separation modification. Lack of a full 2 inches of wire separation in all of the changed areas is not the reason an exemption is required. Rather, an exemption is required because the overall FQIS will not comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3) due to the existing noncompliance of the unchanged areas of the system. Because those rules require a system-level safety analysis, we cannot find the changes to the system compliant if a noncompliance exists in the unchanged areas of the system.
The proposed Boeing design uses sleeving over the wire bundles and extensive retention features to provide a level of wire protection similar to the protection that would be provided by a greater separation distance. The design measures are consistent with those previously approved by the FAA in the Model 737-700/800/900 CDCCL mentioned previously.
We consider the safety benefit provided by the proposed cargo airplane alternative actions to be significant. The unsafe condition determination and the rationale and estimated safety benefit for the cargo airplane alternative actions were discussed extensively with Boeing in several meetings, and we consider that Boeing fully understands the FAA's position on each of those aspects of the proposal. The proposed requirement for a periodic check through the built-in test equipment (BITE) of the FQIS processor is intended to identify and result in corrective actions for the detectable fault conditions in the FQIS in-tank wiring. We estimated that this
Colin Edwards and an anonymous commenter made no explicit request to change the SNPRM, but objected to the proposed addition of alternative actions for cargo airplanes that would allow a design change that does not fully comply with the fuel tank system safety requirements of 14 CFR part 25 (14 CFR 25.981(a)(3)) to be used to address the unsafe condition. The commenters stated that it should not be acceptable to allow greater risk to exist on cargo airplanes than that allowed for passenger airplanes.
We infer that the commenters propose the elimination of the proposed alternative corrective action for cargo airplanes. We disagree with this request. We determined that an acceptable level of safety would be provided for the affected cargo airplanes, and explained our position in depth in response to similar comments in the SNPRM. However, we will attempt to address the commenters' concerns by expanding on the explanation of our safety determination.
When assessing potential unsafe conditions on transport airplanes to determine if corrective action is necessary, the FAA assesses the total risk to the affected fleet of airplanes exposed to the condition, and assesses the level of risk on individual airplanes within the fleet. The FAA's guidelines for assessing the total fleet risk related to the unsafe condition are slightly different for cargo and passenger airplanes due to operational usage differences. In this case, however, the total risk to the affected fleet is lower than the unsafe condition risk guidelines for both passenger and cargo airplanes. Total fleet risk is therefore not the risk assessment element driving the proposed actions.
When assessing the level of risk on individual airplanes, the FAA considers the risk on the worst reasonably anticipated flights to ensure that the level of safety on each flight is acceptable. Our individual flight risk unsafe condition threshold is 1 × 10E-7 events (or a 1-in-10-million chance of a catastrophic event) per flight hour. In addition, the worst reasonably anticipated flights should not be vulnerable to a single failure that causes a fatal event, regardless of probability. There is no difference in the individual flight risk unsafe condition criteria for cargo airplanes and passenger airplanes because the operational differences are not considered in this risk calculation.
In this case, we are concerned about a latent failure inside the fuel tank that, in combination with an electrical short circuit in FQIS wiring outside of the tank, could result in an electrical spark or arc in the tank. An electrical arc or spark in the fuel tank combined with flammable conditions in the fuel tank could result in a fuel tank explosion. The worst reasonably anticipated flights in this case are those that have both the latent failure and flammable conditions in the tank. The manufacturer's analysis indicates that a significant number of flights would be expected to occur with these conditions in the life of the affected fleet if no corrective action is taken. For those flights, one additional failure—a short circuit between FQIS wiring and power wiring—could cause a fuel tank explosion. Also, the probability of an explosion is between 1 in a million and 1 in 10 million, per flight hour, which slightly exceeds the numerical unsafe condition guideline for individual flight risk discussed above.
An issue that violates one or more of the individual flight risk guidelines would normally require corrective action that reduces the risk to a level that is below the unsafe condition guidelines. However, in this case the FAA acknowledged that the cost of corrective action is high, and that the available corrective action (fuel tank FRM systems) would reduce, but not eliminate, the number of expected flights with the condition we are concerned about (a latent failure plus flammable conditions inside the tank). The alternative actions for cargo airplanes would also reduce the number of expected flights with the condition we are concerned about, but to a lesser degree. The FAA has determined that allowing a moderate number of cargo flights per year (on average) with this condition provides an acceptable level of safety. As part of making this determination, we noted that the level of risk on the worst reasonably anticipated flights is similar to the level of risk for private and commercial pilots flying normal category airplanes.
We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) requested that we require changes to the FQIS to address the potential “latent-plus-one-failure scenario” in all fuel tanks, not just in the center fuel tank.
NATCA stated that the failure condition that is the subject of the SNPRM should be classified as a “known” latent-plus-one-failure condition when applying the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate Policy Memorandum 2003-112-15, “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria,” dated February 25, 2015 (
NATCA considered the combination of a latent in-tank failure with electrical energy transmitted into the fuel tank via the FQIS wiring due to an additional failure outside of the tank to be a “known” failure condition because that failure condition was considered to be the most likely cause of the TWA Flight 800 Model 747 accident. (That accident occurred on July 17, 1996, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport in Jamaica, New York.) NATCA concluded that because the Model 757 FQIS is similar to that of the Model 747, both models are vulnerable to the same failure scenario. NATCA cited the unsafe condition statement for the SNPRM as evidence that the scenario should be classified as “known.” NATCA pointed out that the FAA issued AD 98-20-40, Amendment 39-10808 (63 FR 52147, September 30, 1998), to address this issue for Model
We disagree with the request to require modification of the FQIS in all fuel tanks. We have determined that, under the policy contained in the policy memorandum, this failure condition for the Model 757 FQIS should not be classified as “known.” The memo defines “known” failure conditions as follows:
[T]hose conditions which have occurred in-service and are likely to occur on other products of the same or similar type design, and conditions which have been subject to mandatory corrective actions, following in-service findings, on products with a similar design of fuel system.
We agree that the Model 757 FQIS has the same high-level system architecture and operating principles as those of the Model 747 FQIS, resulting in vulnerability to the same theoretical latent-plus-one-failure scenario. There are, however, significant differences in the details of the Model 757 FQIS design that reduce the likelihood of the individual contributing failures. Those differences include the following:
• Improved FQIS probe terminal connector block design;
• The use of wiring that is not silver plated and therefore does not create silver sulfide deposits on the terminal blocks;
• The use of improved wire types and wiring installation practices outside of the fuel tanks; and
• The use of a system processor that provides significant isolation of the tank probe circuits from the indication and power circuits of the FQIS.
We therefore did not consider that the FQIS designs for the Model 747 and Model 757 were so similar that the Model 757 FQIS design should be considered to have a “known” latent-plus-one-failure condition vulnerability as defined in the policy memorandum. The provisions in the above definition for classifying a failure condition as “known” based on the existence of a similar design were intended to allow the FAA to evaluate the degree of similarity in the design, and to make discretionary judgments in determining that a failure condition that is believed to have occurred (and/or was addressed by AD action) in one specific design should be classified as “known” in a different specific design. The application of that discretion would be expected to involve evaluation of design detail differences and the effects of those differences on failure modes and failure probability. Based on our determination that sufficient design differences exist between the Model 757 and Model 747 FQIS designs to not classify the Model 757 FQIS latent-plus-one-failure condition as “known,” under the direction contained in the policy memorandum, this AD addresses that failure condition vulnerability only for the center fuel tank, which is the only high-flammability fuel tank on the Model 757.
NATCA expressed a concern that the FAA did not understand NATCA's previous comment on this matter, and stated that the FAA had not considered the requirements of “Element 2.a)” from Policy Memorandum 2003-112-15, dated February 25, 2015. In fact, we had addressed the requirements of “Element 2.a)” in the response to the comments under “Request to Revise Proposed AD Requirements to Apply to All Fuel Tanks” of the SNPRM. The FAA understood the earlier comment and understands the more recent comment, but has reached a different conclusion about the classification of the failure condition under the guidance in the policy memorandum. We classified the Model 757 FQIS latent-plus-one-failure scenario as a theoretical vulnerability rather than a “known” combination of failures. Policy Memorandum 2003-112-15, dated February 25, 2015, calls for corrective action for theoretical latent-plus-one-failure conditions only in high-flammability fuel tanks. Contrary to the assertion in the NATCA comment, the acknowledgement of the scenario as theoretically possible and the consequent AD proposal to address the scenario in the high flammability center fuel tank do not automatically drive classification of the failure as “known” under the policy memorandum. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
NATCA requested that we require design changes to the FQIS to address the potential latent-plus-one-failure scenario in all fuel tanks of all Model 757 airplanes, regardless whether FRM is installed. NATCA stated that the minimum performance standards for FRM contained in 14 CFR part 25 allow flights to occur with flammable conditions in tanks that are required to incorporate FRM due to system performance as designed and due to system failures. In addition, time-limited dispatch with an inoperative FRM has been allowed in the master minimum equipment list (MMEL) for affected airplanes. Flights with flammable conditions and a pre-existing latent in-tank FQIS failure are reasonably anticipated to occur in the life of the affected fleet. For those flights, a fuel tank explosion could occur due to a single additional failure (hot short of power onto FQIS tank probe circuits). NATCA notes that four fuel tank explosion events have occurred in fuel tanks that are classified as low flammability.
We disagree with the request. We have determined that the proposed corrective actions (either installation of FRM or specific FQIS changes limited to the center fuel tank) represent a reasonable, cost-effective method to achieve a meaningful reduction in the risk of an accident due to potential FQIS fuel tank ignition sources.
The service history of conventional unheated aluminum wing tanks that contain Jet A fuel indicates that there would be little safety benefit by further limiting the flammability of these tanks. While NATCA expressed concern because fuel vapor ignition events have occurred in wing fuel tanks, NATCA did not differentiate service experience based on fuel type used (JP-4 versus Jet A fuel).
Our review of the nine wing tank ignition events we know to have occurred on turbine-engine-powered transport airplanes shows that five of the nine airplanes were using JP-4 fuel, and this type of fuel is no longer used except on an emergency basis in the U.S. Use of JP-4 fuel in other parts of the world is also relatively rare, and is normally limited to areas with extremely cold airport conditions. Three of the remaining four events were caused by external heating of the wing by engine fires, and the remaining event occurred on the ground during maintenance. To date, there have been no fuel tank explosions in conventional unheated aluminum wing tanks fueled with Jet A fuel that have resulted in any fatalities.
The flammability characteristics of JP-4 fuel results in the fuel tanks being flammable a significant portion of the time when an airplane is in flight. This is not the case for wing tanks containing Jet A fuel. Therefore, based on the low fleet average flammability of the Model 757 wing fuel tanks and on the specific features of the Model 757 FQIS design, we have determined that the latent-plus-one vulnerability that exists in the Model 757 wing tank FQIS is not an unsafe condition requiring corrective action on in-service airplanes.
We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
NATCA requested that we require design changes to the FQIS that would bring that system into full compliance with the applicable airworthiness regulations. NATCA stated that the failure condition that is the subject of the SNPRM represents a noncompliance of the type design with the requirements of 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3), even for low-flammability fuel tanks. NATCA stated that the proposed corrective actions would not bring the airplane design into compliance with those regulations “as required by SFAR 88 and SFAR 88 Policy published by the FAA as Mandatory Corrective Action criteria in FAA Policy Statement No. 2003-112-15.” NATCA added that the proposed alternative corrective actions for cargo airplanes do not comply with those regulations because the alternative actions do not fully eliminate the potential for the failure condition that is addressed by the SNPRM.
We disagree with the request. SFAR 88, as modified by Amendment 21-82, and Policy Memorandum 2003-112-15, dated February 25, 2003, do not specifically require noncompliant designs discovered through SFAR 88 to be brought into compliance. As originally issued, SFAR 88 required design approval holders to develop the corrective actions necessary to bring any noncompliant design fuel system features into compliance. However, SFAR 88 did not dictate that the FAA require a given corrective action. In fact, the FAA later published Amendment 21-82, “Equivalent Safety Provisions for Fuel Tank System Fault Tolerance Evaluations (SFAR 88),” to clarify that the FAA would accept SFAR 88 reports that do not provide corrective actions that directly comply with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) provided any aspects that do not comply are compensated for by factors that provide an equivalent level of safety. The FAA used the introduction of flammability reduction in place of corrective action for a specific ignition source as an example of a potentially acceptable compensating factor.
Also, while the normal certification process requires proposed design changes to be compliant with the applicable regulations, applicants are permitted under 14 CFR part 11 to petition for an exemption from any FAA regulatory requirement. Policy Memorandum 2003-112-15, dated February 25, 2003, did not state that the FAA would not consider a petition for exemption from an airworthiness requirement for a proposed design intended as corrective action for an SFAR 88 issue. We therefore consider that the applicant may petition for an exemption and propose a noncompliant design change, and the FAA may approve and issue an AD to require a noncompliant design change. Boeing's FRM design change for the Model 757 was approved some time ago. We have determined that for Model 757 airplanes, installation of FRM, instead of FQIS design changes, represents a reasonable, cost-effective method to achieve a meaningful overall reduction in the risk of an accident due to fuel tank ignition events. We therefore excluded airplanes with FRM installed from the applicability of this AD.
NATCA requested that we require newly produced airplanes to be in compliance with 14 CFR 25.901, 25.981(a), and 25.981(b). NATCA expressed concern that nearly 20 years after the TWA Flight 800 accident, manufacturers have been allowed to continue production of airplanes without making changes to eliminate the FQIS latent-plus-one-failure scenario, and that the FAA has granted exemptions to approve certain design changes without fully addressing the issue.
We disagree with the request. This AD applies only to certain Model 757 series airplanes, and the Model 757 is out of production. The comment is therefore outside of the scope of this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
FedEx proposed that we revise paragraph (h)(1) of the SNPRM to allow use of the FQIS BITE check procedure in its airplane maintenance manual (AMM) as an alternative to the procedure in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0136, dated June 5, 2014, which does not apply to FedEx's fleet. We assume this is because FedEx operates some airplanes that were converted to a cargo configuration using a non-Boeing supplemental type certificate.
We disagree with the request. FedEx's comment did not provide adequate information to show that its AMM procedure is equivalent to the procedure described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0136, dated June 5, 2014. FedEx's comment also did not identify the fault conditions for which dispatch would be prohibited. We therefore do not have sufficient information at this time to allow FedEx's proposed alternative procedure. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative procedures, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule regarding this request.
NATCA requested that we reduce the compliance time to 5 years or less. NATCA noted that the proposed 72-month compliance time would result in a corrective action deadline that is approximately 27 years after the TWA Flight 800 accident. NATCA stated that such a long delay in action is not in the public interest.
We disagree with the request to reduce the compliance time, which we have determined is necessary to give operators adequate time to prepare for and perform the required modifications without excessive disruption of operations. We had initially proposed 60 months, but extended that to 72 months in response to operator comments, which included extension requests of up to 108 months. NATCA made a similar comment to the NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012), requesting a reduction in the compliance time to 36 months, and the FAA provided its response in the SNPRM under “Request to Reduce Compliance Time.” We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
FedEx stated that without service information for the wire separation, it cannot effectively determine whether the proposed 72-month compliance time is acceptable.
We had previously determined, as specified in the SNPRM, that the work involved for the cargo airplane wire separation modification would take 230 work-hours, and a compliance time of 72 months would be adequate for operators to perform the modification on their affected fleets. Boeing has since provided an updated estimate of 74 work-hours for the alternative modification for cargo airplanes. We have revised the cost estimate accordingly in this final rule, but since this change reduces the work-hour estimate, it is not necessary to adjust the compliance time to accommodate the workload for this action for cargo operators.
Paragraph (g) of the SNPRM would have required modification of “the FQIS wiring or fuel tank systems.” Boeing asked that we remove reference to “fuel tank systems” in this proposed requirement because a fuel tank system modification could be done as an AMOC.
We agree with the commenter's request and rationale. We have removed the references to “fuel tank systems” throughout the preamble and in paragraph (g) of this AD.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1) of the SNPRM to specify that repair is required for any “nondispatchable” fault code recorded before or as a result of the BITE check. (The SNPRM would have required repair for any fault code.) Boeing requested this change to make the repair requirement consistent with the BITE check service information referenced in the SNPRM (Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0136, dated June 5, 2014).
We agree with the request. The intent of the SNPRM was to require correction only of faults identified as “nondispatchable.” The SNPRM used the terminology “as applicable” to indicate this intent, but we agree that further clarification is appropriate. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) in this AD as requested by the commenter.
Paragraph (h)(2) of the SNPRM specified that the FQIS wiring separation was to be done on the wiring that runs between the FQIS processor and the center fuel tank. Boeing requested that we change “the center fuel tank” to “the center fuel tank wall penetrations.” Boeing requested this change to clarify the end point for the FQIS wire separation.
We agree with the request. Boeing's suggestion is consistent with the intent of this AD, and improves the clarity of the requirement. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) in this AD to incorporate Boeing's request.
Boeing requested that we delay issuance of the final rule pending issuance of new service information that would specifically define an acceptable wiring configuration that complies with the proposed requirements.
We disagree with the request because the referenced service information was not available at the time we were ready to publish the final rule, and we cannot reliably predict the time that service information will be issued by Boeing. We do not consider it in the public interest to further delay this rulemaking. We have determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuing the final rule as proposed. Operators may, however, request approval under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD to use a future approved service bulletin, if developed, as an AMOC with the requirements of this AD, or we may approve the service bulletin as a global AMOC.
Boeing stated that it has accepted the FAA's requirement to provide service information defining an acceptable wire separation modification, but, based on previously provided analysis, maintained that the risk level is less than extremely improbable. As asserted in earlier comments, Boeing considers the design of the affected airplanes safe and the proposed requirements therefore unnecessary.
We disagree with Boeing's assertions for the reasons discussed extensively in our response to Boeing's similar comment in the SNPRM. The FAA's response to Boeing's assertion is covered in the response to comments in the SNPRM under “Request to Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk.”
We have revised the introductory text to paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify that the alternative modification for cargo airplanes must be accompanied by periodic BITE checks started within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. And, for airplanes converted to an all-cargo configuration more than 6 months after the effective date of this AD, operators must perform the first BITE check before flight after the conversion. In reviewing the proposed requirements after publication of the SNPRM, we recognized that operators might interpret the requirements as allowing a delay in the decision to exercise the cargo airplane alternative until late in the compliance period. That is not the literal meaning of the proposed language of the requirement, and was not the FAA's intent. However, we determined that we should clarify the language of paragraph (h) of this AD regarding the required timing for the first BITE check if an operator chooses to exercise the cargo airplane alternative.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0136, dated June 5, 2014, which describes procedures for a BITE check (check of built-in test equipment). 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
We estimate that this AD affects 167 airplanes of U.S. registry. This estimate includes 148 cargo airplanes and 19 non-air-carrier passenger airplanes. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Existing regulations already require that air-carrier passenger airplanes be equipped with FRM by December 26, 2017. We therefore assume that the FRM installation specified in paragraph (g) of this AD will be done on only the 19 affected non-air-carrier passenger airplanes, for an estimated passenger fleet cost of $7,299,800. We also assume that the operators of the 148 affected cargo airplanes would choose the less costly actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at an estimated cost of $2,410,920 for the wire separation modification, plus $50,320 annually for the BITE checks.
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 10, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; except airplanes equipped with a flammability reduction means (FRM) approved by the FAA as compliant with the Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction (FTFR) rule (73 FR 42444, July 21, 2008) requirements of 14 CFR 25.981(b) or 14 CFR 26.33(c)(1).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7397: Engine fuel system wiring.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
For airplanes used exclusively for cargo operations: As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, using methods approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. To exercise this alternative, operators must perform the first inspection required under paragraph (h)(1) of this AD within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. To exercise this alternative for airplanes returned to service after conversion of the airplane from a passenger configuration to an all-cargo configuration more than 6 months after the effective date of this AD, operators must perform the first inspection required under paragraph (h)(1) of this AD prior to further flight after the conversion.
(1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, record the existing fault codes stored in the FQIS processor and then do a BITE check (check of built-in test equipment) of the FQIS, in accordance with the
(2) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the airplane by separating FQIS wiring that runs between the FQIS processor and the center fuel tank wall penetrations, including any circuits that pass through a main fuel tank, from other airplane wiring that is not intrinsically safe.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28-0136, dated June 5, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at 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.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the aft fixed fairing (AFF) of the pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure. This AD requires repetitive inspections for damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, which could result in detachment of a pylon and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 10, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0154, dated July 2, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
On aeroplanes equipped with post-mod 33844 CFM pylons, several operators have reported cracks on the Aft Fixed Fairing (AFF). After material analysis, it appears that
Further to these findings, Airbus released Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A54N002-12 which provides instructions to inspect the pylon AFF, applicable only to aeroplanes incorporating Airbus production mod 33844 on CFM pylons. More recently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-54-1027, superseding AOT A54N002-12.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to detachment of a pylon AFF from the aeroplane, possibly resulting in injuries to persons on the ground.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the pylon AFF and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since the MCAI was issued, EASA has clarified that the detachment of a pylon AFF from the airplane could result in damage to the airplane; such damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have removed Airbus Model A320-215 airplanes from the Applicability statement of this AD; this model is not type certificated in the U.S.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously, including minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspections for damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, and repair if necessary. 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
We estimate that this AD affects 69 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $23,460, or $340 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective May 10, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111 and -112, airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 33844 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the aft fixed fairing (AFF) of the pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, which could result in detachment of a pylon and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the later of times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), or (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Do a detailed inspection for damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
(1) For all airplanes: Before exceeding 5,000 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the airplane's first flight.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in Airbus All Operators Transmission (AOT) A54N002-12 has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,500 flight cycles or 3,750 flight hours since the most recent accomplishment of maintenance planning data (MPD) Task ZL 371-01, or since doing the most recent inspection specified in Airbus AOT A54N002-12, whichever occurs first.
(3) For airplanes on which the inspection specified in Airbus AOT A54N002-12 has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014. Accomplishment of this repair does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0154, dated July 2, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-54-1027, dated April 10, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(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.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This correction amends the final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, April 5, 2016. The compliance date for this rule is March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The
The FAA also determined that the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description was inadvertently removed in error. Potential safety concerns were identified due to the possibility for confusion in determining the operating rules and equipment requirements in the Wilmington Air Park terminal area. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to be active at the same time.
To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 6451, column 1, after line 31, add the following:
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,600 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Wilmington Air Park, excluding that portion of airspace within a 1-mile radius of Hollister Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/facility directory.
On page 6451, column 1, beginning on line 40, remove the following text:
“Within a 4.2-mile radius of Wilmington Air Park, and within 3.7 miles each side of the Midwest VOR/DME 215° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Wilmington Air Park to 7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the Midwest VOR/DME 041° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the airport, excluding that portion of airspace within a 1-mile radius of Hollister Field Airport.”
And add in its place:
“Within a 4.2-mile radius of Wilmington Air Park, and within 3.7 miles each side of the Midwest VOR/DME 215° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Wilmington Air Park to 7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the Midwest VOR/DME 041° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the airport, excluding that portion of airspace within a 1-mile radius of Hollister Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/facility Director.”
On page 6451, column 2, after line 11, add the following:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 7-mile radius of Wilmington Air Park and within 4.6 miles each side of the Midwest VOR/DME 041° radial, extending from the 7-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of Wilmington Air Park.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This correction amends a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, April 5, 2016. The compliance date for this rule is March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The
To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area airspace at Alpena Country Regional Airport and Muskegon Country Airport. The regulatory text is rewritten for clarity.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 6448, column 2, beginning on line 32, remove the following text:
“Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Alpena County Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC 350° radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the VORTAC, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC 187° radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles south of the VORTAC.”
And add in its place:
“Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Alpena County Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC 350° radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the VORTAC, and within 2.5 miles each side of the Alpena VORTAC 187° radial, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles south of the VORTAC. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
On page 6448, column 2, beginning on line 44, remove the following text:
“Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Muskegon County Airport and within 1.3 miles each side of the Muskegon VORTAC 271° radial extending from the VORTAC to the 4.2-mile radius of Muskegon County Airport.”
And add in its place:
“Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Muskegon County Airport and within 1.3 miles each side of the Muskegon VORTAC 271° radial extending from the VORTAC to the 4.2-mile radius of the Muskegon County Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airman. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/facility Directory.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This correction amends the final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, April 5, 2016. The compliance date for this rule is March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The
To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area airspace at Rapid City Regional Airport. The regulatory text is rewritten for clarity.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 5906, column 1, beginning on line 27, remove the following text:
“Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport, excluding the portion north of a line between the intersection of the Rapid City Regional Airport 4.4-mile radius and the Ellsworth AFB 4.7-mile radius, and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.6 miles each side of the Rapid City VORTAC 155°/335°. radials extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, excluding that airspace within the Rapid City, SD, Class D airspace area.”
And add in its place:
“Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport, excluding the portion north of a line between the intersection of the Rapid City Regional Airport 4.4-mile radius and the Ellsworth AFB 4.7-mile radius, and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.6 miles each side of the Rapid City VORTAC 155°/335°. radials extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, excluding that airspace within the Rapid City, SD, Class D airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.”
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is issuing a final rule amending its Rules and Regulations concerning administrative claims made pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The rule reflects structural changes within the NLRB that impact the NLRB's processing of claims, the current address for submission of claims to the NLRB, the impact of a claimant's submission of an amended claim, and the effect on a claimant of the NLRB's payment of a claim.
The effective date is June 6, 2016.
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1067.
These amendments update the NLRB's regulations governing the submission and processing of administrative claims under the FTCA. Because of the scope of these amendments, the NLRB is replacing subpart D in its entirety.
The amendments include: (i) In paragraph (b), directing claims to be made to the Associate General Counsel for the Division of Legal Counsel, and directing that claims be submitted to the NLRB's current headquarters address available on its Web site; (ii) in paragraph (c), providing that a claim may be amended at any time prior to final action by the NLRB and that the NLRB shall have six months from the amendment to make a final disposition; (iii) in paragraph (d), providing that the Associate General Counsel for the Division of Legal Counsel has authority to determine submitted claims; (iv) in
These amendments are being made primarily as a result of the NLRB's restructuring in 2013 to create a new Division of Legal Counsel (78 FR 44981 (July 25, 2013)). Claims previously were directed to and determined by the NLRB's Director of Administration, and as a matter of practice, claims filed in the regions were forwarded to headquarters for processing by Administration. As a result of the 2013 reorganization of NLRB functions, the Division of Legal Counsel now handles claims under the FTCA, including determining the claims, and the final rule reflects this change in paragraphs (b) and (d). Paragraph (b) also reflects that claims should be submitted to the NLRB's current headquarters address, available on its Web site; the address designated in the current regulations is outdated.
Similarly, financial functions, including payment of FTCA awards, were formerly conducted within the Division of Administration. In 2012, an Office of the Chief Financial Officer was created, with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) jointly reporting to the General Counsel and the Chairman of the Board (77 FR 43127 (July 23, 2012)). Accordingly, the final rule reflects in paragraph (f) that payments on FTCA administrative claims under $2,500 are made by the CFO, rather than by the Division of Administration. Payments over that amount continue to be handled in accordance with 28 CFR 14.10.
Paragraph (c) is a new provision for the amendment of claims. It permits amendment at any time prior to the NLRB's determination of a claim, and it provides that an amendment restarts the six-month deadline for responding to the claim. It also provides that the six-month time period prior to which a claimant may not bring a lawsuit against an agency (28 U.S.C. 2675(a)) begins to run at the time of the amendment. While the NLRB has received amendments of claims, its regulations have not previously provided for their treatment.
The elimination of review by “the General Counsel or designee” for claims above $5,000 in paragraph (e) conforms the proposal with 28 CFR 14.5, which applies to FTCA administrative claims government-wide. That regulation provides that awards in excess of $5,000 may be made by the head of an agency or his designee “only after review by a legal officer of the agency.” Accordingly, this regulation does not require legal review specifically by the General Counsel or a designee. Consistent with the NLRB restructuring, the Division of Legal Counsel will provide the legal review.
Finally, paragraph (g) sets forth that acceptance of payment constitutes a release of claims against the United States, the NLRB, and any employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim. This is consistent with 28 U.S.C. 2672 and is included as a new provision to make the consequences of accepting payment clear to any claimants submitting claims to the NLRB.
Accordingly, consistent with the foregoing, the NLRB is amending 29 CFR part 100, subpart D to revise its procedures governing the submission and processing of administrative claims under the FTCA.
This action relates solely to agency organization, management, or personnel matters and will not impose any additional paperwork, reporting, or other costs, burdens, or responsibilities on claimants under the FTCA. Accordingly, this action is not subject to the advance notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or the requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative regulations, Claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Cooperation in audits and investigations, Employee personal property loss claims, Employee responsibilities and conduct, Government employees, Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in NLRB programs.
For the reasons set forth above, the NLRB amends 29 CFR part 100, subpart D as follows:
Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141, 156).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
By direction of the Board.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the rescheduling of the New Orleans Endurance Festival event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation during the event.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 2 p.m. on May 28, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0040] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
On February 1, 2016, a United States Coast Guard notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulations under the same docket number, USCG-2016-0040, was published in the
The vertical clearance of the bascule span bridge is 46 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. The bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.458(c).
This deviation is effective on May 28, 2016, from 7 a.m. through 2 p.m. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for seven (7) hours on the day of the event.
Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with and without tows, commercial vessels, and recreational craft, including sailboats.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route. 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 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 of Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with an 11,550 gallon type III crude oil spill and corresponding response efforts. 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 April 5, 2016 until April 15, 2016. The rule will be enforced until April 15, 2016, or until emergency spill response efforts are complete, whichever occurs earlier. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from March 29, 2016 until April 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
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 immediate emergency efforts are required to respond to an oil spill on Bayou Teche. This spill poses an extremely hazardous condition to the public and environment until it is contained and cleaned up. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by March 29, 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 protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards during emergency response efforts associated with an 11,550 gallon crude oil spill on Bayou Teche.
This rule establishes a safety zone from March 29, 2016 through April 15, 2016 or until emergency spill response efforts are complete, whichever occurs earlier. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA. This safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the pollution response and cleanup occur. 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 related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive orders 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. Executive order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under executive order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
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 Bayou Teche Waterway from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, LA from March 29, 2016 through April 15, 2016 or until emergency spill response efforts are complete, whichever occurs earlier. Additionally, this is a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low. 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 executive order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in executive order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under executive order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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 in all navigable waters of the Bayou Teche from Jeanerette, LA to Linwood, 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)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this technical amendment updates the table that lists the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under PRA for information collection requirements contained in EPA's regulations that are promulgated in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This technical amendment adds new approvals published in the
This final rule is effective April 5, 2016.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0486, is available at
Angela Hofmann, Regulatory Coordination Staff (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0258; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are concerned about OMB approval for information collections required by EPA regulations. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
This document updates the OMB control numbers listed in 40 CFR part 9 for various regulations promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 408). Under PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection activities referenced in this document were previously subject to public notice and comment as part of the rulemaking process, and this action does not in any way affect the referenced information collection activities or rulemakings. This action only amends the table at 40 CFR 9.1 to update the list of OMB control numbers listed there. Due to the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment about amending the table is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)), to amend this table without further notice and comment.
On January 8, 2016, OMB approved the consolidation of three existing, approved OMB control numbers into a single, new OMB control number. Specifically, OMB control numbers 2070-0155, 2070-0158, and 2070-0181 were consolidated into a single information collection approved under OMB control number 2070-0195. This consolidated OMB control number covers the information collection activities imposed on entities conducting lead-based paint related activities. The previous OMB control numbers for these information collection activities will be discontinued.
This action implements technical amendments to 40 CFR part 9 to reflect changes to OMB approvals under PRA. It does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, this action does not require review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action will not have substantial direct effects on State or tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and States or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and States or Indian tribes. As such, it will not have any “federalism implications” as described by Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) or “tribal implications” as described by Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nor does it involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note), environmental justice-related issues that would require consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), or otherwise involve anything that would have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy that would require consideration under Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition, since this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
The revisions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard in the San Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area and to meet other Clean Air Act requirements. Specifically, with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking final action to find the emissions inventories to be acceptable and to approve the reasonably available control measures demonstration, the rate of progress demonstrations, the attainment demonstration, contingency measures for failure to meet rate of progress milestones, the provisions for advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, and the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity. For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is taking final action to approve the demonstration that the plan provides sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases due to increases in motor vehicle activity.
This rule is effective on May 5, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0048. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3963,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2140), the EPA proposed, under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), to approve a revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on December 20, 2013. The SIP submittal consists of the San Joaquin Valley's “2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2013 Ozone Plan”) and related documentation.
As explained in more detail in our proposed rule, the 2013 Ozone Plan was prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUACPD or “District”) and CARB in response to the EPA's regulatory responses to two specific court decisions issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”),
In our proposed rule, we also discussed the implications on our action on the 2013 Ozone Plan of a third Ninth Circuit decision,
In our January 15, 2016 proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements contained in the 2013 Ozone Plan (except for the attainment contingency provisions), and evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they meet all applicable requirements. More specifically, we determined that:
• The 2007 base year emission inventory in the 2013 Ozone Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current and that this inventory as well as the 2013, 2016, and 2017 projected inventories have been prepared consistent with EPA guidance and provide an appropriate basis for the various other elements of the 2013 Ozone Plan, including the reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration, and the Rate-of-Progress (ROP) and attainment demonstrations (see 81 FR 2144-2145 from the proposed rule);
• There are no additional RACM that would advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley to 2016, and thus the 2013 Ozone Plan provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2145-2148 from the proposed rule);
• The ROP demonstrations in the 2013 Ozone Plan meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2148-2149 from the proposed rule);
• The air quality modeling in the 2013 Ozone Plan is adequate to support the attainment demonstration and that the plan's demonstration of attainment by November 26, 2017 meets the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2149-2153 from the proposed rule);
• The 2013 Ozone Plan provides sufficient excess reductions of NO
• Through EPA-approved District rules 2201, 4306, and 4352, the 2013 Ozone Plan meets the clean fuels or advanced control technology for boilers requirement in CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 81 FR 2154 from the proposed rule); and
• The 2013 Ozone Plan (particularly, appendix D and the related technical supplement submitted by CARB on June 19, 2014) demonstrates that the State has adopted sufficient transportation control strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards and thereby complies with the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10) for those standards (see 81 FR 2154-2158 from the proposed rule).
Lastly, we indicated in our proposed rule that, given that the 2013 Ozone Plan is based in part on the permanence and enforceability of the waiver measures, the EPA would not finalize approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan until the Agency takes final action to approve the waiver measures as part of the California SIP. The comment period for our proposed approval of the waiver measures SIP revision has closed, but the Agency has yet to issue a final rule. However, given that the statutory deadline for final action by the EPA on CARB's December 20, 2013 submittal of the 2013 Ozone Plan has passed and given that we expect that the EPA will take final action on the waiver measures SIP revision in the near term, we believe that taking action on the 2013 Ozone Plan at this time is reasonable and appropriate. If, however, final action on the waiver measures SIP revision is delayed beyond the near term, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the 2013 Ozone Plan is fully supportable or we will reconsider this action in light of changed circumstances.
Please see our January 15, 2016 proposed rule and the related Technical Support Document for more information concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for approval of the 2013 Ozone Plan.
Our January 15, 2016 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on February 16, 2016. We received no comments on our proposal during this period.
For the reasons discussed in the January 15, 2016 proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB's submittal dated December 20, 2013 of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan as a revision to the California SIP.
• RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17);
• ROP demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(4);
• Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12);
• ROP contingency measures as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and
• Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).
The EPA is also approving the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting the specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard and the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
• VMT emissions offset demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(10).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves a state plan as meeting Federal requirements and does not
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.”
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.
The EPA's approval of the various SIP elements submitted by CARB to address the 1-hour ozone standard and 1997 8-hours ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the SIP approvals do not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the action will not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and will not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(371) [Reserved]
(470) The following plan was submitted on December 20, 2013 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Partial withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a portion of the February 11, 2016 direct final rule approving certain revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) and correcting certain errors. The adverse comments relate to a particular test method and thus the EPA is withdrawing the portion of the direct final rule that relates to the test methods that include the test method for which the adverse comments were received.
The addition of paragraph (c)(29)(i)(B) published on February 11, 2016 at 81 FR 7214 is withdrawn, effective April 5, 2016.
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4115,
On February 11, 2016, the EPA published a direct final rule approving a SIP revision submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). In the February 11, 2016 direct final rule, the EPA also corrected certain errors in previous actions on prior revisions to the Arizona SIP and to make certain other corrections. In the direct final rule, the EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by March 14, 2016, the EPA would publish a timely withdrawal and address the comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule also published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259). The February 11, 2016 proposed rule indicated that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this instance, the EPA received adverse comments on a certain test method for which the EPA had approved rescission. The relevant test method was included in a SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 1979 that also included a number of other test methods and certain performance test specifications, all of which were approved by the EPA at 47 FR 17483 (April 23, 1982). The EPA's approval of the test methods and performance test specifications submitted on January 23, 1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 was codified at 40 CFR 52.120(c)(29)(i)(A).
The EPA's action on the rescission of the test methods and performance test specifications submitted on January 23, 1979 and approved on April 23, 1982 is severable from the rest of the direct final rule. Thus, the EPA is withdrawing only the portion of the direct final rule related to those test methods and performance test specifications. The EPA will address the comments in a separate final action covering the state's rescission of the test methods and performance test specifications submitted on January 23, 1979 (and approved on April 23, 1982) based on the proposed action published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7259). The EPA will not open a second comment period for the action on the state's rescissions of the test methods and performance test specifications. The other actions in the February 11, 2016
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the addition of paragraph (c)(29)(i)(B) which was published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on October 13, 2015, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). This revision consists of transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect of this approval is to update the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the South Carolina SIP to reorganize previous exhibits into a single Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) document as well as updating signatories to add the newly established Lowcountry Area Transportation Study (LATS) to the list of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), created to represent a new urbanized area designated as a result of the 2010 Census. EPA has determined that this revision is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This direct final rule is effective June 6, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 5, 2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0696 at
Kelly Sheckler, 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. Sheckler's telephone number is 404-562-9992. She can also be reached via electronic mail at
Transportation conformity (hereafter referred to as “conformity”) is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federally supported highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (
Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the relevant criteria pollutants. The conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.
EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (“Conformity Rule”) on November 24, 1993. 58 FR 62188. Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions of the conformity rule in their SIPs, frequently referred to as “conformity SIPs.” Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the Conformity Rule were required to be copied verbatim into the SIP. States were also required to tailor all or portions of the following three sections of the Conformity Rule to the state's individual circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written commitments to control measures that are not included in a MPO's transportation plan and transportation improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity determination, and the requirement that such commitments must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination, and the requirement that project sponsors must comply with such commitments.
On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlined the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the Conformity Rule. These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.
The Conformity Rule requires the states to develop their own processes and procedures for interagency consultation among the Federal, state, and local agencies and resolution of conflicts meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The conformity SIP revision must include processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, state DOT, and US DOT in consulting with the state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making conformity determinations. The SIP revision must also include processes and procedures for the state and local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, and the US DOT.
In 2004, EPA approved the State of South Carolina's initial conformity SIP revision which incorporated by reference 40 CFR part 93, subpart A (67 FR 50808), and customized 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) for all of the MPOs in the entire state and for the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT). 69 FR 4245. Specifically, the State of South Carolina established a MOA for implementing the conformity criteria and consultation procedures for all transportation-related pollutants. On July 28, 2009, EPA approved a revision to the SC MOA to address the relevant NAAQS and SAFTEA-LU amendments. 74 FR 37168.
On October 13, 2015, the State of South Carolina, through SC DHEC, submitted the Statewide conformity and interagency consultation SIP, based on a new MOA signed by all of the MPOs in the State
Specifically, the SC DEHC is now proposing certain updates, including a reorganization that incorporates Exhibits 1 and 2 to the previous MOA into the new MOA itself, as well as the addition of the Lowcountry Area Transportation Study (LATS) to the list of MPOs which are signatories to the MOA. LATS is a newly established MPO that represents a new urbanized area designated as a result of the 2010 Census. LATS covers the Town of Hilton Head Island, the Town of Bluffton, and parts of unincorporated Beaufort County. The State also seeks approval of the following additional changes from the old MOA: Clarification of the responsibilities of the MPOs, grammar and punctuation changes, recodification of sections C, D and E for ease of reading, the addition of language to specifically address the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c), and the addition of a new “General Provisions” section (section F).
As noted in EPA's 2009 approval, 74 FR 37168, the State of South Carolina developed its consultation SIP based on the elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) and included it in the SIP. As a first step, the State worked with the existing transportation planning organization's interagency committee that included representatives from the SC DHEC; SC DOT; all of the MPOs in the State; Federal Highway Administration—South Carolina Division; Federal Transit Administration; and the Region 4 office of EPA. The interagency committee met
EPA has evaluated this SIP revision and has determined that the State has met the requirements of federal transportation conformity rules as described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. SC DHEC has satisfied the public participation and comprehensive interagency consultation requirement during development and adoption of the MOA at the local level. Therefore, EPA is approving the updated MOA as a revision to the South Carolina SIP.
EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the CAA as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and has concluded that the submittal is approvable.
EPA is taking direct final action under sections 110 and 176 of the Act to approve the rule implementing the conformity criteria and consultation procedures revision to the South Carolina SIP pursuant to the CAA, as a revision to the South Carolina SIP. This action also establishes consultation procedures for all counties in South Carolina. As a result of this action, South Carolina's previously SIP-approved conformity procedures at 74 FR 37168 will be replaced by the procedures submitted to EPA on October 13, 2015, for approval and adopted by State of South Carolina on October 23, 2015.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 6, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this issue of the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Clarification of proposed rule; extension of comment period.
This action extends the comment period and responds to questions posed by commenters about certain aspects of a proposed rule pertaining to the eligibility of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) retail food stores that was published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule that was published on February 17, 2016 (81 FR 8015) has been extended from April 18, 2016 to May 18, 2016. To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on or before May 18, 2016.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments. In order to ensure proper receipt, comments may only be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via:
Address any questions regarding this notice to Vicky Robinson, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Retailer Policy and Management Division at the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Ms. Robinson can also be reached by telephone at (703)-305-2476 or by email at
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) to increase the requirement that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores have available on a continual basis at least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of seven varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase, for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores, the minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required from two to three. The proposed rule would codify these mandatory requirements.
Further, using existing authority in the Act and feedback from a Request for Information that was published in the
Additionally, this action extends the comment period for the proposed rule. Since publication of the proposed rule, several entities have requested an extension of the comment period in order to allow ample time for all stakeholders to comment on the rulemaking process. The comment period, therefore, is being extended 30 days in order to provide additional time for interested parties to review and comment on this proposed rule. To be assured of consideration, comments on this proposed rule must be received by FNS on or before May 18, 2016.
Commenters have posed similar questions to FNS concerning provisions of the proposed rule, in some instances indicating possible misunderstandings of the proposal. FNS appreciates these comments and for this reason, as well as to help ensure that comments submitted are of most value to the Agency, FNS is providing the following additional clarifications and requests for comment regarding certain provisions proposed in this rule.
FNS encourages commenters to review and comment on all of the issues raised in the proposed rulemaking, as well as on issues examined in the supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis and Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the proposed rule and published as part of the docket in Supporting Documents on Regulations.gov.
As required by Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), retailers
However, FNS appreciates the questions it has received from commenters inquiring about the items that constitute variety under the proposed rule in the four staple food categories and encourages additional comments from the public on this point. FNS is particularly interested in comments from the public as to whether and how variety should take into account the differences between products within staple food categories (generally and individually), and what factors should be considered when making such distinctions.
For example, for purposes of variety in the meat, poultry, and fish category, FNS would appreciate public comments on whether to consider food items that come from the same type of animal or species as separate varieties in this food category (
Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Act, as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill, requires that retailers would be required to stock “perishable foods in at least 3 of the [staple food] categories.” Therefore, FNS has proposed to codify in regulation the statutory requirement that retailers stock at least one perishable variety in 3 of the 4 staple food categories.
The proposed rule does not propose to change the meaning of “perishable” in the current regulations. Currently, under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(B),
Currently, 7 CFR 271.2 provides that “commercially processed foods and prepared mixtures with multiple ingredients shall only be counted in one staple food category” for the purposes of determining eligibility of any firm.
Under the proposed rule, commercially processed foods and prepared mixtures with multiple ingredients that do not represent a single staple food category (
FNS appreciates the questions it has received from commenters on multiple ingredient foods under the proposed rule and encourages additional comments from the public on this provision of the proposed rule. FNS is particularly interested in comments from the public as to whether certain types of foods with multiple ingredients should continue to be counted as staple foods, including toward variety, perishables, or depth of stock requirements. For example, for the purposes of staple food categorization, FNS would appreciate public comments on whether and how to categorize certain foods with multiple staple food ingredients, such as prepared salads, pizzas, pot pies, macaroni and cheese, stuffed pastas, and others, as offered by commenters, for purposes of making a retailer eligibility determination for SNAP authorization.
Multiple ingredient foods are currently eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, and this proposed rule would not change the eligibility of these foods for purchase with SNAP benefits in authorized stores.
Currently SNAP regulations require that SNAP authorized stores have available on a continuous basis at least 3 varieties of items in each of the 4 staple food categories with perishable varieties in at least 2 of the 4 staple food categories. Under current SNAP regulations, retailers may be SNAP authorized with a minimum stock of at least 12 food items, including at least 2 perishable items. As noted in the proposed rule, these requirements have been changed by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill).
Section 3(o)(1)(A) of the Act now requires that retailers stock at least 7 varieties in each of the 4 staple food categories and perishable foods in at least 3 of the 4 staple food categories. That means that retailers are required to stock 28 items on a continuous basis. At least 3 of these items must be perishable.
Under the proposed rule, which would require a depth of stock defined as 6 stocking units, SNAP-authorized retailers would be required to stock a new minimum inventory requirement of 168 staple food items.
Based on the statutory requirement that at least 1 perishable variety be stocked in 3 of the 4 staple food categories, and with depth of stock discretionarily defined as 6 stock keeping units, this proposed rule would require that a store stock at least 18 perishable staple food items (within the 168 staple food item total).
According to Department analysis, contained in the Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the proposed rule and published as part of the docket in Supporting Documents on Regulations.gov, the average small store would need to add an additional 54 additional staple food items, at a cost of around $140, in order to meet the proposed eligibility criteria. As set forth in the Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the proposed rulemaking, FNS estimates that purchasing all 168 staple food items would cost a store approximately $400, including a one-time inventory carrying cost of 25% to account for storage costs and potential spoilage. FNS believes that adding new inventory would be a one-time cost, a cost that would be recouped as inventory is sold.
See the full Regulatory Impact Analysis and Interim Regulatory
More generally, FNS appreciates the questions it has received from commenters on the number of total food items that retailers would be required to stock under the proposed rule and encourages additional comments from the public on this provision of the proposed rule, including comments on the impacts (such as benefits, costs, or small business impacts) associated with proposals that would alter the total food items that retailers would be required to stock.
FNS also appreciates the questions from commenters it has received regarding how the proposed requirements would affect different types of retail food stores and encourages additional comments from the public on potential retail food store impacts.
Since publication of the proposed rule, several entities, including SNAP retail trade groups, have requested an extension of the comment period in order to allow ample time for all stakeholders to comment on the rulemaking process. The comment period, therefore, is being extended 30 days in order to provide additional time for interested parties to review the proposed rule. To be assured of consideration, comments on the proposed rule must be received by FNS on or before May 18, 2016.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Ultramagic, S.A., balloon models F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90. These models will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with having the new Mark-32 Burner series. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before May 5, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-5424 using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
John VanHoudt, FAA, Program and Procedures Branch, ACE-114, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4142; facsimile (816) 329-4090.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On September 21, 2014, Ultramagic, S.A. (Ultramagic) applied for a change to Type Certificate No. B02CE to incorporate the new Mark-32 (MK-32) Burner series in balloon models F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90. The MK-32 Burner series is a derivative of the MK-10 Burner series, which are currently approved under TCDS B02CE.
The MK-32 burner does introduce a particular novel aspect in terms of operation and performance—the primary modification being an oxygen augmented igniter system.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Ultramagic must show that the balloon models F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. B02CE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The Direccion General de Aviacion Civil originally type certificated this aircraft under its type certificate Numbers 3, 4, 18, 61, 147, and 247. The FAA validated these products under U.S. Type Certificate Number B02CE. On September 28, 2003, EASA began oversight of this product on behalf of Spain. The regulations incorporated by reference in B02CE are as follows:
a. 14 CFR 21.29.
b. 14 CFR part 31, effective on January 1990, as amended by 31-1 through 31-5 inclusive. Application for Type Certificate dated June 5, 1997.
c. Equivalent level of Safety findings per provision of 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1):
(1) ACE-08-15
(2) ACE-08-15A
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of
The Model Numbers F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90 balloons will incorporate the following novel and unusual design feature:
The oxygen augmentation and hydraulic control.
Based on the provisions of §§ 21.17 and 21.29 and the U.S.-EASA Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States of America and the European Aviation Safety Agency of the European Union, the following airworthiness requirements are applicable to this project and will remain active for three years from the date of application and form the Certification Basis:
a. Part 31, amendment 7 (The certification basis complied with according to the Ultramagic part 31 compliance checklist.).
b. Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) Findings: The FAA notes that it has issued an equivalent level of safety findings per provision of 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1), specifically ACE-08-15
3. Special conditions: The FAA notes that Ultramagic elected to comply with certain provisions of CS-23, amendment 3, that apply to oxygen systems. These provisions are applicable because there is an oxygen augmented igniter system available for the MK-32 burner. The below 14 CFR regulations, except § 23.1445, are harmonized with their CS-23, amendment 3, counterpart regulations and form the basis of this special condition.
§ 23.1445, Oxygen distribution system, paragraphs (a) and (b) states the following:
(a) Except for flexible lines from oxygen outlets to the dispensing units, or where shown to be otherwise suitable to the installation, nonmetallic tubing must not be used for any oxygen line that is normally pressurized during flight.
(b) Non-metallic oxygen distribution lines must not be routed where they may be subjected to elevated temperatures, electrical arcing, and released flammable fluids that might result from any probable failure.
§ 23.1451, Fire protection for oxygen equipment, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) states the following:
Oxygen equipment and lines must—
(a) Not be in any designated fire zone.
(b) Be protected from heat that may be generated in, or escaped from, any designated fire zone.
(c) Be installed so that escaping oxygen cannot cause ignition of grease, fluid, or vapour accumulations that are present in normal operation or that may result from the failure or malfunction of any other system.
§ 23.1453, Protection of oxygen equipment from rupture, paragraphs (a) and (b) states the following:
(a) Each element of the oxygen system must have sufficient strength to withstand the maximum pressure and temperature in combination with any externally applied loads arising from consideration of limit structural loads that may be acting on that part of the system.
(b) Oxygen pressure sources and the lines between the source and shutoff means must be:
(1) Protected from unsafe temperatures; and
(2) Located where the probability and hazard of rupture in a crash landing are minimized.
§ 23.1445 is the only significant regulatory difference, which states the following:
Part 23 requires crewmembers be able to reserve a minimum supply for themselves when they share a common source of O2 with passengers.
As the oxygen system is not utilized for breathing, this Significant Standard Difference (SSD) does not apply.
In addition, the FAA notes that Ultramagic offers an optional hydraulic kit. This kit is a hydraulic system that actuates the burners' fuel valve. Since part 31 does not have provisions for hydraulic systems, § 23.1435, Hydraulic systems, will provide the basis for the hydraulic system special conditions contained herein. No SSD is associated with this regulation.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model Numbers F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90 balloons. Should Ultramagic, S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of burners. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Model Numbers F-18, H-56, H-65, H-77, M-56, M-56C, M-65, M-65C, M-77, M-77C, M-90, M-105, M-120, M-130, M-145, M-160, N-180, N-210, N-250, N-300, N-355, N-425, S-70, S-90, S-105, S-130, S-160, T-150, T-180, T-210, V-56, V-65, V-77, V-90, V-105, and Z-90 balloons.
1. Certification of the MK-32 Burner Series under 14 CFR part 31.
(a) In addition to the provisions of part 31, amendment 7, the applicant must design the MK-32 Burner to comply with the requirements, as described below, with respect to the igniter oxygen augmentation system and hydraulic burner valve actuation system:
(1) Except for flexible lines from oxygen outlets to the dispensing units, or where shown to be otherwise suitable to the installation, nonmetallic tubing must not be used for any oxygen line that is normally pressurized during flight.
(2) Nonmetallic oxygen distribution lines must not be routed where they may be subjected to elevated temperatures, electrical arcing, and released flammable fluids that might result from any probable failure.
Oxygen equipment and lines must:
(1) Not be installed in any designated fire zones.
(2) Be protected from heat that may be generated in, or escape from, any designated fire zone.
(3) Be installed so that escaping oxygen cannot come in contact with and cause ignition of grease, fluid, or vapor accumulations that are present in normal operation or that may result from the failure or malfunction of any other system.
(1) Each element of the oxygen system must have sufficient strength to withstand the maximum pressure and temperature, in combination with any externally applied loads arising from consideration of limit structural loads that may be acting on that part of the system.
(2) Oxygen pressure sources and the lines between the source and the shutoff means must be:
(i) Protected from unsafe temperatures; and
(ii) Located where the probability and hazard of rupture in a crash landing are minimized.
(1) Design. Each hydraulic system must be designed as follows:
(i) Each hydraulic system and its elements must withstand, without yielding, the structural loads expected in addition to hydraulic loads.
(ii) A means to indicate the pressure in each hydraulic system which supplies two or more primary functions must be provided to the flight crew.
(iii) There must be means to ensure that the pressure, including transient (surge) pressure, in any part of the system will not exceed the safe limit above design operating pressure and to prevent excessive pressure resulting from fluid volumetric changes in all lines which are likely to remain closed long enough for such changes to occur.
(iv) The minimum design burst pressure must be 2.5 times the operating pressure.
(2) Tests. Each system must be substantiated by proof pressure tests. When proof tested, no part of any system may fail, malfunction, or experience a permanent set. The proof load of each system must be at least 1.5 times the maximum operating pressure of that system.
(3) Accumulators. A hydraulic accumulator or reservoir may be installed on the engine side of any firewall, if—
(i) It is an integral part of an engine or propeller system; or
(ii) The reservoir is nonpressurized and the total capacity of all such nonpressurized reservoirs is one quart or less.
(b) Ultramagic, through EASA, will provide the FAA with all Airworthiness Directives issued against the changed type design, if any, and a plan for resolving the unsafe conditions for the FAA type design.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2000-10-18, that applies to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2000-10-18 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the lower spar of the engine pylons between ribs 6 and 7, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2000-10-18, we have determined that the compliance times for the initial inspection and the repetitive intervals must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7. This proposed AD would reduce the compliance times for the initial inspection and the repetitive intervals. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon's lower spar, and possible separation of the engine from the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; 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
On May 16, 2000, we issued AD 2000-10-18, Amendment 39-11742 (65 FR 34055, May 26, 2000). AD 2000-10-18 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2000-10-18, Amendment 39-11742 (65 FR 34055, May 26, 2000), we have determined that the compliance times for the initial inspection and the repetitive intervals must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0167, dated July 26, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
Cracks were found between ribs 6 and 7 in the lower spar of engine pylons on A310, A300 and A300-600 aeroplanes. To prevent crack initiation, a first inspection programme of this area was rendered mandatory by DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France AD 93-228-154 (later revised, currently at Revision 3) [
At a later date and due to new findings, a specific inspection programme for A310 aeroplanes was rendered mandatory by DGAC France AD 1999-239-287(B) [which corresponds to certain other actions in FAA AD 2000-10-18, Amendment 39-11742 (65 FR 34055, May 26, 2000)]. That [French] AD was later superseded by EASA AD 2008-0001 [
Since DGAC France AD 1993-228-154(B)R3 and EASA AD 2008-0001 were issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second ESG for A300-600, called ESG2 exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the engine pylon lower spar between ribs 6 and 7.
For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 1993-228-154(B)R3 and EASA AD 2008-0001, which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of the [eddy current or liquid penetrant] inspections [for cracking] and, depending on findings, [related investigative and] corrective actions [repairs], within the new thresholds and intervals specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-54-0073 Revision 03 [dated October 11, 2012] or SB A310-54-2017 Revision 06 [dated October 3, 2012] or SB A300-54-6014 Revision 07 [dated September 5, 2012].
Related investigative actions include eddy current or liquid penetrant inspections for cracking of areas with removed protection. The unsafe condition is cracking in the lower spar of the engine pylons between ribs 6 and 7, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon's lower spar, and possible separation of the engine from the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
The compliance times for the inspections vary, depending on airplane configuration and utilization as follows.
For Model A300-600 series airplanes:
• The compliance time for the initial inspection is before the accumulation of 10,900 total flight cycles.
• The compliance times for the repetitive inspection interval are 5,700 flight cycles for pre-doubler modified airplanes; and for post-doubler modified airplanes, the compliance times range from 7,200 flight cycles or 8,200 flight hours, to 8,400 flight cycles or 16,000 flight hours.
• The compliance times for the initial inspection following crack repair range from 5,200 flight cycles or 5,900 flight hours, to 6,600 flight cycles or 13,400 flight hours; and the compliance times for the post-repair repetitive inspection range from 2,200 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours, to 3,400 flight cycles or 6,900 flight hours.
For Model A300 series airplanes:
• The compliance times for the initial inspection range from before the accumulation of 4,400 total flight cycles to 9,400 total flight cycles.
• The compliance times for the repetitive inspection interval range from 4,400 flight cycles to 6,100 flight cycles.
• The initial inspection compliance times for post-doubler modified airplanes range from 12,700 flight cycles or 25,700 flight hours, to 20,700 flight cycles or 30,900 flight hours after the modification; the post-doubler repetitive inspection interval ranges from 7,800 flight cycles or 16,600 flight hours, to 12,200 flight cycles or 18,200 flight hours.
• The compliance times for the initial post-repair inspection range from 6,500 flight cycles or 13,900 flight hours, to 10,200 flight cycles or 15,200 flight hours; and the post-repair repetitive inspection interval ranges from 4,700 flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, to 11,000 flight cycles or 23,300 flight hours.
For Model A310 series airplanes:
• The compliance times for the initial inspection range from before the accumulation of 3,000 total flight cycles or 14,900 total flight hours, to 6,400 total flight cycles or 12,800 total flight cycles.
• The compliance times for the repetitive inspection interval range from 4,600 flight cycles or 23,800 flight hours, to 6,200 flight cycles or 12,400 flight hours.
• The initial inspection compliance times for post-doubler modified airplanes range from 7,500 flight cycles or 37,200 flight hours, to 11,000 flight cycles or 22,000 flight hours after the modification; the post-doubler repetitive inspection interval ranges from 5,900 flight cycles or 29,500 flight hours, to 6,500 flight cycles or 13,000 flight hours.
• The compliance times for the initial post-repair inspection range from 4,500 flight cycles or 23,700 flight hours, to 5,400 flight cycles or 10,800 flight hours; and the post-repair repetitive inspection interval ranges from 2,500 flight cycles or 12,200 flight hours, to 2,800 flight cycles or 5,600 flight hours.
Airbus has issued the following service bulletins.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 03, dated October 11, 2012 (for Model A300 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 07, dated September 5, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 06, dated October 3, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
This service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7 and related investigative actions. 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
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 the same type design.
Unlike the procedures described in the following service information, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the lower spar of the engine pylons between ribs 6 and 7. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked lower spar of the engine pylons between ribs 6 and 7 must be repaired or modified before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 03, dated October 11, 2012 (for Model A300 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 07, dated September 5, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 06, dated October 3, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
Where the “Grace periods” specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service information identified previously contain ambiguous language,
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 156 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. 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 $79,560, or $510 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 20, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2000-10-18, Amendment 39-11742 (65 FR 34055, May 26, 2000).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10149 has been incorporated in production.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon's lower spar, and possible separation of the engine from the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Do an eddy current or liquid penetrant inspection for cracking of the
An additional source of guidance for accomplishing the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 03, dated October 11, 2012, can be found in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0080, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2002.
An additional source of guidance for accomplishing the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 07, dated September 5, 2012, can be found in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6020, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2002.
An additional source of guidance for accomplishing the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 06, dated October 3, 2012, can be found in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2023, Revision 03, dated July 9, 2002.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 03, dated October 11, 2012 (for Model A300 series airplanes).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 07, dated September 5, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 06, dated October 3, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
For airplanes on which any repair or modification specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service bulletin identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD is done: Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Do an eddy current or liquid penetrant inspection for cracking of the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the engine pylon's lower spar between ribs 6 and 7 thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Where a “Threshold” is specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, the “FC” and “FH” compliance times are total flight cycle and total flight hour compliance times, except that if a repair or service bulletin identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletins specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD has been done, the “FC” and “FH” compliance times are flight cycle and flight hour compliance times since the identified repair or service bulletin was done.
(2) Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD: For the “Grace period” specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, operators must comply with the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as applicable, at the later of the applicable times in the “Threshold” and “Grace Period” specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service information, except the language “for aircraft that have already exceeded or are close to exceed the threshold or scheduled interval” does not apply.
(i) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 03, dated October 11, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 06, dated October 3, 2012; specify a compliance time “. . . after receipt of this Inspection Service Bulletin without exceeding the requirements of previous issue of this ISB,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 07, dated September 5, 2012, specifies a compliance time “. . . after receipt of this Inspection Service Bulletin without exceeding the requirements of previous issue of this SB,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(3) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD and an Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using an applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(10) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 1, dated March 28, 1994 (for Model A300 series airplanes), which is incorporated by reference in AD 96-11-05, Amendment 39-9630 (61 FR 26091, May 24, 1996).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0073, Revision 02, dated July 9, 2002 (for Model A300 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 1, dated March 28, 1994 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), which is incorporated by reference in AD 96-11-05, Amendment 39-9630 (61 FR 26091, May 24, 1996).
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 03, dated June 4, 1998 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 04, dated March 9, 2002 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 05, dated September 1, 2011 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(7) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6014, Revision 06, dated May 24, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(8) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 03, dated June 11, 1999 (for Model A310 series airplanes), which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000-10-18, Amendment 39-11742 (65 FR 34055, May 26, 2000).
(9) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 04, dated July 9, 2002 (for Model A310 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(10) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-54-2017, Revision 05, dated November 16, 2007 (for Model A310 series airplanes), which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0167, dated July 26, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This proposed AD was prompted by the determination that certain existing inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the lower wing root joint, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airframe.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; 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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0230, dated September 24, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several cases of corrosion on the lower wing root joint, located in the wing bottom skin inboard and outboard of the external lower surface splice, have been reported by operators.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the airframe.
Prompted by these findings, [Directorate General for Civil Aviation] (DGAC) France issued AD 1997-006-210 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998)] to require repetitive inspections to detect the presence of corrosion and prevent crack propagation at the wing bottom skin, inboard and outboard of the Rib 1 external lower surface splice, between Frame (FR) 40 and FR47.
DGAC France * * * issued [an AD] to expand the choice of applicable Service Bulletins (SB). [The] DGAC France AD * * * was issued to allow A300-600 operators to use Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300-57-6047, converting flight cycles/“Fatigue rating” into flight cycles (FC)/flight hours (FH).
Subsequently, Airbus modification 10599 was developed to improve the corrosion behaviour of the area. This improvement allowed refining the inspection programme of the A300-600 aeroplane. For post-modification 10599 A300-600 aeroplanes, the application of the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) inspection tasks was deemed sufficient for maintaining an adequate level of safety on these aeroplanes.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008-0208 [
Since EASA AD 2008-0208R1 was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses determined that the threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD takes over and retains the requirements for A300 and A300-600 aeroplanes from EASA AD 2008-0208R1 (which has been revised, remaining applicable only to A310 aeroplanes) and requires accomplishment of the inspections within the new thresholds and intervals.
Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of the rib 1 external lower surface splice between FR40 and FR47, and repetitive fatigue inspections for cracking of the fasteners and on the surface of the forward and aft lower surface panels if necessary, and corrective actions (including application of new protective coating, removal of corrosion, and measurement of the reworked depth) if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998) (“AD 98-21-34”), applies to all Model A300, A300-600, and A310 series airplanes. This NPRM proposes to apply to only certain Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. The actions in this proposed AD are the same as those required by AD 98-21-34, but with certain revised compliance times. Accomplishment of the initial inspection specified in this proposed AD would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 98-21-34 for the affected airplanes. Certain modified Model A300-600 series airplanes would not be subject to the inspection requirements of this AD, and would no longer be subject to the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 98-21-34.
We reviewed Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of the rib 1 external lower surface splice between FR40 and FR47, repetitive fatigue inspections for cracking of the fasteners and on the surface of the forward and aft lower surface panels if necessary, and corrective actions (including application of new protective coating, removal of corrosion, and measurement of the reworked depth) if necessary. 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
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.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. 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 $19,270, or $680 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 20, 2016.
This AD affects AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998) (“AD 98-21-34”).
This AD applies to all Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by the determination that certain existing inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the lower wing root joint, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airframe.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD on which Airbus modification 10599 has been incorporated:
(1) No action is required by this AD; and
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, the actions specified in AD 98-21-34 are no longer required.
Within 60 months since the airplane's first flight, or within 60 months since accomplishment of the last inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204 or A300-57-6047, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for corrosion of the rib 1 external lower surface splice between frame (FR)40 and FR47, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of AD 98-21-34 for Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes.
If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Do fatigue inspections to detect cracks of the fasteners and on the surface of the forward and aft lower surface panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable. Repeat the fatigue inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph B.(5) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Figure A-FBGAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If any cracking is found during any fatigue inspection required by this paragraph: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(i) For Model A300 series airplanes: Do the initial inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph B.(5) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999.
(ii) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) At the applicable time specified in Figure A-FBGAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011.
(B) Within 500 flight cycles or 1,050 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, without exceeding the time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD.
(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate corrective action, this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011, specifies to contact Airbus for the appropriate threshold or repetitive interval, this AD requires that the compliance time be determined using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The accumulated flight hours (counted from the takeoff up to the landing) divided by the number of accumulated flight cycles is the AFT per flight cycle.
This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 02, dated April 2, 1999, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 03, dated September 28, 1999, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0230, dated September 24, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around certain fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6595; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty
The FAA has received a report indicating that an evaluation by the DAH has indicated that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to WFD. Fatigue cracking around certain fastener locations could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures for HFEC inspections for cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure and repair. 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
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,528 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 20, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015: Do an external high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the skin around the fastener locations at the upper forward and lower aft corners of each window between station (STA) 360 and STA 540, as applicable, and at the lower forward and upper aft corners of each window between STA 727 and STA 887, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. If any crack is found during any inspection, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6595; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that static strength analysis has shown that the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies have inadequate structural strength for one or more of the required load cases, including cases for drive system jam, flap skew, and structural damage tolerance. Inadequate structural strength can result in damage to the transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. This proposed AD would require removing aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies from the flap track and installing titanium transmission aft bearing plate assemblies to the flap track. We are proposing this AD to prevent inadequate structural strength of transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. This condition could result in damaged transmission aft bearing plate assemblies, which could result in incorrect operation and departure of the flap from the airplane and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report that static strength analysis has shown that the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies have inadequate structural strength for one or more of the required load cases, including cases for drive system jam, flap skew, and structural damage tolerance. These types of load cases can cause a flap transmission torque brake to engage, which will then cause additional loading on the transmission aft bearing plate assemblies common to that flap. This could cause damage to the transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. This condition, if not corrected, could result in transmission aft bearing plate assemblies working incorrectly or departure of the flap from the airplane, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015. The service information describes procedures for removing the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assembly from the flap track and installing a new titanium transmission aft bearing plate assembly to the flap track. 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
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 20, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, certified in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report that static strength analysis has shown that the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies have inadequate structural strength for one or more of the required load cases, including cases for drive system jam, flap skew, and structural damage tolerance. Inadequate structural strength can result in damage to the transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate structural strength of transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. This condition could result in damaged transmission aft bearing plate assemblies, which could result in incorrect operation and departure of the flap from the airplane and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Remove aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies from the flap track and install new titanium transmission aft bearing plate assemblies to the flap track, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the fracture of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 2 hub during flight, which resulted in an in-flight shutdown (IFSD), undercowl fire, and smoke in the cabin. This proposed AD would require inspecting the HPT stage 1 hub and HPT stage 2 hub, and, if necessary, their replacement with parts that are eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 or HPT stage 2 hubs, which could result in uncontained HPT blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-368-3700; fax: 860-368-4600; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of an engine IFSD and subsequent undercowl fire on an IAE V2527-A5 turbofan engine during a revenue flight of an Airbus A320 airplane in September 2014. The subsequent investigation of this event determined that it was caused by a manufacturing defect in the HPT stage 2 hub that resulted in fracture and failure of the HPT stage 2 hub. The event involved release of a fir tree lug and two HPT stage 2 blades. IAE also identified a similar manufacturing defect on the HPT stage 1 hub. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained HPT blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0661, Revision No. 1, dated February 5, 2016. The NMSB describes procedures for inspecting the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 hubs. 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
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require inspecting the engine HPT stage 1 hub and HPT stage 2 hub, and, if necessary, their replacement with parts eligible for installation.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 668 engines with 947 hubs installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. Some of the 668 engines have two hubs installed. We estimate that it would take about 8 hours per hub to perform the piece-part inspection. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that 568 hubs will require replacement. We estimate the pro-rated cost to replace an HPT stage 1 hub to be $50,271 and the pro-rated cost to replace an HPT stage 2 hub to be $40,063. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $26,298,816.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 June 6, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5,
(1) High-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 hub, part number (P/N) 2A5001, with a serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1, Appendix A, of IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0661, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2016; or
(2) HPT stage 2 hub, P/N 2A4802, with an S/N listed in Table 2, Appendix A, of IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0661, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2016.
This AD was prompted by the fracture of the HPT stage 2 hub during flight, which resulted in an in-flight shutdown, undercowl fire, and smoke in the cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 or HPT stage 2 hubs, which could result in uncontained HPT blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Inspect the HPT stage 1 hub, P/N 2A5001, and HPT stage 2 hub, P/N 2A4802, at the next shop visit or as follows, whichever comes first:
(i) For hubs with 0 to 7,000 CSN, before accumulating 13,000 CSN;
(ii) For hubs with 7,001 to 11,000 CSN, within 6,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD or before accumulating 15,000 CSN, whichever occurs first;
(iii) For hubs with 11,001 to 15,500 CSN, within 4,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD or before accumulating 17,000 CSN, whichever occurs first;
(iv) For hubs with 15,501 CSN or greater, within 1,500 cycles from the effective date of this AD.
(2) Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.A., 2.C., and 2.D., of IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0661, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2016, to inspect the HPT stage 1 hub, P/N 2A5001.
(3) Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.E., 2.G., and 2H., of IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0661, to inspect the HPT stage 2 hub, P/N 2A4802.
(4) Remove from service any HPT stage 1 hub, P/N 2A5001, or HPT stage 2 hub, P/N 2A4802, that fail the inspections required by paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this AD, and replace with a part that is eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, a “shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-368-3700; fax: 860-368-4600; email:
(3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Department of Labor is reopening and extending the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking it published on November 18, 2015 (80 FR 72296). The Department originally allowed a 60-day comment period that was scheduled to close on January 19, 2016, but on that date extended the comment period another 30 days through February 18, 2016 (81 FR 2787). This notice indicates that the comment period is being reopened as of April 5, 2016 and extended for an additional period. The comment period for the information collection requirements in the proposed rule ended on December 18, 2015, and that period is not being reopened.
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 18, 2015 (80 FR 72296) and extended at 81 FR 2787 (January 19, 2016) is reopened. The Department will accept written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking from interested parties that are submitted from April 5, 2016 through May 9, 2016.
Parties may submit comments on the regulations in the proposed rule, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1240-AA08, by any ONE of the following methods:
Rachel P. Leiton, Director, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-3321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: 202-693-0081 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
In response to requests from members of the public, the Department has decided to reopen the public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking it published on November 18, 2015 (80 FR 72296). The Department originally allowed a 60-day comment period that was scheduled to close on January 19, 2016, but on that date extended the comment period another 30 days through February 18, 2016 (81 FR 2787). The comment period is being reopened as of April 5, 2016 and extended through May 9, 2016. The comment
The notice of proposed rulemaking contains changes to update the regulations governing the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7384
The initial version of EEOICPA also created a second program (known as Part D of the Act) that required DOE to establish a system by which DOE contractor employees (and their eligible survivors) could seek assistance from DOE in obtaining state workers' compensation benefits if a Physicians Panel determined that the employee in question had sustained a covered illness as a result of work-related exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. A positive panel finding that was accepted by DOE required DOE, to the extent permitted by law, to order its contractor not to contest the claim for state workers' compensation benefits. However, Congress amended EEOICPA in Subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2178 (October 28, 2004), by abolishing Part D of the Act and creating a new Part E (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7385s through 7385s-15) that it assigned to DOL for administration. Part E established a new system of variable federal payments for DOE contractor employees, uranium workers covered by section 5 of RECA, and eligible survivors of such employees.
The Department's proposed rule would amend certain of the existing regulations governing its administration of Parts B and E of EEOICPA to conform them to current administrative practice, based on its experience administering the Act since 2001, to bring further clarity to the regulatory description of the claims adjudication process, and to improve the administration of the Act.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to North Carolina's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) on October 31, 2014, that relies on an alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to satisfy BART requirements for electric generating units (EGUs) formerly subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA also proposes to find that final approval of this SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, and proposes to convert EPA's June 27, 2012, limited approval to a full approval. This submittal addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the regional haze program). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Written comments must be received on or before April 26, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0518 at
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 by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas) which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 (known as “BART-eligible” sources) procure, install, and operate BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze.
In 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in Class I areas by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.
CAA Section 169A and the Regional Haze Rule require states to establish a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. The long-term strategy is the compilation of all enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary for a state to meet applicable reasonable progress goals during an implementation period. For the first implementation period, the long-term strategy includes BART as well as any other controls necessary to ensure reasonable progress.
North Carolina submitted its regional haze SIP on December 17, 2007, the regional haze SIP submittal deadline. Fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time, the SIP relied on CAIR to satisfy NO
CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 27 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NO
EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than BART for NO
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,
Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of North Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless North Carolina submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency.
On October 31, 2014, NC DENR submitted a revision to North Carolina's regional haze SIP to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on a BART Alternative to satisfy NOx and SO
North Carolina's October 31, 2014, SIP revision relies on the State's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) as a BART Alternative for NO
Duke Energy and Progress Energy must meet the CSA emission caps through actual reductions. The CSA does not allow these units to buy or trade emissions credits (also referred to as “allowances”) under CSAPR to meet these caps even though each utility may decide how to allocate emission reductions across its affected units.
Progress Energy and Duke Energy have shut down 22 of the coal-fired EGUs subject to the CSA and have installed scrubbers to control SO
The Regional Haze Rule requires that a SIP revision establishing a BART Alternative include the three elements listed below, and EPA has evaluated North Carolina's BART Alternative with respect to each of these elements.
• A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the alternative program.
• A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.
• A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), the state must demonstrate that the BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the alternative program. This demonstration
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the SIP submission must include a list of all BART-eligible sources within the state. In its December 31, 2007, regional haze SIP submittal, North Carolina identified all 17 BART-eligible sources located in the State.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), the SIP submission must include a list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the BART Alternative, and each BART-eligible source in the state must be subject to the requirements of the alternative program or have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined by the state and approved by EPA as meeting BART. As previously mentioned, EPA approved the BART determinations for all BART-eligible units in North Carolina with the exception of NO
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP submission must include an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a BART determination for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program unless the alternative has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART. In this latter case, the State may determine the best system of continuous emissions control technology and associated emission reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based on both source-specific and category-wide information, as appropriate. North Carolina opted to use the simplified approach because North Carolina created the CSA to meet requirements other than BART.
In using the simplified approach for EGUs, states may estimate the emissions reductions associated with BART based on an analysis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of sources within the source category using the presumptions for EGUs in the
The BART Guidelines specify the presumptive SO
All of the BART-eligible EGUs subject to the CSA burn bituminous coal and have either wall-fired or tangential-fired boilers.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), the SIP submission must include an analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART Alternative. North Carolina projected these reductions using four different methods: (1) CSA emissions caps; (2) 2018 emissions projected by the Visibility Improvement—State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
Under the CSA, Duke Energy EGUs and Progress Energy EGUs were required to reduce SO
The CSA limited NO
VISTAS developed 2018 emissions projections for the states in the VISTAS region to use when preparing the states' regional haze SIP submissions. VISTAS accounted for the CSA emissions caps and other control programs, including CAIR, in its 2018 modeling and projected total NO
North Carolina also included EPA IPM modeling year 2018 NO
Following the merger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy projected 2018 emissions for its EGUs in North Carolina due to the significant shift from coal to natural gas and the retirement of several EGUs in the State. These estimates were prepared by Duke Energy based on its economic modeling, and they differ only slightly from the IPM forecast. The primary difference between the Duke Energy and IPM estimates is that EPA assumed in the IPM that the Allen facility's coal-fired EGUs would be shut down by 2018.
North Carolina analyzed actual emissions reductions achieved with the CSA for each year from 2009 to 2013 using emissions reported to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division. North Carolina started with 2009 because this is the year when Duke Energy and Progress Energy were required to comply with the CSA's first SO
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state must provide a determination that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR
EPA proposes to determine that the CSA achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the BART-eligible EGUs covered by the CSA based on the following weight of evidence.
First, BART would result in controls for NO
Second, the 20 operating coal-fired EGUs in the BART Alternative have installed emissions controls to meet the CSA that are, with the exception of NO
Regarding NO
Third, the emissions reductions under the BART Alternative are greater than those that would result from the installation and operation of BART at the BART-eligible EGUs covered by the CSA under a variety of scenarios.
Compared with BART, North Carolina's current CSA caps achieve an additional SO
Fourth, the NO
Lastly, although the CSA does allow for limited emissions shifting, there is no indication that implementation of the CSA would result in any “hot spots,” as compared to BART. The shifting of emissions under the CSA is limited by the prohibition on emissions credit trading between the EGUs owned by Progress Energy and those owned by Duke Energy before the 2012 merger, as mentioned above. Additionally, the 2009-2013 SO
Based on the evidence provided above, EPA proposes to find that the BART Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART and thus satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the state must ensure that all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze (
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002, and the first NO
EPA finalized a limited disapproval of North Carolina's regional haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.
As discussed in section II.B.1.e, sulfates are the major contributor to visibility impairment at Class I areas in
Ten of the 16 aforementioned units have shut down or converted to natural gas. The remaining coal-fired units have each installed FGD to comply with the CSA. Given North Carolina's focus on reducing SO
EPA is proposing to find that North Carolina's regional haze SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, including the requirement that the BART Alternative achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. EPA also proposes to find that final approval of this SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, and proposes to convert the EPA's June 27, 2012, limited approval to a full approval. These proposed actions, if finalized, would eliminate the need for EPA to issue a FIP to remedy the deficiencies in North Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP submission.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are 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);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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 Clean Air Act; and
• do 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon mo NO
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, on October 13, 2015. This revision consists of transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect of this approval is to update the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the South Carolina SIP to reorganize previous exhibits into a single Memorandum of Agreement document as well as to update signatories to add the newly established Lowcountry Area Transportation Study to the list of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, created to represent a new urbanized area designated as a result of the 2010 Census. This proposed action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before May 5, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0696 at
Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section at the 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. Sheckler's telephone number is 404-562-9992. She can also be reached via electronic mail at
In the Final Rules Section of this
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 12-month petition findings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list the island marble butterfly, the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, and the Sprague's pipit as endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the island marble butterfly as an endangered or threatened species is warranted. Currently, however, listing the island marble butterfly is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add the island marble butterfly to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the island marble butterfly as our priorities allow. After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, and the Sprague's pipit is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the stressors to the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, the Sprague's pipit, or their habitats at any time.
The findings announced in this document were made on April 5, 2016.
These findings are available on the Internet at
Supporting information used in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in determining whether the island marble butterfly, the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, and the Sprague's pipit are endangered species or threatened species. More detailed information about these species is presented in the species-specific assessment forms found on
In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.
On December 11, 2002, we received a petition dated December 10, 2002, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces), Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the San Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, requesting that we emergency list the island marble butterfly as an endangered species, and that we designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information from the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). Because the Act does not provide for petitions to emergency list species, we treat emergency listing petitions as petitions to list the species. On February 13, 2006, we published a 90-day finding in the
On August 24, 2012, we received a second petition from Xerces dated August 22, 2012, requesting that we emergency list the island marble butterfly as an endangered species and that we designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information from the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the subspecies' taxonomy, ecology, historical and current distribution, current status, and what the petitioner identified as actual and potential causes of decline. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Xerces, dated September 27, 2012. In that letter we also stated that we would, to the maximum extent practicable, issue a finding within 90 days stating whether the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted.
On March 6, 2013, we received a notice of intent to sue from Xerces for failure to complete the finding on the petition within 90 days. On January 28, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement with Xerces stipulating that
We received a notice of intent to sue from Xerces dated September 5, 2014, stating the organization's intent to file suit to compel the Service to issue a 12-month finding as to whether listing the island marble butterfly is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. We entered into a settlement agreement with Xerces on April 6, 2015, stipulating that we would submit a 12-month finding to the
To ensure the status review was based on the best scientific and commercial information available, the Service requested any new or updated information available for the island marble butterfly when we published our 90-day finding on August 19, 2014. On February 13, 2016, we published a correction to our 90-day finding (80 FR 5719) to address a clerical error affecting the closing date for the initial public comment period; the comment period on the 90-day finding closed on April 6, 2015.
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This evaluation includes information from all sources, including Federal, State, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public. However, because we completed a status review for the subspecies in 2006, we started our evaluation for this 2016 status review and 12-month finding by considering the November 14, 2006, 12-month finding (71 FR 66292) on the island marble butterfly.
We then considered studies and information that have become available since that finding. A supporting document entitled “Notice of 12-month petition finding on a petition to list the Island marble butterfly” provides a summary of the current (post 2006) literature and information regarding the island marble butterfly's distribution, habitat requirements, life history, and stressors, as well as a detailed account of our five-factor threat analysis. The assessment is available as a supplemental document at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0025.
The island marble butterfly is an early-flying Pierid butterfly (meaning that it is in the family of butterflies that includes “whites” and “sulfurs”) and only produces a single brood a year. The island marble butterfly is now only found on San Juan Island in a single population centered on American Camp. There are three known plants that can serve as larval host plants for the island marble butterfly, all in the mustard family (Brassicaceae):
The island marble butterfly progresses from egg to chrysalis over the course of 38 days, on average, and may spend greater than 330 days in diapause before emerging as adults in late April or early May. Males generally emerge a few days before females and adults live between 6 and 9 days. The adult flight season generally begins in late April to early May and may extend into late June or early July.
Our 2006 12-month finding and the status review conducted for our 2016 12-month finding both considered a number of stressors (natural or human-induced negative pressures affecting individuals or subpopulations of a species) on the island marble butterfly. These include habitat loss attributed to: Development; road construction; road maintenance activities; grassland restoration; agricultural practices; herbivory by black-tailed deer, livestock, European rabbits, and brown garden snails; storm surges; recreation; plant succession; and competition with invasive species. We also evaluated the stressors of over-collection; disease and predation; inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; small population size and vulnerability to stochastic events; vehicular collisions; insecticide application; and the cumulative effects of these stressors, including small population size and restricted range combined with any stressor that removes individuals from the population or decreases the island marble butterfly's reproductive success.
Habitat loss for the island marble butterfly is extensive and ongoing, and has resulted in the extirpation of the island marble butterfly from much of its former range due, in large part, to: (1) Development; (2) road maintenance activities; (3) agricultural practices; and (4) herbivory by black-tailed deer and livestock. The last known population of the island marble butterfly is centered on American Camp, a unit of the San Juan Island National Historical Park that is managed by the National Park Service, and we evaluated stressors to habitat within the current range of the subspecies. We conclude that herbivory by black-tailed deer and European rabbits, plant succession and competition with invasive species, and a projected increased frequency in storm surges reduce or destroy habitat for the island marble butterfly at American Camp and constitute a threat to the subspecies.
We did not find substantive evidence to conclude that habitat loss attributable to development, road construction, road maintenance activities, agricultural practices, herbivory by livestock and brown garden snails, or recreation are threats at this time. The island marble butterfly occurs almost entirely in National Park Service land. The National Park Service constructed deer exclusion fencing around virtually all suitable island marble butterfly habitat in the park. The fencing has the additional benefit of discouraging park visitors from inadvertently walking through areas potentially occupied by the island marble butterfly. While it is possible that recreation may cause a loss of larval habitat and trampling of individuals in some small portions of the park, we find that the effects of recreation alone do not rise to the level of a threat to the island marble butterfly at this time.
We further considered whether predation is a threat to the island marble butterfly. Direct predation by spiders (on larvae and adults) and wasps (on larvae) accounts for a significant proportion of mortality for the island marble butterfly where grazers are excluded. Where grazers cannot be excluded, incidental predation by browsing black-tailed deer accounts for a high proportion of mortality for eggs and larvae of the island marble butterfly, as deer preferentially eat the flowering heads of the larval host plants where the island marble butterflies lay
We reviewed all Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and other regulatory mechanisms, as well as any conservation efforts, that could reduce or minimize the threats we have identified to the subspecies; we found that existing regulatory mechanisms are being implemented within their scope and provide some benefit to the island marble butterfly.
American Camp, as part of San Juan Island National Historic Park, is managed under the National Park Service's Organic Act and implementing regulations, which promote natural resource conservation in the park and prohibit the collection of the island marble butterfly on lands managed by the park In addition, under the General Management Plan for the park, the National Park Service is required to follow the 2006 Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the Island Marble Butterfly. Conservation actions for the island marble butterfly include restoring native grassland ecosystem components at American Camp; avoiding management actions that would destroy host plants; avoiding vegetation treatments in island marble butterfly habitat when early life-stages are likely to be present; and implementing a monitoring plan for the subspecies.
The island marble butterfly is currently classified as a candidate species by the State of Washington. The Washington Department of Natural Resources owns the Cattle Point Natural Resources Conservation Area consisting of 112 acres directly to the east of American Camp, a portion of which provides potentially suitable habitat for island marble butterflies. Natural Resource Conservation Areas are managed to protect outstanding examples of native ecosystems; habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants and animals; and scenic landscapes. Removal of any plants or soil is prohibited unless written permission is obtained from Washington Department of Natural Resources. In addition, state- and county-level regulatory mechanisms that influence development and zoning on San Juan and Lopez islands are generally beneficial to suitable habitat that could be occupied by the island marble butterfly in the future.
Given that the very small population at American Camp is likely the only remaining population of the subspecies, we conclude that small population size makes it particularly vulnerable to a number of likely stochastic events that remove individuals from the population or decrease its reproductive success. We further find that the increased frequency and strength of storm surges associated with climate change is a threat to the island marble butterfly.
The scope of the regulatory mechanisms that are currently in place is not sufficient to ameliorate these threats to the subspecies, including habitat loss from herbivory, plant succession, competition with invasive species, and increased frequency and strength of storm surges; predation; and small population size. Therefore, the habitat loss and mortality due to these stressors, when considered in conjunction with small population size and the restricted range of the subspecies, results in cumulative effects that pose a threat to the island marble butterfly.
There is no substantiated evidence that overutilization, either scientific or commercial, is a threat to the island marble butterfly. Similarly, there is no evidence that disease is a threat to the subspecies. Vehicle collisions are a likely stressor, but there is significant uncertainty regarding the extent of negative impacts on the island marble butterfly attributable to vehicular collisions. The best available information does not indicate that vehicular collisions pose a threat to the subspecies at this time. Insecticide application could negatively affect the island marble butterfly, if it were to take place in occupied habitat, but the best available information does not indicate that insecticide use is a threat at this time.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we identified the following threats: (1) Habitat loss attributable to plant succession and competition with invasive species, herbivory by deer and European rabbits, and storm surges; (2) direct predation by spiders and wasps, and incidental predation by deer; (3) small population size and vulnerability to stochastic events; and (4) the cumulative effects of small population size and restricted range combined with any other stressor that removes individuals from the population or decreases the island marble butterfly's reproductive success. These threats have affected the island marble butterfly throughout the entirety of its range, are ongoing, and are likely to persist into the foreseeable future. When considered individually and cumulatively, these threats are of a high magnitude. Despite existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservation efforts, the threats to the subspecies remain sufficient to put the subspecies is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the petitioned action to list the island marble butterfly as an endangered or a threatened species is warranted. We will make a determination on the status of the subspecies as an endangered or threatened species when we publish a proposed listing determination. However, the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher-priority listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing and foreseeable threats render the subspecies at risk of extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the subspecies under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the island marble butterfly is not warranted for this subspecies at this time because there are no imminent threats that immediate Federal protection would feasibly ameliorate. However, if at any time we determine that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the island marble butterfly is warranted, we will initiate emergency listing at that time.
We assigned the island marble butterfly a listing priority number (LPN) of 3 based on our finding that the subspecies faces threats that are imminent and of high magnitude. These threats include: (1) Habitat loss attributable to plant succession and competition with invasive species, herbivory by deer and European rabbits, and storm surges; (2) direct predation by spiders and wasps, and incidental predation by deer; (3) small population size and vulnerability to stochastic events; and (4) the cumulative effects of small population size and restricted range combined with any other stressor that removes individuals from the population or decreases the island marble butterfly's reproductive success. This is the highest priority that can be provided to a subspecies under our guidance.
The island marble butterfly will be added to the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to evaluate this subspecies as new information becomes available. Continuing review
We intend that any proposed listing determination for the island marble butterfly will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding.
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted-but-precluded, the Service must make two findings: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending listing proposals; and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions: (1) The amount of resources available for completing the proposed listing; (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing; and (3) the Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in relation to other actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program. This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules designating or revising critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
We cannot spend more for the Listing Program than the amount of funds within the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a subcap for critical habitat to ensure that some funds within the spending cap for listing are available for completing Listing Program actions other than critical habitat designations for already-listed species (“The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is available to address other listing activities” (House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service had to use virtually all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the funds within the critical habitat subcap were available for other listing activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have not needed to use all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders, and we therefore could use the remaining funds within the subcap towards additional proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while we did not need to use all of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to comply with court orders, we did not use the remaining funds towards additional proposed listing determinations, and instead used the remaining funds towards completing critical habitat determinations concurrently with proposed listing determinations; this allowed us to combine the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY 2014, based on the Service's workload, we were able to use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap to fund proposed listing determinations.
For FY 2012, Congress also put in place two additional subcaps within the listing cap: One for listing actions for foreign species and one for petition findings. As with the critical habitat subcap, if the Service does not need to use all of the funds within either subcap, we are able to use the remaining funds for completing proposed or final listing determinations. In FY 2016, based on the Service's workload and available funding, we may use some of the funds within the critical habitat subcap, foreign species subcap, and/or the petitions subcap to fund proposed listing determinations if necessary.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap, the three subcaps, and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within those subcaps, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money available for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds in the listing cap—other than those within the subcaps needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements requiring critical habitat actions for already-listed species, listing actions for foreign species, and petition findings—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2016, on December 18, 2015, Congress passed a Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114-113), which provides funding through September 30, 2016. In particular, it includes an overall spending cap of $20,515,000 for the listing program. Of that, no more than $4,605,000 can be used for critical habitat determinations; no more than $1,504,000 can be used for listing actions for foreign species; and no more than $1,501,000 can be used to make 90-day or 12-month findings on petitions. The Service thus has $12,905,000 available to work on proposed and final listing determinations for domestic species. In addition, if the Service has funding available within the critical habitat, foreign species, or petition subcaps after those workloads have been completed, it can use those funds to work on listing actions other than critical habitat designations or foreign species.
To prioritize within each of the four types of actions, we developed guidelines for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098, September 21, 1983). Under these guidelines, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus); a species; or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species. This is not the case for the island marble butterfly. Thus, in addition to being precluded by the lack of available resources, the island marble butterfly, with an LPN of 3, is also precluded by work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species with a higher listing priority.
Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. It is therefore important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process. Therefore, as we implement our listing work plan and work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest priority species. In addition, we take into consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
These settlement agreements have led to a number of results that affect our preclusion analysis. First, the Service has been, and will continue to be, limited in the extent to which it can undertake additional actions within the Listing Program through FY 2017, beyond what is required by the MDL settlement agreements. Second, because the settlement is court-approved, two broad categories of actions now fall within the Service's highest priority (compliance with a court order): (1) The Service's entire prioritized workload for FY 2012, as reflected in its Allocation Table; and (2) completion, before the end of FY 2016, of proposed listings or not-warranted findings for the candidate species identified in the 2010 CNOR for which we have not yet proposed listing or made a not-warranted finding. Therefore, each year, one of the Service's highest priorities is to make steady progress towards completing by the end of 2017 proposed and final listing determinations for the 2010 candidate species—based on its LPN prioritization system, preparing multi-species actions when appropriate, and taking into consideration the availability of staff resources.
The island marble butterfly was not listed as a candidate in the 2010 CNOR, nor was the proposed listing for the island marble butterfly included in the Allocation Tables that were reflected in the MDL settlement agreement. As we have discussed above, we have assigned an LPN of 3 to the island marble butterfly. Therefore, even if the Service has some additional funding after completing all of the work required by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, we would first fund actions with absolute statutory deadlines for species that have LPNs of 1 or 2. In light of all of these factors, funding a proposed listing for the island marble butterfly is precluded by court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines, and work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate species with a lower LPN.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of the resources available for delisting, which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. Thus far, during FY 2016, we have completed four delisting rules.) As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists in FY 2016.
We provide below tables cataloguing the work of the Service's Listing Program in FY 2016. Making progress towards adding qualified species to the lists includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that warrant listing; (2) undertaking the evaluation of the best available scientific information about those species and the threats they face, and preparing proposed and final listing rules; and (3) adding species to the Lists by publishing proposed and final listing rules that include a summary of the data on which the rule is based and show the relationship of that data to the rule. After taking into consideration the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists in FY 2016.
Our accomplishments this year should also be considered in the broader context of our commitment to reduce the number of candidate species in the 2010 CNOR for which we have not made final determinations whether or not to list. The MDL Settlement Agreement, which the court approved on May 10, 2011, required, among other things, that for all 251 species that were included as candidates in the 2010 CNOR, the Service submit to the
The Service's progress in FY 2016 included completing and publishing the following determinations:
Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions that we funded in previous fiscal years, and in FY 2016, but have not yet been completed to date. For these species, we have completed the first step, and have been working on the second step, necessary for adding species to the Lists. These actions are listed below. Actions in the table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court through a court order or settlement agreement.
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress to add qualified species to the Lists is that we have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute towards finding that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists.
We recognized in four notices of review published in the
On August 25, 2010, we received a petition dated August 24, 2010, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), requesting that we list the San Bernardino flying squirrel as endangered or threatened and designate critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition, was dated, and included the requisite identification information required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On October 5, 2010, we sent the petitioner a letter acknowledging our receipt of the petition, and responded that we had reviewed the information presented in the petition and had not identified any emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of the species that would make immediate listing of the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act necessary. We also stated that, due to court orders and court-approved settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat determinations under the Act, our listing and critical habitat funding for Fiscal Year 2011 was committed to other projects. We said that we would be unable to make an initial finding on the petition at that time, but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed. On February 1, 2012, we published in the
On June 17, 2014, CBD sent a notice of intent to sue on our failure to complete a 12-month finding on the San Bernardino flying squirrel. On September 22, 2014, we reached a settlement with CBD (
This finding is based upon the Species Status Assessment titled “Final Species Status Assessment for San Bernardino Flying Squirrel
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and evaluate the best available scientific and
The San Bernardino flying squirrel is 1 of 25 recognized subspecies of the northern flying squirrel. It is currently only known from the San Bernardino Mountains region. It was previously known to occur in the San Jacinto Mountains. The San Bernardino flying squirrel has not been observed in the San Jacinto Mountain since the 1990s; however, extensive surveys have not been conducted in this area. The habits and population biology of the San Bernardino flying squirrel have not been extensively studied throughout its presumed range.
The San Bernardino flying squirrel is an arboreal (lives in trees) rodent, active year-round, and primarily nocturnal. Individual characteristics of mature or older forested habitat indicate that large-diameter trees, large snags, coarse woody debris, and truffle abundance have been found to be directly related to population densities of the northern flying squirrel. The San Bernardino flying squirrel has been observed in many residential settings and appears to be adaptable to lower density development and residential-forest habitats, as reported in other flying squirrel populations, as long as habitat features such as den sites and canopy cover are available.
The potential threats (identified in the Species Status Assessment as “stressors” or “potential stressors”) that may be acting upon the San Bernardino flying squirrel currently or in the future (and consistent with the five listing factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act) were described in the Species Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27-66) (available at
Where possible, we analyzed whether potential stressors are acting upon the subspecies for both the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains, though the occupancy status of the San Jacinto Mountains is unconfirmed at this time. Given that detailed occupancy and life history data for the San Bernardino flying squirrel are unavailable, we estimated or modeled the extent of habitat suitable to support the San Bernardino flying squirrel using positive detections, vegetation data layers, elevation range, and potential home range size (Service 2016, pp. 27-28). A complete description of the analysis and our methodology is available in the Species Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27-28) and in our GIS procedures summary document (Service 2015a), which are available on
Within our estimated suitable San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains we analyzed the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. We found that 77 percent of land in the San Bernardino Mountains and 65 percent of land in the San Jacinto Mountains is owned by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). In the San Jacinto Mountains region, approximately 22 percent of San Bernardino flying squirrel suitable habitat is under private ownership, but all but a very small portion of those lands are encompassed within the boundaries of two habitat conservation plans: the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Coachella Valley MSHCP.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional, 75-year habitat conservation plan approved in 2004 that addresses 146 listed and unlisted “Covered Species” including the San Bernardino flying squirrel within a 1,260,000 ac (599,904 ha) Plan Area in western Riverside County, California. Conservation objectives identified in the Western Riverside County MSHCP for the San Bernardino flying squirrel include the following: (1) Include within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area at least 19,476 ac (7,882 ha) (67 percent) of suitable montane coniferous forest and deciduous woodland and forest habitats within the San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion for breeding, foraging, wintering, and dispersal movement, and (2) confirm occupation of 2,470 ac (1,000 ha) with a mean density of at least 2 individuals per 2.47 ac (2 individuals per ha) in the San Jacinto Mountains; and, in the San Bernardino Mountains, confirm occupation of 247.11 ac (100 ha) within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area (Service 2016, pp. 73-74).
The Coachella Valley MSHCP is a large-scale, multijurisdictional, 75-year habitat conservation plan approved in 2008 encompassing about 1.1 million ac (445,156 ha) in the Coachella Valley of central Riverside County, California. The Coachella Valley MSHCP is also a Subregional Plan under the State of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, as amended. The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP addresses 27 listed and unlisted covered species; however, these species do not include the San Bernardino flying squirrel.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP was designed to establish a multiple-species habitat conservation program that minimizes and mitigates the expected loss of habitat and incidental take of covered species. The associated permit covers incidental take resulting from habitat loss and disturbance associated with urban development and other proposed covered activities. These activities include public and private development within the plan area that requires discretionary and ministerial actions by permittees subject to consistency with the Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP policies. Though the San Bernardino flying squirrel is not a covered species, it will likely receive ancillary benefits from habitat protection measures included in the plan.
A review of applications for development projects in the San Bernardino Mountains found six planned activities; the total area for these projects covers only a small fraction of San Bernardino flying squirrel suitable habitat in this mountain region. Similar project data were not available for the San Jacinto Mountains. In order to analyze the potential impacts of fragmentation, we conducted a spatial analysis using life-history and the most important habitat features associated with northern flying squirrels. We found only 1.3 percent of our estimated suitable habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains and only 5 percent of our estimated suitable habitat in the San Jacinto Mountains to be fragmented due to residential development or other activities (Service 2015a, entire).
The San Bernardino flying squirrel relies on features in the landscape that may be modified or removed by fuel treatment activities; these activities may
San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat is downwind from California's densely populated South Coast Air Basin. Impacts from air pollution, such as nitrogen deposition and increased ozone, may result in habitat effects including soil acidification, loss of understory diversity, accelerated leaf turnover, and decreased allocation belowground and fine root biomass. Local air quality monitoring has recorded declines in ozone levels in the past 30 years, and local and State regulations on urban air pollution are expected to further reduce ozone levels and nitrogen deposition. However, additional analyses are needed to assess the effects of nitrogen and the combination of nitrogen emissions in combination with ozone level to San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat, as well as to the extent to which the subspecies will respond to any effects.
As a result of fire suppression activities since the early 20th century, forested habitat in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains is at moderate to high risk of wildland fire. However, this stressor is being reduced by ongoing fuel reduction management techniques. Furthermore, results from a study of habitat use of the San Bernardino flying squirrel following fire has found that they return to moderately burned areas within 7 years after a wildland fire. The subspecies has persisted in the region since its first detection in 1897, despite numerous, periodic, and often large fires.
Downscaled climate projections forecast an overall increase in temperature for the Southern California mountains region, which includes the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountain ranges. Climate models for southern California also project a small annual mean decrease in precipitation for southern California; however, these models do not show consistent results for future precipitation patterns. Recent studies have shown that ongoing changes in precipitation and temperature have exacerbated the effects of the recent California drought. Given the projections of increased temperature and decreased precipitation, drought may in the future continue to be exacerbated by climate change. The effects of climate change may result in decrease of the forested habitat that supports the San Bernardino flying squirrel and of food resources utilized by the subspecies.
We reviewed all Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and other regulatory mechanisms intended to minimize the threats to the subspecies and found that existing regulatory mechanisms are being implemented within their scope and provide some benefit to the San Bernardino flying squirrel. We conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information overall indicates that the existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address impacts to the San Bernardino flying squirrel from the stressors for which governments may have regulatory control (habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, wildland fire fuel treatment, and urban air pollution).
Cumulative impacts are currently occurring from the combined effects from wildland fire and climate-related changes. Studies have found that that the likelihood and frequency of large wildfires are expected to increase in southwestern California due to rising surface temperatures. The mixed conifer forests ecosystems in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains are likely currently experiencing the cumulative effects of wildland fire and the warming effects of climate change.
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the San Bernardino flying squirrel is an endangered or threatened species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors faced by the San Bernardino flying squirrel. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we coordinated with recognized species and habitat experts and other Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies. Listing is warranted if, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, we find that the stressors to the San Bernardino flying squirrel are so severe or broad in scope that the subspecies is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
We evaluated in the Species Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27-66) whether each of the potential stressors is acting upon the subspecies, and we determined that the following are stressors that have acted upon the subspecies and have minimally or moderately affected, or in the future may potentially affect, individuals or portions of suitable habitat: Habitat loss from urban development (Factor A), habitat fragmentation (Factor A), wildland fire fuel treatment (Factor A), wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E), urban air pollution (Factor A), and climate change (Factor A). In our Species Status Assessment, we evaluated potential impacts associated with overutilization (Factor B), disease (Factor C), and predation (Factor C). We found that these potential stressors impacted individual San Bernardino flying squirrels, but that the subspecies has not been exposed to these stressors at a level sufficient to result in more than low or no impacts, overall, across the subspecies' range (see Service 2016, pp. 36-39); thus, we did not discuss them in this document.
Effects from urban development (Factor A) and habitat fragmentation (Factor A) are considered low at this time and are not expected to change in the future based on our assessment of the limited scope of proposed developments in the region, the large percentage of habitat that is owned and managed by the USFS, and our analysis of the small amount of fragmentation of current suitable habitat. Urban air pollution (Factor A) presents a low-level stressor to San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat, and existing regulatory mechanisms such as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and the California Clean Air Act are helping to ameliorate any impacts and decrease the overall levels of nitrogen and ozone deposition within the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Though impacts from these three stressors—urban development, habitat fragmentation, and urban air pollution—are ongoing and expected to continue, they pose only low-level impacts that are not likely to drive or contribute to the risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future, and therefore do not rise to the level of a threat.
Wildland fire (Factor A and Factor E) presents a moderate, but periodic, stressor to the San Bernardino flying squirrel and its habitat. Analysis of fire data indicates that forested areas within San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat are burning less frequently than reference conditions, and several fires (reported since the 1980s) in this habitat have burned at moderate to high burn
Wildland fire fuel treatment (Factor A) may remove habitat structure used by nesting San Bernardino flying squirrels; however, habitat modification and thinning from fuel treatment activities provide a net benefit by reducing the overall risk of wildfire. Furthermore, San Bernardino flying squirrels and other northern flying squirrel subspecies are known to persist in fragmented and edge habitat. Therefore, we find that wildland fire fuel treatment is a low-level stressor that we do not expect to rise to the level of a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Based on computer model projections, potential effects to the habitat occupied by the San Bernardino flying squirrel from climate change (Factor A) appear to be minimal; however, cumulative impacts from climate change and wildland fire may have an effect on the subspecies and its habitat (Factor A and Factor E). However, we expect these impacts will be mitigated by wildland fire fuel treatment activities. Therefore, we find that climate change and the cumulative effects of climate change and wildland fires together pose a low to moderate stressor to the San Bernardino flying squirrel and its habitat. Though these stressors are ongoing and expected to continue, they do not rise to the level of a threat now or in the foreseeable future.
We also evaluated existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and did not determine an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for the San Bernardino flying squirrel. Specifically, we found that management actions currently being implemented by the USFS within the San Bernardino National Forest will continue to provide important conservation benefits to the San Bernardino flying squirrel. Additional important Federal mechanisms include protections provided under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131
The USFS manages approximately 76 percent of the suitable habitat within the San Bernardino Mountains region and 65 percent in the San Jacinto Mountains, and these lands are therefore protected from large-scale urban development and rangewide habitat fragmentation. Furthermore, 33 percent of suitable San Bernardino flying squirrel habitat within the San Jacinto Mountains region is designated as either Federal or State Parks and State Wilderness, which provides an important conservation benefit to the subspecies and its habitat. The subspecies is locally abundant; it has been observed in many residential settings and appears to be adaptable to lower density development and residential-forest habitats, as reported in other flying squirrel populations, as long as habitat features such as available den sites (large trees and snags) and canopy cover are available.
None of the stressors, as summarized above was found to individually or cumulatively affect the San Bernardino flying squirrel to such a degree that listing is warranted at this time. Therefore, based on the analysis contained within the Species Status Assessment (Service 2016, pp. 27-66), we conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that these stressors are not singly or cumulatively sufficient to cause the San Bernardino flying squirrel to be in danger of extinction, nor are the stressors likely to cause the subspecies to be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species which is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” as any species which is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in the SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”
We evaluated the current range of the San Bernardino flying squirrel to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats. In this document, we discussed suitable habitat in two geographically separated mountain ranges. We examined potential threats from habitat loss or fragmentation, wildland fire fuel treatment activities, urban air pollution, wildland fire, climate change, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and any cumulative effects from wildland fire and climate-related changes. We found no concentration of threats that suggests that the San Bernardino flying squirrel may be in danger of extinction in a portion of its range. We found no portions of its range where potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other portions of its range, and that there was no higher concentration of threats in the San Bernardino or San Jacinto Mountains. Therefore, we find that factors affecting the San Bernardino flying squirrel are essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating no portion of its range is likely to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Therefore, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the San Bernardino flying squirrel is neither in danger of extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the San Bernardino flying squirrel as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
In our CNOR published on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), we recognized the American Samoa population of the spotless crake as a candidate for which the Service had sufficient information on the biological vulnerability of, and threats to, the species to determine that listing as endangered or threatened was warranted, but development of a proposal was precluded by other listing actions. Subsequently, we published similar findings on the American Samoa population of the spotless crake in our CNOR on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534), October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808), and June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657). In the 2002 CNOR, we identified the American Samoa population of the spotless crake as a distinct population segment (DPS) for the first time, in accordance with our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy), which published in the
Through 2004, the spotless crake had an LPN of 6, reflecting the taxonomic identity of the listable entity as a population, with threats that we did not consider to be imminent, in accordance with our 1983 guidance on establishing listing priorities (48 FR 43103; September 21, 1983). In the 2005 CNOR, we changed the LPN from 6 to 3, indicating that, based on new information about the occurrence of nonnative predators in the only known location of the spotless crake in American Samoa, we now considered the threats to this population to be imminent (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005). Listing the American Samoa population of the spotless crake continued to be precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to list 225 species of plants and animals, including the American Samoa population of the spotless crake, as an endangered or threatened species under the provisions of the Act. Since then, we have published our annual findings on this population, with the LPN of 3, in the
As a result of the Service's 2011 multidistrict litigation settlement with petitioners, the Service is required to submit a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted 12-month finding to the
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This evaluation includes information from all sources, including State, Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public.
The spotless crake (
We evaluated the American Samoa population of the spotless crake under our DPS Policy, which published in the
To meet the discreteness element, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon must be either (1) markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. The available scientific information indicates that the American Samoa population of the spotless crake is markedly separate from other populations of the species due to geographic (physical) isolation from spotless crake populations on other islands in the oceanic Pacific, the Philippines, and Australia. Although the spotless crake (and other rails) are distributed widely in the Pacific (del Hoyo 1996, p. 134; Steadman 2006, pp. 134, 458), exhibit long-distance vagrancy, and are apparently excellent colonizers of islands on an evolutionary timescale (Ripley 1977, p. 17; Steadman 2006, p. 458), the spotless crake is currently not known for regular migration or frequent long-distance dispersal on an ecological timescale (Taylor 2016). Despite being capable of flight and widely distributed, the spotless crake has been described either as “rarely flying” or a “reluctant flier” (Muse and Muse 1982, p. 83; Watling 2001, p. 113). The distance between the American Samoa population of the spotless crake and the nearest populations of the species makes the probability of accidental immigration low: Samoa lies 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (km)) to the west, Tonga approximately 300 to 560 mi (500 to 900 km) to the southwest, and Niue 333 mi (536 km) to the southeast. For the reasons described above, we conclude that long-distance ocean crossings and mixing among populations of the spotless crake and other island rails is extremely rare or highly improbable on an ecological timescale (
Under our DPS Policy, once we have determined that a population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs, in light of congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (see U.S. Congress 1979, Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. In this case, we considered available information about the biological and ecological significance of the spotless crake in American Samoa relative to the spotless crake throughout the remainder of its range in Oceania, Australia, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia. We have not found evidence that the loss of the American Samoa population of the spotless crake would be biologically or ecologically significant to the taxon as a whole, and thus this population does
As described above, the species' distribution today most likely reflects historical connectivity over time scales of thousands of years or longer, as a result of chance dispersal rather than contemporary migration or frequent intermixing among populations. In our original analysis we did not consider the differing influence between migration or frequent dispersal in ecological time, and chance dispersal in evolutionary time on a species' distribution. Given the poor flight ability of rails generally and the spotless crake's probable low rate of dispersal between islands on an ecological timescale (Ripley 1977, pp. 17-18; Muse and Muse 1982, p. 83; Watling 2001, p. 113), the loss of this population would neither interrupt movement among adjacent populations in ecological time (which is unlikely to occur in any case), nor interfere with the chance or waif dispersal events on an evolutionary timescale (
The American Samoa population is geographically isolated from other populations of the species and thus meets discreteness criteria under the DPS policy. It does not, however, meet the criteria for significance to the taxon as a whole. Therefore, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake is not a valid DPS as defined by our DPS Policy, and thus is not a listable entity under the Act.
This determination about the regulatory status of the spotless crake under the Act does not negate the considerable threats faced by the population of this species in American Samoa. Invasive, nonnative plants, such as
The American Samoa population of the spotless crake was originally placed on the candidate list because of the threats to the species in American Samoa and its apparently very low numbers. Those threats still exist. After review of all available scientific and commercial information and upon closer consideration of the significance of this population to the species as a whole, we find that the American Samoa population of the spotless crake does not meet the significance criteria under our DPS policy, and thus does not constitute a listable entity under the Act. Consequently we are removing the American Samoa population of the spotless crake from candidate status. This determination about the regulatory status of the spotless crake under the Act and our DPS Policy does not alter the threats faced by the population of this species in American Samoa or its conservation needs there. Therefore, we ask the public to continue to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status of the spotless crake, and we encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts for this rare member of American Samoa's avifauna.
On October 10, 2008, we received a petition dated October 9, 2008, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that we list the Sprague's pipit as
In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This evaluation includes information from all sources, including State, Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public.
The Sprague's pipit (
The Sprague's pipit breeding range is throughout North Dakota, except for the easternmost counties; northern and central Montana east of the Rocky Mountains; northern portions of South Dakota; north central and northeastern portions of Wyoming; and occasionally northwestern Minnesota. In Canada, Sprague's pipits breed in southeastern Alberta, the southern half of Saskatchewan, and in southwest Manitoba. The Sprague's pipit's wintering range includes south-central and southeast Arizona, Texas, southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and northern Mexico.
In 2010, the Sprague's pipit was listed as a candidate species. The major threats to the species identified at that time were native prairie conversion of breeding grounds and energy development, primarily from oil and gas and associated infrastructure. A recent model evaluating habitat use on the breeding grounds allowed us to evaluate the threats facing the species more specifically for this finding and focus on that part of the range where the Sprague's pipit is concentrated (hereafter the core area). Available models indicate that most of the core area is unlikely to be converted because it is relatively low-value land for row-crop agriculture. The most likely future scenario predicts that only about 13 percent of the population will be affected by future habitat conversion on the breeding grounds. In addition, the response to oil and gas development appears to be more nuanced than we previously thought, with less avoidance behavior reported in Canada, where infrastructure is already in place, than had been expected. This suggests the overall disturbance impacts from oil and gas development are lower than we anticipated in our 2010 finding.
We evaluated the Sprague's pipit population trend both within and outside of the core area in the breeding range, as well as for the population overall. Inside the breeding range core area, population estimates from 2005-2014 have a range of uncertainty that means numbers may have slightly increased or decreased, with a somewhat more likely possibility that they decreased. Outside of the breeding range core area, the analysis more clearly indicated a decline from 2005-2014. As noted above, however, current Sprague's pipit populations are concentrated within the core area of the breeding range, and therefore evaluation of the overall population trends from 2005-2014 suggests a more slight population decline than the rates solely outside the core area.
Because recent population declines appear to have been largely outside of the breeding range core area, while the current population is concentrated within the core area where population trends have been more stable, continued overall population decreases at the same rate appear unlikely. In addition, with decreasing commodity prices and changes to crop insurance for conversion of native grassland, we anticipate conversion rates will decrease in the future, rather than continue at the 10-year trend rate. Finally, as noted above, the extent of exposure to threats within the core appears to be less than for exposure to threats outside the core area. For all these reasons, the overall population trends are likely to be more stable in the future than over the last 10 years.
We note that little is known about this species' distribution and habitat use on the wintering grounds in Mexico, where grassland conversion and woody vegetation encroachment into grasslands are occurring. However, the available evidence suggests that the Sprague's pipit is more flexible in its habitat use on the wintering grounds in comparison to breeding rounds. For example, a study in the Chihuahuan Desert found that the Sprague's pipit is broadly distributed and apparently mobile in response to annual habitat conditions. Additionally, in the United States, experts report that Sprague's pipits use a wide variety of native and nonnative grassland types.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Sprague's pipit is in danger of extinction (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species), throughout all of its range. Threats identified in 2010 are now believed to have lower impacts on the Sprague's pipit than understood at that time; recent downward population trends are unlikely to continue at the same rate, and even if they do, they would not indicate the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future; and while unknowns remain, especially regarding wintering grounds, the species' adaptability appears greater than previously understood. Because the distribution of the species is relatively stable across its range and stressors are similar throughout the species' range, we found no concentration of stressors that suggests that the Sprague's pipit may be in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Sprague's pipit as an endangered or a threatened species is not warranted
We request that you submit any new information concerning the status of, or stressors to, the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the American Samoa population of the spotless crake or the Sprague's pipit to the appropriate person, as specified under
Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Branch of Listing, Ecological Services Program.
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to designate the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River Stock of beluga whales (
Comments must be received by June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0154, by either of the following methods:
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
A list of references cited in this proposed rule and the status review report are available at
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402,
Section 115(a) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)) allows interested parties to petition NMFS to initiate a status review to determine whether a species or stock of marine mammals should be designated as depleted. On April 23, 2014, NMFS received a petition from the Animal Welfare Institute, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute (petitioners) to “designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA.” NMFS published a notice that the petition was available (79 FR 28879, May 20, 2014). After evaluating the petition, NMFS determined that the petition contained substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (79 FR 44733, August 1, 2014). Following its determination that the petitioned action may be warranted, NMFS convened a status review team and conducted a status review to evaluate whether the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales is a population stock and, if so, whether that stock is depleted. This proposed rule is based upon that status review.
Section 3(1)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)) defines the term “depletion” or “depleted” to include “any case in which. . . the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals . . .determines that a species or a population stock is below its optimum sustainable population.” NMFS' authority to designate a stock as depleted is not limited to stocks that occur in U.S. jurisdictional waters. Although the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales does not occur in U.S. jurisdictional waters, NMFS has authority to designate the stock as depleted if it finds that the stock is below its optimum sustainable population.
A status review for the population stock of beluga whales addressed in this proposed rule was conducted by a status review team (Bettridge
Beluga whales are small, toothed whales distributed throughout the Arctic and inhabiting subarctic regions of Russia, Greenland, and North America. They are found in the Arctic Ocean and its adjoining seas, including the Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, the Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Beluga whales may also be found in large rivers during certain times of the year.
Beluga whales are found throughout much of the Sea of Okhotsk, including Shelikov Bay in the northeast and throughout the western Sea of Okhotsk including the Amur River estuary, the nearshore areas of Sakhalin Bay, in the large bays to the west (Nikolaya Bay, Ulbansky Bay, Tugursky Bay and Udskaya Bay), and among the Shantar Islands. Use of the bays and estuaries in the western Sea of Okhotsk is limited primarily to summer months when belugas may molt (Finley 1982) and give birth to and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie 1969). The whales move into the ice-covered offshore areas of the western Sea of Okhotsk in the winter (Melnikov 1999). In the status review and this proposed rule, we refer to the beluga whales found in the Amur River estuary and the nearshore areas of Sakhalin Bay during summer as the Sakhalin River-Amur Bay beluga whales.
The best available estimate of abundance of beluga whales in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area is 3,961 (Reeves
Information on potential sources of serious injury and mortality is limited for the Sea of Okhotsk beluga whales. The IUCN panel identified subsistence harvest, death during live-capture for public display, entanglement in fishing gear, vessel strike, climate change, and pollution as human activities that may result in serious injury or mortality to Sea of Okhotsk beluga whales (Reeves
To designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a depleted stock under the MMPA, it must be determined to be a “population stock” or “stock.” The MMPA defines “population stock” as “a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature” (MMPA section 3(11)). NMFS' guidelines for assessing stocks of marine mammals (NMFS 2005) state that many different types of information can be used to identify stocks, reproductive isolation is proof of demographic isolation, and demographically isolated groups of marine mammals should be identified as separate stocks. NMFS has interpreted “demographically isolated” as “demographically independent” (see, for example, Weller
The guidelines state, specifically: “Many types of information can be used to identify stocks of a species:
“Evidence of morphological or genetic differences in animals from different geographic regions indicates that these populations are reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation is proof of demographic isolation, and, thus, separate management is appropriate when such differences are found. Demographic isolation means that the population dynamics of the affected group is more a consequence of births and deaths within the group (internal dynamics) rather than immigration or emigration (external dynamics). Thus, the exchange of individuals between population stocks is not great enough to prevent the depletion of one of the populations as a result of increased mortality or lower birth rates.” (NMFS 2005)
At the broadest geographic scale in the Sea of Okhotsk, there is strong evidence for genetic differentiation, in both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nuclear DNA, between beluga whales that summer in the northeastern Sea of Okhotsk off the west Kamchatka coast (east of 145° E. longitude) and those that summer in the western Sea of Okhotsk from Sakhalin Bay to Udskaya Bay, west of 145° E. longitude (Meschersky
Available evidence regarding the stock structure of the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales relative to other western Sea of Okhotsk beluga whales is limited. A variety of genetic studies have been performed on beluga whales from the western Sea of Okhotsk (see below), and limited telemetry data are available. NMFS considered the following lines of evidence regarding the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales to answer the question of whether the group comprises a stock: (1) Genetic comparisons among the summering aggregations in the western Sea of Okhotsk; (2) movement data collected using satellite transmitters; and (3) geographical and ecological separation (site fidelity). Below we summarize the information considered, including information presented in the status review report.
A variety of genetic studies have been performed on beluga whales from the western Sea of Okhotsk (Meschersky
The genetic comparisons between samples from the beluga whales of the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River and the beluga whales of the other bays consistently found significant differentiation in mtDNA haplotype frequencies among bays, but not between Sakhalin Bay and the adjacent Nikolaya Bay, though the small sample size in Nikolaya Bay may have played a role (Meschersky
Analysis of nuclear microsatellite markers found no evidence for genetic differentiation among the bays of the western Sea of Okhotsk with the exception of a comparison of Sakhalin Bay to the distant Ulbansky Bay (Merschersky 2012, Merschersky
Telemetry data, although sparse, support the conclusions drawn from the genetic data. From 2007-2010, 22 beluga whales were tagged at Sakhalin Bay. Tags transmitted data for 2.5-9.5 months, with an average of six months. Most whales stayed close to the tagging site in summer (Shpak
Beluga whales in other, better studied areas form strong social groups that follow learned, predictable annual movements between breeding and feeding areas. Summer aggregations often focus on seasonally available fish runs. Site fidelity to summer feeding areas is not uncommon in cetaceans and can often result in genetic differentiation in mtDNA. In some cases, site fidelity is strong enough and occurs over a long enough time period that mtDNA lineage sorting can occur, resulting in mtDNA haplotypes unique to a given feeding area. Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales exhibit behaviors and frequency differences in mtDNA haplotypes consistent with the general beluga whale life history strategy seen in Alaska, and therefore are considered to be similar to aggregations defined as stocks within Alaska. The two Alaska beluga stocks with movements and seasonal cycles most similar to the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales are the Eastern Bering Sea stock and the Bristol Bay stock. Together, genetic and movement data indicate that beluga whales in the western Sea of Okhotsk exhibit life history characteristics and levels of differentiation very similar to beluga whales in Alaska that have been designated as stocks.
Given the limitations on available data, the status review team used structured expert decision making (SEDM) procedures to evaluate the available data for beluga whales in the western Sea of Okhotsk as they relate to delineating stocks. This approach is often employed as a means to elicit expert opinion while also characterizing uncertainty within the expert opinion, whereby an expert is asked to distribute plausibility points among the choices/scenarios for a given statement reflecting his or her opinion of how likely that choice or option correctly reflects the population status. The status review team members were largely in agreement that Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales were either their own stock (44.4% of the team's SEDM plausibility points) or belonged to a stock that also included whales that summer in Nikolaya Bay (42.5% of the team's SEDM plausibility points). These results were largely based on mtDNA evidence. The team concluded that, together, genetic and movement data indicate that beluga whales in the western Sea of Okhotsk exhibit life history characteristics and levels of differentiation very similar to beluga whales in Alaska that have been designated as stocks. Given the available data and the assumptions outlined in the status review report, NMFS finds no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the status review team regarding stock structure.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS consulted with the Marine Mammal Commission related to the petition to designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a depleted population stock. In a letter dated December 7, 2015, the Commission recommended NMFS take a precautionary approach and define the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock to include whales in Nikolaya Bay and promptly publish a proposed rule under section 115(a)(3)(D) of the MMPA to designate this stock as depleted.
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales are their own stock or are a stock that also includes whales that summer in Nikolaya Bay. The status review team's evaluation of whether the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock is discrete or includes whales in Nikolaya Bay was almost evenly divided, based on the lines of evidence reviewed (see above). Given the currently available information, it is equally plausible that the beluga whales in Nikolaya Bay are part of the demographically independent population stock of Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales than not. Including Nikolaya Bay in the delineation and description of the stock would be a more conservative and precautionary approach, as it would provide any protection afforded under the MMPA to the beluga whales in Sakhalin Bay-Amur River to those beluga whales in Nikolaya Bay. Therefore, based on the best scientific information available as presented in the status review report and this proposed rule, NMFS is identifying the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a population stock.
As described above, NMFS finds that the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales is a population stock. Therefore, the second question to be analyzed is whether the stock is depleted.
Section 3(1)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)) defines the term “depletion” or “depleted” to include any case in which “the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal
A population stock below its MNPL is, by definition, below OSP and, thus, would be considered depleted under the MMPA. Historically, MNPL has been expressed as a range of values (between 50 and 70 percent of K) determined on a theoretical basis by estimating what stock size, in relation to the historical stock size, will produce the maximum net increase in population (42 FR 12010, March 1, 1977). In practice, NMFS has determined that stocks with populations under the mid-point of this range (
As stated above, the back-calculation method looks at the current population level and then calculates historical carrying capacity based on how much the population has been reduced by human actions. The best available estimate of abundance beluga whales in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area is 3,961 (Reeves
A population model was used to perform the necessary calculations. In short, for each year, the model calculates the expected number of animals added to the stock (by natural population growth) and it subtracts the number removed, and then the model grows or shrinks the population for the next year according to the difference between the growth and the removals. A computer spreadsheet search routine finds the value of K that is large enough to have accommodated the removals and low enough to have resulted in a population in 2009-2010 that matches the observed abundance in those years.
The population equation used was N
N
r is the annual rate of increase (productivity) when the population is small,
K is the carrying capacity,
z controls the rate at which productivity declines as N
H
The values of r and z have not been measured for Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales so values (r = 0.04 and z = 2.39) were used in the “base case.” The value for r = 0.04 is a default value for cetaceans used in PBR calculations (NMFS 2005), and z = 2.39 is in the middle of the range considered reasonable for cetaceans. Alternate plausible values for r and z were also evaluated to test the model's sensitivity to changes in these parameters.
Once the back-calculation estimated the value of K that results in the estimated population size in 2009-2010, the population model was projected forward to 2015 to estimate the current population size. The current depletion level was then calculated by dividing the 2015 stock size (estimated by the model) by the estimated carrying capacity (K).
Commercial hunts of the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whale population began in 1915 (Shpak
The low-take scenario used the take estimates when they were available, and when more than one estimate of take was available, used the lowest value. Years with no indication that takes occurred were left blank and treated as zero. The low-take option was included to evaluate whether this unlikely scenario would still result in a depleted population.
The high take scenario used the take estimates where they were available, and when more than one estimate of take was available, used the highest value. For years when hunts are thought to have occurred but no record is available, missing values were estimated or interpolated from adjacent years with similar hunts. For years when removals for live display are known to have occurred but no record is available,
The most recent estimate of abundance, 3,961, is based on aerial surveys in 2009 and 2010 (Reeves et al. 2011). The estimate is from only the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area because there is no current abundance estimate of the Nikolaya Bay region. However, few animals are thought to be in Nikolaya Bay in the survey period compared to the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River, so the estimate accounts for nearly all of the population (Shpak
The back-calculation investigated the sensitivities of the effects of a range of parameter values and the high and low catch scenarios. The status review team considered the value of K resulting when r = 0.04 (the default value for MMPA PBR calculations for cetaceans) and z = 2.39 and the high take scenario (which assumes some medium level of catch for years with missing data when take is thought to have or known to have occurred) to be representative of the most likely scenario. The estimate of K for this scenario is 17,700, the projected current (2015) abundance estimate is 4,520, and the estimated depletion level is 25.5% of K. The status review team also estimated the value of K resulting when r = 0.04 and z = 2.39 under the low take scenario, which assumes no mortality for all years with missing data and the lowest level of subsistence take. The estimate of K for this scenario is 13,200, the projected current (2015) abundance estimate is 4,626, and the estimated depletion level is 35.0% of K. Both scenarios indicate the population is currently below MNPL and below the lower limit of the OSP range (which is reached at a depletion level of 60% K).
As noted above, in its OSP analysis, the team used a 2009-2010 abundance estimate from only the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area because there was no current abundance estimate of the Nikolaya Bay region. However, because few animals are thought to be in Nikolaya Bay in the survey period compared to the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River, the estimate accounts for nearly all of the population (Shpak
Based on the best scientific information available data, and considering the assumptions outlined in the status review report, NMFS finds no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the status review team regarding the status of the stock. Therefore, based upon the best scientific information available, NMFS finds that the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales is below its optimum sustainable population level, and proposes to designate the stock as a depleted stock under the MMPA. The proposed depletion designation applies to all biological members of the stock, regardless of whether those individuals are in the wild or in captivity.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS consulted with the Marine Mammal Commission on our efforts related to the petition to designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a depleted population stock. In a letter dated December 7, 2015, the Commission recommended NMFS take a precautionary approach and define the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock to include whales in Nikolaya Bay and promptly publish a proposed rule under section 115(a)(3)(D) of the MMPA to designate this stock as depleted.
NMFS is soliciting comments from the public on this proposed rule for the designation of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Similar to Endangered Species Act listing decisions, which are based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available, depleted designations under the MMPA are determined “solely on the basis of the best scientific information available.” 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) and 16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)(2). Because Endangered Species Act listings are thus exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If implemented, this proposed rule would designate a group of beluga whales in Russian waters (known as the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group) as depleted; however, if implemented, this rule would not, by itself, directly regulate the public, including any small entities. The MMPA authorizes NMFS to take certain actions to protect a stock that is designated as depleted. For example, a stock that is designated as depleted meets the definition of a strategic stock under the MMPA. Under provisions of the MMPA, a take reduction team must be established and a take reduction plan developed and implemented within certain time frames if a strategic stock of marine mammals interacts with a Category I or II commercial fishery. However, NMFS has not identified any interactions between commercial fisheries and this group of beluga whales that would result in such a requirement. In addition, under the MMPA, if NMFS determines that impacts on areas of ecological significance to marine mammals may be causing the decline or impeding the recovery of a strategic stock, it may develop and implement conservation or management measures to alleviate those impacts. However,
The MMPA prohibits the importation of any marine mammal designated as depleted for purposes of public display (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(3)(B) and 1372(b)). Therefore, this rule, if implemented, would have the indirect effect of prohibiting the future importation of any marine mammal from this stock into the United State for public display. There are 104 facilities in the United States that house marine mammals for the purposes of public display. Of these, only six facilities house beluga whales. There are currently twenty-seven beluga whales at these facilities. None of these beluga whales were taken in the wild from the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock; three whales are progeny of animals taken in the wild from this stock. NMFS receives very few requests to import beluga whales into the United States for purposes of public display, and has no pending requests to import beluga whales for public display. NMFS notes the small number of U.S. entities that house beluga whales and the small number of beluga whales from this stock that are currently permitted for public display in the United States. Because this rule, if implemented, would not prevent an entity from requesting to import a beluga whale from a non-depleted stock for purposes of public display, NMFS finds that this rule, if implemented, would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, this proposed rule, if implemented, would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed rule has been prepared. NMFS invites comment from members of the public who believe this rule, if implemented, will result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or who have additional information relevant to NMFS' analysis.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 216 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(j) Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River beluga whales (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 17A includes actions to extend the Gulf commercial shrimp permit moratorium and retain the royal red endorsement to the Gulf shrimp permit.
Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments on Amendment 17A, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0018” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 17A, which includes an environmental
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or 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 17A was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In 2002, through Amendment 11 to the FMP, the Council established a Federal commercial open access permit for all vessels harvesting shrimp from federal waters of the Gulf (67 FR 51074, August 7, 2002). Approximately 2,951 vessels had been issued these permits by 2006. After the establishment of the permit, the shrimp fishery experienced economic losses, primarily because of high fuel costs and reduced shrimp prices caused by competition from imports. These economic losses resulted in decreasing numbers of vessels in the fishery, and consequently, reduction of effort. The Council determined that the number of vessels in the offshore shrimp fleet would likely decline to a point where the fishery again became profitable for the remaining participants, and new vessels might want to enter the fishery. That additional effort could negate, or at least lessen, profitability for the fleet as a whole. Consequently, through Amendment 13 to the FMP, the Council established a 10-year moratorium on the issuance of new Federal commercial shrimp vessel permits and established a royal red shrimp endorsement to the Gulf shrimp permit (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). The moratorium on permits also indirectly controls shrimping effort in Federal waters and thereby, bycatch levels of juvenile red snapper and sea turtles. The final rule implementing the moratorium was effective October 26, 2006, and the moratorium permits became effective in March 2007. Amendment 17A would extend the moratorium for an additional 10 years until October 26, 2026. Extending the moratorium is expected to maintain the biological, social, and economic benefits to the shrimp fishery achieved under the moratorium over the past 10 years.
The purpose of establishing the royal red shrimp endorsement was to help inform data collectors about who the royal red shrimpers were and collect better information about the fishery. These endorsements are available to anyone with a Federal Gulf commercial shrimp permit and many more royal red shrimp endorsements are issued than the number of vessels actually harvesting royal red shrimp. Royal red shrimp are primarily harvested from deep waters requiring greater capital investment; therefore, historically only a small number of boats have been engaged in harvesting royal red shrimp. In Amendment 17A, the Council considered eliminating the royal red shrimp endorsement to the Gulf shrimp permit. However, the Council chose to retain the endorsement because it may be useful in the future to identify shrimpers who could be exempt from closed areas and for enforcement.
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 17A 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 17A for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 17A must be received by June 6, 2016. Comments received during the respective comment periods, 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 and 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 May 5, 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.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday April 14, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. EDT for the purpose of discussing preparations for a public hearing regarding the civil rights impact of civil asset forfeiture in the State.
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-587-0615, conference ID: 9524760. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. EDT Public Call Information:
Melissa Wojnaroski at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of monthly planning meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Maryland Advisory Committee (MD Advisory Committee) will convene meetings by conference call at 12:30 p.m. (EDT) on each of the following Fridays: April 22, May 20, June 17, July 15, August 19, 2016. The purpose of each meeting is to discuss project planning and eventually select topic(s) for the Committee's civil rights review. In addition, at the May 20, 2016, meeting, the members will nominate and select additional Committee officers.
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-437-9445 and conference call ID: 2956454. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-437-9445 and conference call ID: 2956454.
Members of the public are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
The meetings will be held on the following Fridays: April 22, May 20, June 17, July 15 and August 19, 2016.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
Notice of determination and request for comment.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) publishes this notice to request public comment on the content of the 2017 Census of Governments. The Census of Governments is conducted at 5-year intervals (years ending in 2 and 7) and is the most comprehensive compilation of statistics about state and local governments available. The Census Bureau is seeking input on the content of the 2017 Census of Governments to ensure that the Census of Governments continues to be the most comprehensive
The Census Bureau will begin mailing the 2017 Census of Governments Employment component in the Spring of 2017 and the Finance component in the Fall of 2017. Responses will be due by April 2017 (for the Employment component) and by December 2017 (for the finance component). Therefore, written comments on proposed content changes must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016 to ensure consideration of your comments on the 2017 Census of Governments content.
Direct all written comments regarding the 2017 Census of Governments to Kevin Deardorff, Chief, Economy Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K154, Washington, DC 20233; or by email
Economy-Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, C/O Kevin Deardorff, Chief, Economy Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K154, Washington, DC 20233; or by email
Section 161 of Title 13 U.S.C. directs the Secretary of Commerce to “take, compile, and publish for the year 1957 and for every fifth year thereafter a census of governments. Each such census shall include, but shall not be limited to, data on taxes and tax valuations, governmental receipts, expenditures, indebtedness, and employees of States, counties, cities, and other governmental units.” Because of this, the Census of Governments is the most comprehensive, comparable, and precise measure of government economic activity. It identifies the scope and nature of the nation's public sector and provides authoritative benchmark figures of public finance, pensions, and employment. This helps us identify and classify the complex and diverse state and local government organizations, powers, and activities, and measures federal, state, and local fiscal relationships.
This notice requests public comments on the 2017 Census of Governments content as discussed further in Section B of this
Two federal statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Federal Reserve Board, use the Census of Governments data to measure the nation's economic and financial performance. State and local governments use the data to develop programs and budgets, assess financial conditions, and perform comparative analyses. In addition, analysts, economists, market specialists, and researchers need these data to measure the changing characteristics of the government sector of the economy and to conduct public policy research. Journalists report on, and teachers and students learn about, their governments' activities using our data. Internally, the Census Bureau uses these data as a benchmark for all our non-census year samples.
For the 2017 Census of Governments, finance and employment data are the same as in comparable annual surveys and include revenues, expenditures, debt, assets, number of employees (by full-time and part-time status), payroll, and benefits. The Census Bureau posted copies of the 2012 Census of Governments forms on its Web site at:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Census Bureau, through the proper established procedures, will be obtaining OMB control numbers under the PRA as we get closer to launching the program in 2017.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Kansas City Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 17, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 31, 2016.
FTZ 17 was approved by the FTZ Board on December 20, 1973 (Board Order 97, 39 FR 26, January 2, 1974) and reorganized under the ASF on July 8, 2010 (Board Order 1696, 75 FR 41819, July 19, 2010). The zone currently has a service area that includes Wyandotte, Johnson, Douglas, Shawnee, Leavenworth and Miami Counties, Kansas.
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Atchison, Jefferson and Franklin Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Kansas City Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 6, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 20, 2016.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Anji DaSol”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, (“solar cells”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015.
Cara Lofaro, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5720.
On February 3, 2016, the Department initiated a new shipper review for Anji DaSol, and on March 21, 2016, Anji DaSol withdrew its new shipper review request. Section 351.214(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department may rescind a new shipper review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review no later than 60 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Given that Anji DaSol timely withdrew its request for a new shipper review, the Department is rescinding the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from the PRC with respect to Anji DaSol. Consequently, Anji DaSol will remain part of the PRC-wide entity.
Because we are rescinding the new shipper review of Anji DaSol, we are not making a determination as to whether Anji DaSol qualifies for a separate rate. Therefore, Anji DaSol remains part of the PRC-wide entity and any entries covered by this new shipper review will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate. The PRC-wide entity is not under review in the ongoing administrative review covering the 2014-2015 period of review, and therefore, Anji DaSol is not under review in the concurrent administrative review.
Effective upon publication of the rescission of the new shipper review of Anji DaSol, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Anji DaSol.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a 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(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This rescission and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Cindy Robinson or Eric Greynolds, at (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-6071, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On March 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of phosphor copper from the Republic of Korea (Korea), filed in proper form on behalf of Metallurgical Products Company (Metallurgical) (Petitioner).
On March 14 and 18, 2016, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on March 9, 2016, the period of investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The product covered by this investigation is phosphor copper from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of phosphor copper to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe phosphor copper, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition,
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 18, 2016, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this Korea less-than-fair-value investigation.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that phosphor copper, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2015, as well as estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, and impacts on production, capacity utilization, commercial shipments, and financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate the investigation of imports of phosphor copper from Korea. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.
Petitioner based U.S. prices on a 2015 Korean producer's price offerings to its customers in the United States for phosphor copper produced in, and exported from, Korea during the POI.
Petitioner provided home market price information based on sales, or offers for sale, in Korea of merchandise identical or similar to the product being imported into the United States during the POI.
Petitioner provided information indicating that sales of phosphor copper in Korea were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) and, as a result, also calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. Petitioner calculated COM based on a U.S. producer's experience during the proposed POI.
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, Petitioner also calculated NVs based on CV.
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of export price (EP) to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for phosphor copper for Korea ranges from 12.55 to 66.54 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on phosphor copper from Korea, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a less-than-fair-value investigation to determine whether imports of phosphor copper from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
The Department normally relies on import data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in market economy AD investigations where the number of exporters/producers is determined to be large. In this case the
We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of Korea via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is master alloys
Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7405.00.1000. This HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
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 DONG Energy Massachusetts (U.S.) LLC (DONG Energy) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) (the Lease Area). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to DONG Energy to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, small numbers of marine mammals during the specified activities.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 5, 2016.
Comments on DONG Energy's IHA application (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
John Fiorentino, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate the issuance of wind energy leases covering the entirety of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (including the OCS-A 0500 Lease Area), and the approval of site assessment activities within those leases (BOEM, 2014). NMFS intends to adopt BOEM's EA, if adequate and appropriate. Currently, we believe that the adoption of BOEM's EA will allow NMFS to meet its responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of an IHA to DONG Energy for HRG and geotechnical survey investigations in the Lease Area. If necessary, however, NMFS will supplement the existing analysis to ensure that we comply with NEPA prior to the issuance of the final IHA. Comments on this proposed IHA will be considered in the development of any additional NEPA analysis or documents (
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 December 4, 2015, NMFS received an application from DONG Energy for the taking of marine mammals incidental to Spring 2016 geophysical survey investigations off the coast of Massachusetts in the OCS-A 0500 Lease Area, designated and offered by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), to support the development of an offshore wind project. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on January 27, 2016. On January 20, 2016, DONG Energy submitted a separate request for the taking of marine mammals incidental to proposed geotechnical
The proposed geophysical survey activities would occur for 4 weeks beginning in early May 2016, and geotechnical survey activities would take place in September 2016 and last for approximately 6 days. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Shallow and medium-penetration sub-bottom profiler (chirper and sparker) and equipment positioning system (also referred to as acoustic positioning system, or pinger) use during the HRG survey, and dynamically positioned (DP) vessel thruster use in support of geotechnical survey activities. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of 9 species of marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified activities.
DONG Energy's proposed activities discussed here are based on its February 26, 2016, final IHA application. DONG Energy proposes to conduct a geophysical and geotechnical survey in the Lease Area to support the characterization of the existing seabed and subsurface geological conditions in the Lease Area. This information is necessary to support the siting and design of up to two floating light and detection ranging buoys (FLIDARs) and up to two metocean monitoring buoys, as well as to obtain a baseline assessment of seabed/sub-surface soil conditions in the DONG Energy Massachusetts Lease Area to support the siting of the proposed wind farm.
HRG surveys are anticipated to commence in early May 2016 and will last for approximately 30 days, including estimated weather down time. Geotechnical surveys requiring the use of the DP drill ship will take place in September 2016, at the earliest, and will last for approximately 6 days excluding weather downtime.
DONG Energy's survey activities will occur in the approximately 187,532-acre Lease Area designated and offered by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), located approximately 14 miles (mi) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, at its closest point (see Figure 1-1 of the IHA application). The Lease Area falls within the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (MA WEA; Figure 1-1 of the IHA application). An evaluation of site assessment activities within the MA WEA was fully assessed in the BOEM Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (BOEM, 2014). A Biological Opinion on site assessment activities within the MA WEA was issued by NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (formerly Northeast Regional Office) to BOEM in April 2013.
Marine site characterization surveys will include the following HRG survey activities:
• Depth sounding (multibeam depth sounder) to determine water depths and general bottom topography;
• Magnetic intensity measurements for detecting local variations in regional magnetic field from geological strata and potential ferrous objects on and below the bottom;
• Seafloor imaging (sidescan sonar survey) for seabed sediment classification purposes, to identify natural and man-made acoustic targets resting on the bottom as well as any anomalous features;
• Subsea equipment positioning using ultra-short baseline (USBL) acoustic positioning systems (pingers);
• Shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler (chirper) to map the near surface stratigraphy (top 0-5 meter [m] soils below seabed); and
• Medium penetration sub-bottom profiler (sparker) to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed (soils down to 75-100 m below seabed).
The HRG surveys are scheduled to begin, at the earliest, on May 1, 2016. Table 1 identifies the representative survey equipment that is being considered in support of the HRG survey activities. The make and model of the listed HRG equipment will vary depending on availability, but will be finalized as part of the survey preparations and contract negotiations with the survey contractor, and therefore the final selection of the survey equipment will be confirmed prior to the start of the HRG survey program. Only the make and model of the HRG equipment may change, not the types of equipment or the addition of equipment with characteristics that might have effects beyond (
The HRG survey activities will be supported by a vessel approximately 98 to 180 feet (ft) in length and capable of maintaining course and a survey speed of approximately 4 knots while transiting survey lines. HRG survey activities across the Lease Area will generally be conducted at 900-meter (m) line spacing (total survey line approximately 1,800 km). Up to two FLIDARs would be deployed within the Lease Area, and up to three potential locations for FLIDAR deployment will be investigated. At the three potential FLIDAR deployment locations the survey will be conducted along a tighter 30-m line (total survey line approximately 2 km) spacing to meet the BOEM requirements as set out in the July 2015 Guidelines for Providing Geophysical, Geotechnical, and Geohazard Information Pursuant and Archeological and Historic Property Information to 30 CFR part 585.
Given the size of the Lease Area (187,532 acres), to minimize cost, the duration of survey activities, and the period of potential impact on marine species, DONG Energy has proposed conducting survey operations 24 hours per day. Based on 24-hour operations, the estimated duration of the survey activities would be approximately 30 days (including estimated weather down time).
Both NMFS and BOEM have advised that the deployment of HRG survey equipment, including the use of intermittent, impulsive sound-producing equipment operating below 200 kilohertz (kHz) (
The equipment positioning systems use vessel-based underwater acoustic positioning to track equipment (in this case, the sub-bottom profiler) in very shallow to very deep water. Using pulsed acoustic signals, the systems calculate the position of a subsea target by measuring the range (distance) and bearing from a vessel-mounted transceiver to a small acoustic transponder (the acoustic beacon, or pinger) fitted to the target. Equipment positioning systems (either the iXBlue GAPS or Sonardyne Scout) will be operational at all times during HRG survey data acquisition (i.e, concurrent with the sub-bottom profiler operation). Sub-bottom profiling systems identify and measure various marine sediment layers that exist below the sediment/water interface. A sound source emits an acoustic signal vertically downwards into the water and a receiver monitors the return signal that has been reflected off the sea floor. Some of the acoustic signal will penetrate the seabed and be reflected when it encounters a boundary between two layers that have different acoustic impedance. The system uses this reflected energy to provide information on sediment layers beneath the sediment-water interface. A GeoPulse, or similar model, shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler will be used to map the near surface stratigraphy of the Lease Area. The shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler is a precisely controlled hull/pole mounted “chirp” system that emits high-energy sounds with a pulse duration of 0.1 to 1 millisecond (ms) at operating frequencies of 1.5 to 18 kHz and is used to penetrate and profile the shallow (top 0-5 m soils below seabed) sediments of the seafloor. A Geo-Source 200/800, or similar model, medium-penetration sub-bottom profiler (sparker) will be used to map deeper subsurface stratigraphy in the Lease Area as needed (soils down to 75-100 m below seabed). The sparker is towed from a boom arm off the side of the survey vessel and emits a downward pulse with a duration of 1 to 2 ms at an operating frequency of 50 to 5000 Hz.
Marine site characterization surveys will involve the following geotechnical survey activities:
• Sample boreholes to determine geological and geotechnical characteristics of sediments;
• Deep cone penetration tests (CPTs) to determine stratigraphy and in-situ conditions of the deep surface sediments;
• Shallow CPTs to determine stratigraphy and in-situ conditions of the near surface sediments; and
• Vibracoring to determine geological and geotechnical characteristics of the near surface sediments.
It is anticipated that the geotechnical surveys will take place no sooner than September 2016. The geotechnical survey program will consist of up to 4 deep sample bore holes and adjacent 4 deep CPTs both to a depth of approximately 131 ft to 164 ft (40 m to 50 m) below the seabed, as well as 15 shallow CPTs, and 15 adjacent vibracores, both up to 20 ft (6 m) below seabed.
The investigation activities are anticipated to be conducted from a 250-ft to 350-ft (76 m to 107 m) dynamically positioned (DP) drill ship. DP vessel thruster systems maintain their precise coordinates in waters through the use of automatic controls. These control systems use variable levels of power to counter forces from current and wind. Operations will take place over a 24-hour period to ensure cost, the duration of survey activities, and the period of potential impact on marine species are minimized. Based on 24-hour operations, the estimated duration of the geotechnical survey activities would be approximately 6 days excluding weather downtime. Estimated weather downtime is approximately 4 to 5 days.
Field studies conducted off the coast of Virginia (Tetra Tech, 2014; Kalapinski and Varnik, 2015) to determine the underwater noise produced by borehole drilling and CPTs confirm that these activities do not result in underwater noise levels that harmful or harassing to marine mammals (
There are 38 species of marine mammals that potentially occur in the Northwest Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region (BOEM, 2014) (Table 2). The majority of these species are pelagic and/or northern species, or are so rarely sighted that their presence in the Lease Area is unlikely. Six marine mammal species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are known to be present, at least seasonally, in the waters of Southern New England: blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale, and sperm whale. These species are highly migratory and do not spend extended periods of time in a localized area; the waters of Southern New England (including the Lease Area) are primarily used as a stopover point for these species during seasonal movements north or south between important feeding and breeding grounds. While the fin, humpback, and right whales have the potential to occur within the Lease Area, the sperm, blue, and sei whales are more pelagic and/or northern species, and though their presence within the Lease Area is possible, they are considered less common with regards to sightings. In particular, while sperm whales are known to occur occasionally in the region, their sightings are considered rare and thus their presence in the Lease Area at the time of the proposed activities is considered unlikely. Because the potential for sperm whale, blue whale, and sei whale to occur within the Lease Area during the marine survey period is unlikely, these species will not be described further in this analysis.
The following species are both common in the waters of the OCS south of Massachusetts and have the highest likelihood of occurring, at least seasonally, in the Lease Area: North Atlantic right whale (
Further information on the biology, ecology, abundance, and distribution of those species likely to occur in the Lease Area can be found in section 4 of the application, and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (see Waring
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Proposed 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.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's intensity and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a 10-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold increase in power). A 10-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being 10 times louder, however. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 μPa” and “re: 1 μPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels. This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.
HRG survey equipment use and use of the DP thruster during the geophysical and geotechnical surveys may temporarily impact marine mammals in the area due to elevated in-water sound levels. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. Naturally occurring sounds such as lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and biological sounds (
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
When sound travels (propagates) from its source, its loudness decreases as the distance traveled by the sound increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound at its source is higher than the loudness of that same sound a kilometer away. Acousticians often refer to the loudness of a sound at its source (typically referenced to one meter from the source) as the source level and the loudness of sound elsewhere as the received level (
As sound travels from a source, its propagation in water is influenced by various physical characteristics, including water temperature, depth, salinity, and surface and bottom properties that cause refraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering of sound waves. Oceans are not homogeneous and the contribution of each of these individual factors is extremely complex and interrelated. The physical characteristics that determine the sound's speed through the water will change with depth, season, geographic location, and with time of day (as a result, in actual active sonar operations, crews will measure oceanic conditions, such as sea water temperature and depth, to calibrate models that determine the path the sonar signal will take as it travels through the ocean and how strong the sound signal will be at a given range along a particular transmission path). As sound travels through the ocean, the intensity associated with the wavefront diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease in intensity is referred to as propagation loss, also commonly called transmission loss.
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal species (seven cetaceans and two pinnipeds) are likely to occur in the Lease Area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in the Lease Area, four are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine mammal; therefore, PTS-onset must be estimated from TTS-onset measurements and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS is presumed to be likely if the hearing threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB (that is, 40 dB of TTS). PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (
Scientific literature highlights the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney
Animals in the Lease Area during the HRG survey are unlikely to incur TTS hearing impairment due to the characteristics of the sound sources, which include low source levels (208 to 221 dB re 1 µPa-m) and generally very short pulses and duration of the sound. Even for high-frequency cetacean species (
It is possible that animals in the Lease Area may experience TTS during the use of DP vessel thrusters during the geotechnical survey due to the duration and nature of the noise (continuous, up to 6 days). However, the fact that the DP drill ship is stationary during the geotechnical survey activities makes it less likely that animals would remain in the area long enough to incur TTS. As is the case for the HRG survey activities, animals may avoid the area around the survey vessel, thereby reducing exposure. Any disturbance to marine mammals is more likely to be in the form of temporary avoidance or alteration of opportunistic foraging behavior near the survey location.
Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest to an animal by other sounds, typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are highly dependent on
Background sound may also include anthropogenic sound, and masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high (
Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, this would reduce the size of the area around that whale within which it can hear the calls of another whale. The components of background noise that are similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily determine the degree of masking of that signal. In general, little is known about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of sounds from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In the absence of specific information about the importance of detecting these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of masking on marine mammals (Richardson
Marine mammal communications would not likely be masked appreciably by the sub-profiler or pingers' signals given the directionality of the signal and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. And while continuous sound from the DP thruster when in use is predicted to extend 3.4 km to the 120 dB threshold, the generally short duration of DP thruster use and low source levels, coupled with the likelihood of animals to avoid the sound source, would result in very little opportunity for this activity to mask the communication of local marine mammals for more than a brief period of time.
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 sometimes 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 effect on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal 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, virtually all neuro-endocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. 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 can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. 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, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic function, which impairs 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. When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (Seyle, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiments; 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
Studies of other marine animals and terrestrial animals would also lead us to expect some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as “distress” upon exposure to high frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency sounds. For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (for example, elevated respiration and increased heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. Trimper
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment and to communicate with conspecifics. Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, it seems reasonable to assume that reducing an animal's ability to gather information about its environment and to communicate with other members of its species would be stressful for animals that use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress responses because terrestrial animals exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), we also assume that stress responses are likely to persist beyond the time interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral responses to TTS.
In general, there are few data on 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
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound, etc. (Southall
Southall
In the Southall
The studies that address responses of low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several types of sound sources, including: vessel noise, drilling and machinery playback, low-frequency M-sequences (sine wave with multiple phase reversals) playback, tactical low-frequency active sonar playback, drill ships, and non-pulse playbacks. These studies generally indicate no (or very limited) responses to received levels in the 90 to 120 dB re: 1µPa range and an increasing likelihood of avoidance and other behavioral effects in the 120 to 160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, though, contextual variables play a very important role in the reported responses and the severity of effects do not increase linearly with received levels. Also, few of the laboratory or field datasets had common conditions, behavioral contexts, or sound sources, so it is not surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, Acoustic harassment devices (AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), mid-frequency active sonar, and non-pulse bands and tones. Southall
The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor porpoises. Southall
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: AHDs, various non-pulse sounds used in underwater data communication, underwater drilling, and construction noise. Few studies exist with enough information to include them in the analysis. The limited data suggest that exposures to non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 dB generally do not result in strong behavioral responses of pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at higher received levels (Southall
The studies that address the responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to impulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources, including: small explosives, airgun arrays, pulse sequences, and natural and artificial pulses. The data show no clear indication of increasing probability and severity of response with increasing received level. Behavioral responses seem to vary depending on species and stimuli. Data on behavioral responses of high-frequency cetaceans to multiple pulses is not available.
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to impulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several different sources, including: small explosives, impact pile driving, and airgun arrays. Quantitative data on reactions of pinnipeds to impulse sounds is limited, but a general finding is that exposures in the 150 to 180 dB range generally have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior (Southall
Marine mammals are likely to avoid the HRG survey activity, especially the naturally shy harbor porpoise, while the harbor seals might be attracted to them out of curiosity. However, because the sub-bottom profilers and other HRG survey equipment operate from a moving vessel, and the maximum radius to the 160 dB harassment threshold is less than 400 m, the area and time that this equipment would be affecting a given location is very small. Further, once an area has been surveyed, it is not likely that it will be surveyed again, therefore reducing the likelihood of repeated HRG-related impacts within the survey area. And while the drill ship using DP thrusters will generally remain stationary during geotechnical survey activities, the short duration (up to six days) of the DP thruster use would likely result in only short-term and temporary avoidance of the area, rather than permanent abandonment, by marine mammals. Vessel traffic in the project area is relatively high and marine mammals are presumably habituated to noise from project vessels (DP thrusters).
We have also considered the potential for severe behavioral responses such as stranding and associated indirect injury or mortality from DONG Energy's use of HRG survey equipment, on the basis of a 2008 mass stranding of approximately one hundred melon-headed whales in a Madagascar lagoon system. An investigation of the event indicated that use of a high-frequency mapping system (12-kHz multibeam echosounder) was the most plausible and likely initial behavioral trigger of the event, while providing the caveat that there is no unequivocal and easily identifiable single cause (Southall
Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industrial activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many kilometers. However, other studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent response to industrial activities of various types (Miller
Ship strikes of marine mammals 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
There are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR part 224 designated the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) for right whales in 2008. Mandatory vessel speed restrictions are in place in that SMA from November 1 through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.
Bottom disturbance associated with the HRG survey activities may include grab sampling to validate the seabed classification obtained from the multibeam echosounder/sidescan sonar data. This will typically be accomplished using a Mini-Harmon Grab with 0.1 m
Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources (
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).
With NMFS' input during the application process, and as per the BOEM Lease, DONG Energy is proposing the following mitigation measures during site characterization surveys utilizing HRG survey equipment and use of the DP thruster. The mitigation measures outlined in this section are based on protocols and procedures that have been successfully implemented and resulted in no observed take of marine mammals for similar offshore projects and previously approved by NMFS (ESS, 2013; Dominion, 2013 and 2014).
Protected species observers (PSOs) will monitor the following exclusion/monitoring zones for the presence of marine mammals:
• A 400-m exclusion zone during HRG surveys when the sub-bottom profiler is in operation (this exceeds the estimated Level B harassment isopleth).
• A 200-m exclusion zone during HRG surveys when all other equipment (
• A 3,500-m monitoring zone during the use of DP thrusters during geotechnical survey activities (this exceeds the Level B harassment isopleth).
The radial distances from the sound sources for these exclusion/monitoring
Visual monitoring of the established exclusion zone(s) for the HRG and geotechnical surveys will be performed by qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Observer qualifications will include direct field experience on a marine mammal observation vessel and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. An observer team comprising a minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs and two certified Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) operators (PAM operators will not function as PSOs), operating in shifts, will be stationed aboard either the survey vessel or a dedicated PSO-vessel. PSOs and PAM operators will work in shifts such that no one monitor will work more than 4 consecutive hours without a 2-hour break or longer than 12 hours during any 24-hour period. During daylight hours the PSOs will rotate in shifts of 1 on and 3 off, while during nighttime operations PSOs will work in pairs. The PAM operators will also be on call as necessary during daytime operations should visual observations become impaired. Each PSO will monitor 360 degrees of the field of vision.
PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or within the established exclusion zone(s) during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine
PSOs will be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or exclusion zone using range finders. Reticulated binoculars will also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the siting and monitoring of marine species. Digital single-lens reflex camera equipment will be used to record sightings and verify species identification. During night operations, PAM (see
The PSOs will begin observation of the exclusion zone(s) at least 60 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG survey equipment. Use of noise-producing equipment will not begin until the exclusion zone is clear of all marine mammals for at least 60 minutes, as per the requirements of the BOEM Lease.
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the 200-m or 400-m exclusion zones during the HRG survey, or the 3,500-m monitoring zone during DP thrusters use, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown (during HRG survey) or powerdown (during DP thruster use) procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals.
At all times, the vessel operator will maintain a separation distance of 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale as stipulated in the
The Applicant will ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain a vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and slow down or stop their vessels to avoid striking these species. Survey vessel crew members responsible for navigation duties will receive site-specific training on marine mammal and sea turtle sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures will include the following, except under extraordinary circumstances when complying with these requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
• All vessel operators will comply with 10 knot (<18.5 km per hour [km/h]) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Area (DMA). In addition, all vessels operating from November 1 through July 31 will operate at speeds of 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less.
• All survey vessels will maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale.
• If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sited North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance has been established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sited in a vessel's path, or within 100 m to an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines will not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 100 m.
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 100 m or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid (
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m or greater from any sighted delphinoid cetacean. Any vessel underway will remain parallel to a sighted delphinoid cetacean's course whenever possible, and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction. Any vessel underway reduces vessel speed to 10 knots or less when pods (including mother/calf pairs) or large assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are observed. Vessels may not adjust course and speed until the delphinoid cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m and/or abeam (
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or greater from any sighted pinniped.
The training program will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of surveys. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify that the crew members understand and will comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey event.
Between watch shifts, members of the monitoring team will consult the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the presence of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations. The proposed survey activities will, however, occur outside of the seasonal management area (SMA) located off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The proposed survey activities will also occur in May/June and September, which is outside of the seasonal mandatory speed restriction period for this SMA (November 1 through April 30).
Throughout all survey operations, the Applicant will monitor the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the Lease Area under survey, within 24 hours of the establishment of the DMA the Applicant will work with NMFS to shut down and/or alter the survey activities to avoid the DMA.
As per the BOEM Lease, alternative monitoring technologies (
As per the BOEM Lease, a ramp-up procedure will be used for HRG survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of HRG survey activities. A ramp-up procedure will be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the Lease Area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment use. The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated during daytime, night time, or periods of inclement weather if the exclusion zone cannot be adequately monitored by the PSOs using the appropriate visual technology (
As per the BOEM Lease, if a non-delphinoid (
As per the BOEM Lease, if a delphinoid cetacean or pinniped is detected at or within the exclusion zone, the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) must be powered down to the lowest power output that is technically feasible. Subsequent power up of the survey equipment must use the ramp-up procedures described above and may occur after (1) the exclusion zone is clear of a delphinoid cetacean and/or pinniped for 60 minutes or (2) a determination by the PSO after a minimum of 10 minutes of observation that the delphinoid cetacean or pinniped is approaching the vessel or towed equipment at a speed and vector that indicates voluntary approach to bow-ride or chase towed equipment.
If the HRG sound source (including the sub-bottom profiler) shuts down for reasons other than encroachment into the exclusion zone by a marine mammal including but not limited to a mechanical or electronic failure, resulting in in the cessation of sound source for a period greater than 20 minutes, a restart for the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone of all cetaceans and pinnipeds for 60 minutes. If the pause is less than 20 minutes, the equipment may be restarted as soon as practicable at its operational level as long as visual surveys were continued diligently throughout the silent period and the exclusion zone remained clear of cetaceans and pinnipeds. If the visual surveys were not continued diligently during the pause of 20 minutes or less, a restart of the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone for all cetaceans and pinnipeds for 60 minutes.
NMFS has carefully evaluated DONG Energy's mitigation 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 received levels of activities 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 received levels of activities 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 received levels of activities that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 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 our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an 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 ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action,
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
DONG Energy submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan as part of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
The PSOs will begin observation of the monitoring zone during all HRG survey activities and all geotechnical operations where DP thrusters are employed. Observations of the monitoring zone will continue throughout the survey activity and/or while DP thrusters are in use. PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or entering the established monitoring zone during survey activities.
Observations will take place from the highest available vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning will occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO will occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence.
Data on all PSO observations will be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements. This will
DONG Energy must conduct field verification of the exclusion zone (the 160 dB isopleth) for HRG survey equipment and the powerdown zone (the 120 dB isopleth) for DP thruster use for all equipment operating below 200 kHz. DONG Energy must take acoustic measurements at a minimum of two reference locations and in a manner that is sufficient to establish source level (peak at 1 meter) and distance to the 180 dB and 160 dB isopleths (the Level A and B harassment zones for HRG surveys) and 120 dB isopleth (the Level B harassment zone) for DP thruster use. Sound measurements must be taken at the reference locations at two depths (
DONG Energy may use the results from its field-verification efforts to request modification of the exclusion/monitoring zones for the HRG or geotechnical surveys. Any new exclusion/monitoring zone radius proposed by DONG Energy must be based on the most conservative measurements (
The Applicant will provide the following reports as necessary during survey activities:
• The Applicant will contact NMFS and BOEM within 24 hours of the commencement of survey activities and again within 24 hours of the completion of the activity.
• As per the BOEM Lease: Any observed significant behavioral reactions (
•
• 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. NMFS would work with DONG Energy to minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. DONG Energy would not resume activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that DONG Energy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that DONG Energy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
• Within 90 days after completion of the marine site characterization survey activities, a technical report will be provided to NMFS and BOEM that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the
• In addition to the Applicant's reporting requirements outlined above, the Applicant will provide an assessment report of the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques,
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].
Project activities that have the potential to harass marine mammals, as defined by the MMPA, include underwater noise from operation of the HRG survey sub-bottom profilers and equipment positioning systems, and noise propagation associated with the use of DP thrusters during geotechnical survey activities that require the use of a DP drill ship. Harassment could take the form of temporary threshold shift, avoidance, or other changes in marine mammal behavior. NMFS anticipates that impacts to marine mammals would be in the form of behavioral harassment and no take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is proposed. NMFS does not anticipate take resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds over a relatively shallow, nearshore area.
The basis for the take estimate is the number of marine mammals that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of NMFS' Level B harassment criteria for impulsive noise (160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and continuous noise (120 dB re 1 μPa (rms.)). NMFS' current acoustic exposure criteria for estimating take are shown in Table 6 below. DONG Energy's modeled distances to these acoustic exposure criteria are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Details on the model characteristics and results are provided in the hydroacoustic modeling assessment found in Appendix A of the DONG Energy IHA application. As discussed in the application and in Appendix A, modeling took into consideration sound sources using the loudest potential operational parameters, bathymetry, geoacoustic properties of the Lease Area, time of year, and marine mammal hearing ranges. Results from the hydroacoustic modeling assessment showed that estimated maximum critical distance to the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) MMPA threshold for all water depths for the HRG survey sub-bottom profilers (the HRG survey equipment with the greatest potential for effect on marine mammal) was approximately 380 m from the source (see Table 4), and the estimated maximum critical distance to the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) MMPA threshold for all water depths for the drill ship DP thruster was approximately 3,400 m from the source (see Table 5). DONG Energy and NMFS believe that these estimates represent the worst-case scenario and that the actual distances to the Level B harassment threshold may be shorter.
DONG Energy estimated species densities within the proposed project area in order to estimate the number of marine mammal exposures to sound levels above the 120 dB Level B harassment threshold for continuous noise (
The data used as the basis for estimating species density (“D”) for the Lease Area are sightings per unit effort (SPUE) taken from Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2009). SPUE (or, the relative abundance of species) is derived by using a measure of survey effort and number of individual cetaceans sighted. Species density (animals per km
The Northeast Navy Operations Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) were also used in support for estimating take for seals, which represents the only available comprehensive data for seal abundance. However, abundance estimates for the
Estimated takes were calculated by multiplying the species density (per 100 km
DONG Energy used a ZOI of 23.6 m
DONG Energy used a ZOI of 9.8 m
DONG Energy's requested take numbers are provided in Tables 6 and 7 and this is also the number of takes NMFS is proposing to authorize. DONG Energy's calculations do not take into account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Tables 6 and 7 are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during the HRG and geotechnical surveys (
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
As discussed in the “Potential Effects” section, permanent threshold shift, masking, non-auditory physical effects, and vessel strike are not expected to occur. There is some potential for limited TTS; however, animals in the area would likely incur no more than brief hearing impairment (
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the “Anticipated Effects on Habitat” section). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels and some sediment disturbance, but these impacts would be temporary. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted, as marine mammals appear to be less likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or avoidance responses while engaged in feeding activities (Richardson
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by (1) giving animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy; (2) reducing the intensity of exposure within a certain distance by reducing the DP thruster power; and (3) preventing animals from being exposed to sound levels reaching 180 dB during HRG survey activities (sound levels in excess of 180 dB are not anticipated for DP thruster use). Additional vessel strike avoidance requirements will further mitigate potential impacts to marine mammals during vessel transit to and within the Study Area.
DONG Energy did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take of marine mammals by injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that most takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling reaction and/or temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring)—reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to DONG Energy's HRG and geotechnical survey activities would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) and relatively infrequent effects to individuals exposed, and not of the type or severity that would be expected to be additive for the very small portion of the stocks and species likely to be exposed. Given the duration and intensity of the activities, and the fact that shipping contributes to the ambient sound levels in the surrounding waters (vessel traffic in this area is relatively high; some marine mammals may be habituated to this noise), NMFS does not anticipate the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success, are not expected.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from DONG Energy's proposed HRG survey and DP thruster use during geotechnical survey activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The requested takes proposed to be authorized for the HRG and geotechnical surveys represent 0.215 percent of the Western North Atlantic (WNA) stock of North Atlantic right
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Within the project area, fin, humpback, and North Atlantic right whale are listed as endangered under the ESA. Under section 7 of the ESA, BOEM consulted with NMFS on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. NOAA's GARFO issued a Biological Opinion concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale, humpback whale, or North Atlantic right whale. NMFS is also consulting internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Following issuance of the DONG Energy IHA, the Biological Opinion may be amended to include an incidental take exemption for these marine mammal species, as appropriate.
BOEM prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to evaluate the issuance of wind energy leases covering the entirety of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (including the OCS-A 0500 Lease Area), and the approval of site assessment activities within those leases (BOEM, 2014). NMFS intends to adopt BOEM's EA, if adequate and appropriate. Currently, we believe that the adoption of BOEM's EA will allow NMFS to meet its responsibilities under NEPA for the issuance of an IHA to DONG Energy for HRG and geotechnical survey investigations in the Lease Area. If necessary, however, NMFS will supplement the existing analysis to ensure that we comply with NEPA prior to the issuance of the final IHA. BOEM's EA is available on the Internet at:
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to DONG Energy for HRG survey activities and use of DP vessel thrusters during geotechnical survey activities from May 2016 through April 2017, 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).
DONG Energy Massachusetts (U.S.) LLC (DONG Energy) (One International Place, 100 Oliver Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA 02110) is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 216.107, to harass marine mammals incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500) (the Lease Area).
1. This Authorization is valid from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017.
2. This Authorization is valid only for HRG and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities, as described in the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) application.
3. The holder of this authorization (Holder) is hereby authorized to take, by Level B harassment only, 33 Atlantic white-sided dolphins (
4. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this IHA must be reported immediately to NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276; phone 978-281-9300, and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 301-427-8401.
5. The Holder or designees must notify NMFS' GARFO and Headquarters at least 24 hours prior to the seasonal commencement of the specified activity (see contact information in 4 above).
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 24 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 301-427-8401 or to
7. Mitigation Requirements
The Holder is required to abide by the following mitigation conditions listed in 7(a)-(f). Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(a)
• A 400-m exclusion zone during HRG surveys when the sub-bottom profiler is in operation.
• A 200-m exclusion zone during HRG surveys when all other equipment (
• A 3,500-m monitoring zone during the use of DP thrusters during geotechnical survey.
• At all times, the vessel operator shall maintain a separation distance of 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale as stipulated in the
Visual monitoring of the established exclusion zone(s) shall be performed by
(b)
(c)
(d)
• All vessel operators shall comply with 10 knot (<18.5 km per hour [km/h]) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Area (DMA). In addition, all vessels operating from November 1 through July 31 shall operate at speeds of 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less.
• All survey vessels shall maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale.
• If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sited North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance has been established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sited in a vessel's path, or within 100 m to an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines shall not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 100 m.
• All vessels shall maintain a separation distance of 100 m or greater
• All vessels shall maintain a separation distance of 50 m or greater from any sighted delphinoid cetacean. Any vessel underway shall remain parallel to a sighted delphinoid cetacean's course whenever possible, and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction. Any vessel underway shall reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when pods (including mother/calf pairs) or large assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are observed. Vessels may not adjust course and speed until the delphinoid cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m and/or abeam of the underway vessel.
• All vessels shall maintain a separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or greater from any sighted pinniped.
(e)
(f)
The PAM system shall consist of an array of hydrophones with both broadband (sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 kHz to 200 kHz) and at least one low-frequency hydrophone (sampling range frequencies of 10 Hz to 30 kHz). The PAM operator(s) shall monitor the hydrophone signals in real time both aurally (using headphones) and visually (via the monitor screen displays). PAM operators shall communicate detections/vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty who shall ensure the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure.
8. Monitoring Requirements
The Holder is required to abide by the following monitoring conditions listed in 8(a)-(b). Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(a)
(b)
9. Reporting Requirements
The Holder shall provide the following reports as necessary during survey activities:
(a) The Holder shall contact NMFS (301-427-8401) and BOEM (703-787-1300) within 24 hours of the commencement of survey activities and again within 24 hours of the completion of the activity.
(b) Any observed significant behavioral reactions (
Additional reporting requirements for injured or dead animals are described
(c)
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified HRG and geotechnical survey activities lead 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 shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the event. NMFS would work with the Holder to minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. The Holder shall not resume activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iii) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
(d) Within 90 days after completion of the marine site characterization survey activities, a technical report shall be provided to NMFS and BOEM that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, and provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. Any recommendations made by NMFS shall be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
(e) In addition to the Holder's reporting requirements outlined above, the Holder shall provide an assessment report of the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques,
10. This Authorization may be modified, suspended, or withdrawn if the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
11. A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement must be in the possession of each vessel operator taking marine mammals under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
12. The Holder is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for DONG Energy's proposed high-resolution geophysical and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0500). Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on DONG Energy's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow one commercial fishing vessel to fish outside of the limited access scallop regulations in support of research conducted by the National Fisheries Institute that is investigating scallop incidental mortality in the scallop dredge fishery.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2016.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on DA16-013 NFI Incidental Discard Mortality EFP.”
• Fax: (978) 281-9135.
Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
NOAA awarded the National Fisheries Institue (NFI) a grant through the 2014 Atlantic sea scallop research set-aside program in support of a project titled, “Determining Incidental Discard Mortality of Atlantic Sea Scallops,
The project would conduct dredging activities to assess the incidental mortality of scallops passing through the 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings of a 12-foot (4.57-m) Turtle Deflector Dredge on sandy and hard (gravel) substrates. Dredging would be conducted over approximately two DAS during the proposed period of May 2016 through June 2016. All dredging would occur in open access scallop fishing areas off the coast of New Jersey. A total of 20 scallop tows would be conducted (10 tows per substrate). Each tow would be made at depths of 18 to 25 fathoms (32.92 to 45.72 m) for a duration of 40 minutes. The scallop vessel would fish two dredges simultaneously. One dredge would use an experimental net bag cover and the other would fish with an industry standard 12-foot (4.57-m) turtle excluder dredge. The experimental cover is constructed of 1
All scallops that filter through the 4-inch (10.16-cm) rings and into the mesh bag would be measured for shell height and assessed for damage to the shell in one of three categories: Not injured; sub-lethal (repairable); or lethal (non-repairable). After all scallops are assessed, they would be returned to the ocean bottom as soon as practicable. The researchers would then use this information to estimate the proportion of scallops in each injury category. The weight of scallop catch retained in the 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bags of both dredges would be estimated by the captain. Researchers would take shell measurements of a subsample of 50 scallops per tow per dredge to determine size selectivity within each dredge. All other bycatch in the experimental net bag would be sorted, the captain would estimate the weights, and researchers would measure a minimum of 25 lengths per individual species. No catch would be landed for sale.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The Exempted Fishing Permit would allow a commercial fishing vessel to fish outside of the limited access scallop regulations in support of research conducted by the Coonamessett Farm Foundation. The exemptions are in support of gear research designed to reduce flatfish bycatch in the limited access general category scallop fishery.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2016.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on CFF LAGC Modified Sweep EFP.”
• Fax: (978) 281-9135.
Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) has submitted a proposal titled “Determining the Impacts of Dredge Bag Modifications on Flatfish Bycatch in the LAGC Scallop Fishery,” that has been favorably reviewed and is pending final approval by NOAA's Grants Management Division under the 2016
One vessel would conduct scallop dredging in June 2016-April 2017, on about 25 trips lasting approximately one day-at-sea (DAS) each for a project total of 25 DAS. The first trip would be comprised of shorter tow durations and serve as a calibration day for the underwater video equipment to determine the correct configuration on the dredge that would be used on each of the following trips. All other trips would complete approximately six tows per day for a maximum duration of 90 minutes at a tow speed of 4.2 knots. Trips would take place in the Southern New England Dredge Exemption Area where part of the LAGC fleet normally operates.
All tows would be conducted using a single 9-foot (2.74-m) dredge following an alternate paired tow strategy where a pair consists of one control and one experimental tow. Researchers would attach the two 6- to 7-foot (1.83- to 2.13-m) cookie sweeps to each of the outer bale bars using chain and shackles for the experimental tows and then remove them for the control tows. The cookie sweeps would be constructed of round rubber disks with no larger than a 3-inch (7.62-cm) diameter, and the attachment chains would be evenly spaced and varied in length to account for dredge position while being towed to ensure contact with the ocean bottom. Exemption from the dredge gear obstruction regulation would allow researchers to use the cookie sweep for the experimental tows.
Researchers would weigh all scallop catch in industry bushel baskets caught in both dredges and a one basket sub-sample from each dredge would be measured in 5-mm increments. Total weight of bycatch species and individual measurements to the nearest centimeter would also be obtained by the researcher. If the volume of the catch is large, subsampling protocols would be necessary. All bycatch would be returned to the sea as soon as practicable following data collection. Exemption from possession limit and minimum sizes would support catch sampling activities, and ensure the vessel is not in conflict with possession regulations while collecting catch data. All catch above a possession limit or below a minimum size would be discarded as soon as practicable following data collection. Exempting the vessel from the sea scallop observer program requirements would allow researchers flexibility for catch sampling timing and space accommodations since vessels in the LAGC fleet are typically smaller with limited deck space.
All research trips would otherwise be conducted in a manner consistent with normal commercial fishing conditions and catch consistent with the LAGC daily possession limit would be retained for sale.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 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 in OMB, within 30 days of publication of the notice, 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
Sonda R. Owens, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5182; fax: (202) 418-5414; 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 OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The
44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Community Bank Advisory Council (CBAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the meeting is permitted by section 9 of the CBAC Charter and is intended to notify the public of this meeting. Specifically, section 9(d) of the CBAC Charter states:
(1) Each meeting of the Council shall be open to public observation, to the extent that a facility is available to accommodate the public, unless the Bureau, in accordance with paragraph (4) of this section, determines that the meeting shall be closed. The Bureau also will make reasonable efforts to make the meetings available to the public through live recording. (2) Notice of the time, place and purpose of each meeting, as well as a summary of the proposed agenda, shall be published in the
The meeting date is Thursday, April 21, 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight time.
The meeting location is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, Advisory Board and Councils Office, External Affairs, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at 202-435-9588.
Section 2 of the CBAC Charter provides: “Pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) by section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Community Bank Advisory Council to consult with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to community banks with total assets of $10 billion or less.”
Section 3 of the CBAC Charter states: (“a) The CFPB supervises depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of more than $10 billion and their respective affiliates, but other than the limited authority conferred by § 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB does not have supervisory authority regarding credit unions and depository institutions with total assets of $10 billion or less. As a result, the CFPB does not have regular contact with these institutions, and it would therefore be beneficial to create a mechanism to ensure that their unique perspectives are shared with the Bureau. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panels provide one avenue to gather this input, but participants from community banks must possess no more than $175 million in assets, which precludes the participation of many. (b) The Advisory Council shall fill this gap by providing an interactive dialogue and exchange of ideas and experiences between community bankers and Bureau staff. (c) The Advisory Council shall advise generally on the Bureau's regulation of consumer financial products or services and other topics assigned to it by the Director. To carry out the Advisory Council's purpose, the scope of its activities shall include providing information, analysis, and recommendations to the Bureau. The output of Advisory Council meetings should serve to better inform the CFPB's policy development, rulemaking, and engagement functions.”
The Community Bank Advisory Council will discuss the CFPB strategic outlook and elder financial abuse.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Community Bank Advisory Council meeting must RSVP to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Wednesday,
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
DoD.
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Business Board. This meeting is open to the public.
The public meeting of the Defense Business Board (“the Board”) will be held on Thursday, April 21, 2016. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 11:40 a.m. (Escort required; see guidance in the
Room 3E863 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC (Escort required; See guidance in the
The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) is Roma Laster, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.
Purpose of the Meeting: The Board will receive presentations from its task groups on
The mission of the Board is to examine and advise the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance. The Board provides independent advice which reflects an outside private sector perspective on proven and effective best business practices that can be applied to the DoD.
Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda and the terms of reference for each Task Group study may be obtained from the Board's Web site at
Meeting Agenda:
Submission of written public comments is strongly encouraged, due to meeting time constraints.
Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Steven Cruddas at the number listed in the
Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Steven Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Board about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting.
Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the email address for public comments given in the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Braden Goetz, 202-245-7405.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork
President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Office of Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the April 18, 2016, meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (PBA) and provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments and on the process as to how to request time to make oral comments at the meeting. The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required by § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.
The PBA meeting will be held on April 18, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. E.D.T. at NASA Research & Education Support Services, 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 in Arlington, Virginia 22202.
U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202.
Sedika Franklin, Associate Director, U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20204; telephone: (202) 453-5634 or (202) 453-5630, fax: (202) 453-5632, or email
The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.
All oral comments made will become part of the official record of the Board. Similarly, written materials distributed during oral presentations will become part of the official record of the meeting.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Presidential Executive Order 13532, continued by Executive Order 13708.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 6, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 6, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Herman Bounds, 202-453-6128.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The proposed information collection includes two items—a letter and an Excel spreadsheet. The Accreditor Letter on Terminology and Reporting is a draft of a letter the Department plans to send to accrediting agencies to clarify the information those agencies should submit to the Department. The excel spreadsheet is the mechanism through which the Department proposes agencies submit the information. Agencies are invited to review both items and provide comment to improve their clarity and usefulness. The Department will consider public comment and make revisions as necessary before issuing final versions.
This data is required to demonstrate compliance with criteria at 34 CFR part 602; State agencies for the approval of vocational education to demonstrate compliance with the criteria at 34 CFR part 603; State agencies for the approval of nurse education to demonstrate compliance with the criteria published in the 1969
Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is implementing a consent-based siting process to establish an integrated waste management system to transport, store, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In a consent-based siting approach, DOE will work with communities, tribal governments and states across the country that express interest in hosting any of the facilities identified as part of an integrated waste management system. As part of this process, the Department is hosting a series of public meetings to engage communities and individuals and discuss the development of a consent-based approach to managing our nation's nuclear waste. A public meeting will be held in Minneapolis on July 21, 2016.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, July 21, 2016 from 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Hilton Minneapolis, 1001 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403. To register for this meeting and to review the agenda for the meeting, please go to
Requests for further information should be sent to
If you are unable to attend a public meeting or would like to further discuss ideas for consent-based siting, please request an opportunity for us to speak with you. The Department will do its best to accommodate such requests and help arrange additional opportunities to engage. To learn more about nuclear energy, nuclear waste, and ongoing technical work please go to
National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Record of Decision.
On May 8, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
DOE/NNSA is announcing a decision to implement its Preferred Alternative for the disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium, as described in DOE/NNSA's
The scope of DOE/NNSA's current decision pertains only to the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium that is a subset of the 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium considered in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. DOE/NNSA does not have a preferred alternative and is not making any decisions, at the present time, for other alternatives considered in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. These other alternatives include alternatives for the disposition of 7.1 MT of surplus pit plutonium for which a disposition path is not assigned and various options for providing the capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert the plutonium from pits into a form suitable for disposition.
Additionally, DOE/NNSA reaffirms its commitment to the
For further information on the surplus plutonium disposition program, please contact Ms. Sachiko W. McAlhany, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy at
For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
This Record of Decision, the Final SPD Supplemental EIS, and related NEPA documents are available at
DOE/NNSA's purpose and need for action remains as stated in the 1999
Based on a series of NEPA reviews beginning with the
In the Final SPD Supplemental EIS, DOE/NNSA analyzed the potential environmental impacts for the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for disposition of 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium that do not have a disposition path assigned, of which the 6 MT of non-pit plutonium is a subset. These four alternatives are: (1) Immobilization at SRS (Immobilization to Defense Waste Processing Facility [DWPF] Alternative); (2) fabrication into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at SRS with subsequent irradiation in one or more domestic commercial nuclear power reactors (MOX Fuel Alternative); (3) vitrification with high-level radioactive waste (HLW) at SRS (H-Canyon/HB-Line and DWPF Alternative); and, (4) potential disposal as contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste at WIPP (WIPP Disposal Alternative). These alternatives are composed of a combination of pit disassembly and conversion options and plutonium disposition options. The plutonium disposition options that are applicable to the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium are described in Section S.9.2 of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS (DOE/EIS-0283-S2, April 2015). For the Final SPD Supplemental EIS, the scope of analysis for the WIPP Disposal Alternative was increased, in response to public comment, to include the full 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium for which a disposition path is not assigned. In the Draft SPD Supplemental EIS, the scope of analysis for the WIPP Disposal Alternative was limited to 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium (described in Section S.8.2.4 of DOE/EIS-0283-S2, July 2012). The disposition decision announced today addresses 6 MT of surplus, weapons-usable, non-pit plutonium, not the entire 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium analyzed in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS.
Within each action alternative, DOE/NNSA evaluated options to disassemble nuclear weapons pits and convert the plutonium metal to an oxide form for disposition. DOE/NNSA has not identified a Preferred Alternative for the disposition of the remaining 7.1 MT of surplus plutonium (surplus pit plutonium) for which a disposition path has not been assigned, or for any option(s) for providing the capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert the plutonium from pits to a form suitable for disposition. Once DOE/NNSA identifies a Preferred Alternative for the remaining 7.1 MT of surplus pit plutonium and/or the disassembly and conversion options, DOE/NNSA will announce its preference in a
As announced on December 24, 2015, in a
After considering the potential impacts on each resource area, DOE/NNSA identified the No Action Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative in the near-term, for the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium evaluated in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS and that is the subject of this Record of Decision. Under the No Action Alternative, the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium would be stored at the K-Area Complex at SRS, consistent with the 2002
For each alternative, the SPD Supplemental EIS analyzed the potential impacts on air quality, human health, socioeconomics, waste management, transportation, environmental justice, land resources, geology and soils, water resources, noise, ecological resources, cultural resources, and infrastructure. DOE/NNSA also evaluated the potential impacts of the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, the short-term uses of the environment, and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. These analyses and results for the entire 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium are described in the Summary and Chapter 4 of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. Table S-3 of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS Summary provides a summary of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative as well as a means for comparing the potential impacts among alternatives.
In the Draft SPD Supplemental EIS, the scope of analysis for the WIPP Disposal Alternative was limited to 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium (described in Section S.8.2.4 of DOE/EIS-0283-S2, July 2012). The analyses and results for the disposition of 6 MT can be found in the Summary, Chapter 4, and Appendix G “Impacts of Plutonium Disposition Options” of the Draft SPD Supplemental EIS.
In identifying its Preferred Alternative for disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium and making the decision announced in this Record of Decision, DOE/NNSA considered the potential environmental impacts that would result from operations conducted at SRS to prepare and package this quantity (6 MT) of material for disposition at WIPP, those related to transporting the material from SRS to WIPP, and disposal at WIPP. Implementing the WIPP Disposal Alternative relies on existing facilities, structures and pads at SRS to prepare the surplus non-pit plutonium for disposal. This would reduce the potential for additional land disturbance, and reduce the need for additional deactivation and decommissioning in the future. Some
The potential impacts from transporting surplus plutonium to WIPP are also addressed in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. The Final SPD Supplemental EIS indicated that under all alternatives (including the WIPP Disposal Alternative) no latent cancer fatalities are expected in the general public along the transportation routes and in the transportation crews due to incident-free transport of radioactive wastes and materials from SRS. The potential environmental impacts of TRU waste disposal at WIPP are evaluated in the
Since the announcement of the first notice of intent to prepare the SPD Supplemental EIS in 2007 (72 FR 14543), DOE/NNSA has provided three scoping periods during which DOE/NNSA held public scoping meetings and actively solicited scoping comments from Federal agencies, state and local governmental entities, American Indian tribal governments, and members of the public. The public scoping periods extended from March 28, 2007 through May 29, 2007; July 19, 2010 through September 17, 2010; and January 12, 2012 through March 12, 2012. Meetings were held in Aiken, Columbia, and North Augusta, South Carolina; Tanner, Alabama; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Carlsbad, Santa Fe, Espanola, and Pojoaque, New Mexico.
On July 27, 2012, EPA and DOE/NNSA published notices in the
DOE/NNSA received 432 comment documents containing approximately 1,050 comments during the comment period for the Draft SPD Supplemental EIS. DOE/NNSA responded to these comments in the Comment Response Document, Volume 3, of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS.
DOE/NNSA distributed the Final SPD Supplemental EIS to Congressional members and committees; State and local governments; other Federal agencies, culturally affiliated American Indian tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders including members of the public who requested the document. Also, the Final SPD Supplemental EIS was made available via the Internet.
On December 24, 2015, DOE/NNSA announced its Preferred Alternative in the
DOE/NNSA has decided to implement its Preferred Alternative as described in DOE/NNSA's
Under this alternative, the non-pit plutonium will be prepared for disposal in facilities at HB-Line or K-Area at SRS for disposal at WIPP. The non-pit plutonium containers will be opened in an existing glovebox or newly- constructed glovebox capability in HB-Line or K-Area. Plutonium metal will be converted to oxide. Plutonium oxide will be repackaged into suitable containers, mixed/blended with inert material and loaded into pipe overpack containers (POCs) or criticality control overpacks (CCOs). (DOE/NNSA plans to move toward the use of the CCO containers in lieu of the POC to maximize the amount of plutonium that can be packaged in each container, thereby reducing the number of shipments and volume emplaced at WIPP.) The inert material will be added to inhibit plutonium recovery. Loaded POCs or CCOs will be characterized for WIPP disposal in E-Area at SRS including non-destructive assay, digital radiography, and headspace gas sampling. Waste packages containing surplus plutonium that have been successfully characterized and meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria will be placed in the queue of waste to be shipped to WIPP after WIPP is operational. The packages will be shipped to WIPP in TRUPACT-II or HalfPACT shipping containers
Unirradiated Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) reactor fuel is included in this 6 MT of non-pit plutonium. If the FFTF fuel cannot be disposed of by direct disposal at WIPP, it will be disassembled at SRS and packaged for disposal at WIPP. H-Canyon at SRS will be used to disassemble the fuel bundles, remove the pellets from the fuel pins, and package the pellets into suitable containers. HB-Line or K-Area will be used to prepare and mix/blend the fuel pellet material with inert material, then package it for shipment to WIPP.
Disposition decisions announced in this Record of Decision address only the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium. DOE/NNSA has no Preferred Alternative at this time for the disposition of the remaining 7.1 MT of surplus plutonium from pits for which a disposition pathway has not been assigned, or for the capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert the plutonium from pits to a form suitable for disposition. Once a Preferred Alternative is identified, DOE/NNSA will announce its preference in a
In making its decision, DOE/NNSA considered potential environmental impacts of construction and operations, current and future mission needs, technical and security considerations, availability of resources, and public comments on the Draft and Final SPD Supplemental EIS, and the notice of Preferred Alternative. Implementing the WIPP Disposal Alternative for disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium allows DOE/NNSA to take advantage of existing facilities, infrastructure and expertise at SRS and WIPP. The decision builds on the existing capabilities, infrastructure, and skilled workforce trained in safe operation of nuclear facilities. Environmental impacts and costs (DOE (U.S. Department of Energy)
DOE/NNSA also considered acceptability of the surplus non-pit plutonium at WIPP and WIPP's performance in making this decision. DOE has previously disposed of similar surplus plutonium at WIPP from SRS, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and the Hanford Site (the Rocky Flats and Hanford materials were packaged and shipped directly from those sites). As was the case for previous SRS activities requiring the processing of surplus plutonium for disposal at WIPP, the surplus plutonium identified in this decision will be packaged to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria and all applicable regulatory requirements. Compliance with the WIPP waste acceptance criteria is one factor that will help ensure that any TRU waste emplaced in WIPP will not exceed the 40 CFR part 191 performance standards and will meet other applicable requirements. Additionally, the WIPP TRU waste inventory—which includes radionuclide activity—is revised annually and reviewed by DOE for compliance. DOE's currently projected WIPP TRU waste inventory with the addition of the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium suggests that WIPP would continue to comply with 40 CFR 191. These projections from the TRU Waste Inventory and other information are submitted every five years to the EPA, as part of the Compliance Recertification Application, under 40 CFR part 194,
Implementing the Preferred Alternative will allow the DOE/NNSA to continue its progress on the disposition of surplus weapon-usable plutonium in furtherance of the policies of the United States to ensure that surplus plutonium is never again readily used in a nuclear weapon, and to remove surplus plutonium from the State of South Carolina.
SRS facility operations would result in airborne emissions of various pollutants, including radionuclides, and organic and inorganic constituents. These emissions would continue to be controlled using Best Available Control Technology to ensure that emissions are compliant with applicable standards. Impacts would be controlled by use of glovebox confinement, packaging as applicable, building confinement and air filtration systems to remove radioactive particulates before discharging process exhaust air to the atmosphere, and internal scrubbers to reduce chemical gas concentrations. Occupational safety risks to workers would be limited by adherence to Federal and state laws; Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations; DOE/NNSA requirements including regulations and orders; and plans and procedures for performing work. DOE/NNSA facility operations adhere to programs to ensure the reduction of human health and safety impacts. Workers are protected from specific hazards by use of engineering and administrative controls, use of personal protective equipment, and monitoring and training. The Radiological Protection Program limits impacts by ensuring that radiological exposures and doses to all personnel are maintained As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) and by providing job specific instructions to the facility workers regarding the use of personal protective equipment. The Emergency Preparedness Program mitigates potential accident consequences by ensuring that appropriate organizations are available to respond to emergency situations and take appropriate actions to recover from accident events, while reducing the spread of contamination and protecting facility personnel and the public.
DOE/NNSA received eight letters and emails regarding the
In announcing its Preferred Alternative for the disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium, DOE/NNSA stated that it had no Preferred Alternative for other potential actions considered in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. Specifically, DOE/NNSA stated that it had no Preferred Alternative for the disposition of the remaining 7.1 MT of surplus plutonium from pits and that it did not have a Preferred Alternative among the pathways analyzed for providing the capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert the plutonium from pits to a form suitable for disposition. Further, some of the comments were beyond the scope of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS. DOE/NNSA did not address such comments.
DOE/NNSA received comments on the Final SPD Supplemental EIS and the notice of Preferred Alternative from The Governing Body of the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico; Shelly Wilson, Permitting and Federal Facilities Liaison of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Rick McLeod, Executive Director of the Savannah River Site Community Reuse
Topic A—National Environmental Policy Act Compliance: Commentors were concerned that analyses of the potential environmental impacts of processing, packaging, and disposal of surplus non-pit plutonium, which could include some quantity of “gap” plutonium retrieved from foreign countries, had not been performed as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and new or supplemental EISs should be prepared. A commentor also stated that in March 2015, President Obama authorized DOE to pursue a defense high level radioactive waste (HLW) repository; therefore, it is a reasonable alternative for defense surplus plutonium that must be considered, but is not included in the Storage and Disposition PEIS, nor the Draft or Final SPD Supplemental EIS.
Discussion: DOE believes sufficient information exists, including NEPA documentation, to support a Record of Decision for the disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium for which a disposition path was not assigned. DOE has completed appropriate tiered NEPA analyses related to the Surplus Plutonium Disposition program including the
DOE/NNSA's need to store and disposition surplus plutonium, in accordance with U.S. nonproliferation and export control policies in a safe, reliable, cost effective and timely manner, has not changed since the Storage and Disposition PEIS was prepared in 1996. DOE/NNSA did, however, become aware of new circumstances and information relevant to the 1999 SPD EIS that did warrant re-examination of some of the analyses provided in that NEPA document.
Consequently, the SPD Supplemental EIS was prepared in accordance with applicable Council on Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA regulations to examine the potential environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives for the disposition of 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium for which a disposition path was not assigned, including 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium. The SPD Supplemental EIS also analyzed options to provide the appropriate capability to disassemble surplus pits and convert surplus plutonium to a form suitable for disposition. In preparing the Final SPD Supplemental EIS, DOE/NNSA considered the analyses in the related NEPA documents identified above. The Final SPD Supplemental EIS addresses all of the relevant issues and analysis related to the proposed action and updates the analyses where necessary.
Appropriate NEPA analyses exist for processing 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium at SRS and transportation and disposal of the resulting CH-TRU waste at WIPP, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, a geologic repository for disposal of TRU waste generated by atomic energy defense activities. Chapter 4 and Appendix G of the SPD Supplemental EIS, describe the potential environmental impacts of plutonium disposition options, including preparing surplus non-pit plutonium at facilities at SRS for disposal at WIPP. Appendix E of the SPD Supplemental EIS, describes the potential environmental impacts of transportation of surplus plutonium for disposal at WIPP. Section 4.5.3.6.3, of the
Certain plutonium recovered from foreign sources may have originated from atomic energy defense activities. Up to 0.9 MT of such plutonium may be included in the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2 of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS in the event that the plutonium from foreign sources is received at SRS. Thus, the potential environmental impacts from the processing and disposition of surplus plutonium recovered from foreign countries, also referred to as “gap material plutonium”, through NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative are evaluated in the SPD Supplemental EIS. NEPA analysis for the transportation, receipt, and processing of gap material plutonium in preparation for disposition is provided in DOE/NNSA's
In President Obama's March 24, 2015, “
This Record of Decision summarizes how DOE/NNSA intends to prepare the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium for disposition at WIPP. For additional information, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4, and Appendix B, Section B.1.3, of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS describe how plutonium would be blended with inert materials and packaged at SRS. Blending these types of materials for disposal at WIPP is a proven process that is ongoing at SRS for disposition of plutonium material from the DOE-STD-3013 surveillance process and other non-pit plutonium. Implementing the WIPP Disposal Alternative for this surplus non-pit plutonium relies on existing SRS facilities (with additional glovebox capability in an existing facility), structures, and pads to prepare the material for disposal. Surplus non-pit plutonium would be prepared and packaged at SRS using H-Canyon/HB-line and/or K-Area Complex facilities and would be temporarily stored in E-Area at SRS until shipped to WIPP. DOE/NNSA's assumptions associated with the schedule for equipping and operating facilities at SRS are described in Table B-2 in the
This Record of Decision identifies DOE/NNSA's intent to place the 6 MT of non-pit plutonium in POCs or CCOs for disposition following its conversion to plutonium oxide and blending with inert materials. (DOE/NNSA plans to move toward the use of the CCO containers in lieu of the POC to maximize the amount of plutonium that can be packaged in each container, thereby reducing the number of shipments and
The details of the inert materials with which plutonium would be blended and applicable safeguards for the plutonium are classified or official use only. The termination of safeguards process is part of DOE/NNSA's Material Control and Accountability Program and is outside the scope of the Final SPD Supplemental EIS and this Record of Decision.
A schedule for shipment of the 6 MT of plutonium to WIPP has not been established (limited waste emplacement operations at WIPP are expected to commence in late 2016). Shipments of this surplus non-pit plutonium to WIPP, after it is operational, will placed in the queue of waste to be shipped to WIPP.
The estimate of unsubscribed disposal capacity in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS was made using DOE's Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report for 2012. The TRU waste volumes reported in the Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Reports are based on final (containerized) TRU waste forms. Projections from the Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Reports for 2014 and 2015, suggests that although TRU waste disposal projections vary somewhat from year to year, the information in these documents would not change the conclusions reached in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS.
All of the TRU waste projected from the activities addressed in the Final SPD Supplemental EIS is expected to be CH-TRU waste. As indicated in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3.6.3 of the
The WIPP underground is composed of disposal rooms or “panels” mined from the salt beds. Disposal panels at WIPP can be enlarged and/or additional panels can be created to accommodate the 175,600 cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of TRU waste allowed under the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. Future waste disposal at WIPP could involve new disposal panels that could be larger (with more capacity per panel) or more numerous than the 10 panels that were included in the nominal conceptual design of the WIPP underground that one of the commentors references.
DOE has previously disposed of similar surplus plutonium at WIPP from SRS, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and the Hanford Site; the Rocky Flats and Hanford materials were packaged and shipped directly from those sites (
As described above, there are statutory limits on the total volume of TRU waste that may be disposed of at WIPP. There are also statutory limits on the total curies of remote-handled TRU waste, but there are no statutory limits on the total curies of CH-TRU waste, such as the 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium. The regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C,
The WIPP waste acceptance criteria help ensure, with an appropriate margin, that any TRU waste emplaced in WIPP will not exceed the 40 CFR part 191 performance standards and will meet other applicable requirements. The 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium will be packaged to meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria, thereby providing further assurance that the additional inventory will not challenge the 40 CFR part 191 repository performance standards.
During the disposal phase of WIPP repository operations, criticality is controlled by the packaging requirements imposed by the waste acceptance criteria. As required by DOE Order 420.1,
With respect to cost considerations, implementing the WIPP Disposal Alternative for the disposition of 6 MT of surplus non-pit plutonium would rely on existing facilities (with additional glovebox capability in an existing facility), structures, and pads, and when compared to the other alternatives evaluated in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
The opportunity for public comment is at 10:40 a.m. and 2:15 p.m.
This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Hilton Garden Inn, 1741 Harrison Street N., Twin Falls, ID 83301.
Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-6518; Fax (208) 526-8789 or email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 27, 2016; 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is implementing a consent-based siting process to establish an integrated waste management system to transport, store, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In a consent-based siting approach, DOE will work with communities, tribal governments and states across the country that express interest in hosting any of the facilities identified as part of an integrated waste management system. As part of this process, the Department is hosting a series of public meetings to engage communities and individuals and discuss the development of a consent-based approach to managing our nation's nuclear waste. A public meeting will be held in Boise ID on July 14, 2016.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, July 14, 2016 from 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. MDT. Informal poster sessions will be held from 4:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. MDT and again after 9:30 p.m. MDT. Department officials will be available to discuss consent-based siting during the poster sessions.
The meeting will be held at Boise Centre, 850 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702. To register for this meeting and to review the agenda for the meeting, please go to
Requests for further information should be sent to
If you are unable to attend a public meeting or would like to further discuss ideas for consent-based siting, please request an opportunity for us to speak with you. The Department will do its best to accommodate such requests and help arrange additional opportunities to engage. To learn more about nuclear energy, nuclear waste, and ongoing technical work please go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
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.
On March 29, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-12-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-12-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the Leidy South Project proposed by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) in the above-referenced docket. DTI requests authorization to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain facilities located in Clinton, Franklin, and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania; Frederick County, Maryland; and Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia, to provide 0.155 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and firm transportation services in the Mid-Atlantic region.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of this project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
DTI's Leidy South Project involves modifications to six existing DTI compressor stations in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and construction of a new metering and regulating station in Virginia. Modifications would occur almost entirely on previously disturbed areas.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before April 29, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-492-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):
The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact the following:
Take notice that during the month of February 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Take notice that on March 25, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Percheron Power, LLC (Percheron), filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that the Commission find that it has jurisdiction to authorize small conduit hydroelectric projects of five megawatts or less within the Columbia Basin Project (CBP), and specifically at five incidental features within CBP for which preliminary permits previously had been granted for the PEC 1973 Drop Hydroelectric Project (expired Permit No. 14316); the Scooteney Inlet Drop Project (expired Permit No. 14318); Scooteney Outlet Hydroelectric Project (surrendered Permit No. 14317); 16.4 Wasteway Hydroelectric Project (expired Permit No. 14349); and 46A Wasteway Hydroelectric Project (expired Permit No. 14351), all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Donald van der Vaart, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by May 5, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
Stephanie L. Hogan, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3244; fax number: (202) 564-5603; email address:
The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Donald van der Vaart, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality seeking to compel the Administrator to take an action under CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4) to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, the portion of North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision addressing the PM
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this proposed consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0190) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of cancellation.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is cancelling the May 19, 2016, teleconference of the Economy-Wide Modeling Panel announced earlier (80 FR 77625-77626).
The May 19, 2016, teleconference of the SAB Economy-Wide Modeling Panel has been cancelled. The July 19-20, 2016, face-to-face meeting of the Economy-Wide Modeling Panel previously announced (80 FR 77625-77626, December 15, 2015) will be held as scheduled.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
An Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on Monday, May 9, 2016. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting and provides a tentative list of topics to be covered in the meeting. The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.
The meeting will be held on Monday, May 9, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before April 15, 2016.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1204/6), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Bill Eckel or James Hook, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone numbers: (703) 305-6451 and (703) 347-0307; fax number: (703) 347-8011; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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:
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879 is available at
On a biannual interval, an Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the “empmlist” forum on the Lyris list server at:
You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under
• TED tool for Endangered Species Act (ESA) terrestrial risk assessment.
• ESA weight-of-evidence tool.
• TIM-McNest.
• Population model of a threatened plant species.
• Impact of variability in non-target terrestrial plant studies on endpoint selection.
• Overlap tool for May affect determinations.
• Aquatic exposure modeling for ESA pilot chemicals.
• Development and evaluation of a screening-level flowing water exposure modeling approach for endangered species assessments.
• Watershed-scale refined flowing water exposure modeling approach for endangered species assessments.
• Pesticide residue and degradation formulations in vegetative filter strips for environmental exposure assessments.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget
Courtney Kerwin (202) 566-1669, or email at
EPA ICR Number 2470.01; Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removals Sites (New); was approved with change on 11/02/2015; OMB Number 2050-0211; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0186.13; NESHAP for Vinyl Chloride (Renewal); 40 CFR part 61, subparts A and F; was approved without change on 11/02/2015; OMB Number 2060-0071; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0155.12; Certification of Pesticide Applicators (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 171, 171.7, 171.11, and 152; was approved with change on 11/02/2015; OMB Number 2070-0029; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 2449.02; Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications (Final Rule); 40 CFR part 131; was preapproved on 11/2/2015; OMB Number 2040-0286; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0574.16; Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances (Final Rule); 40 CFR parts 700, 720, 721, 723, 725, 725 subpart F, 720.38, 723.50, 725.250, 725.424, 725.428, 720.25, 725.15, 723.250, 723.175, 720.36, and 725.190; was approved with change on 11/03/2015; OMB Number 2070-0012; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0246.12; Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation (Renewal); was approved without change on 11/4/2015; OMB Number 2030-0016; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1445.12; Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal); 40 CFR part 302; was approved without change on 11/4/2015; OMB Number 2050-0086; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1775.07; Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-Media) (Renewal); 40 CFR part 264, 270, and 271; was approved without change on 11/5/2015; OMB Number 2050-0161; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1189.26; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 260, 261, and 257, subpart D; was approved with change on 11/5/2015; OMB Number 2050-0053; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1633.16; Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments (Renewal); 40 CFR part parts 72-78; was approved without change on 11/6/2015; OMB Number 2060-0258; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 2028.08; NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and DDDDD; was approved without change on 11/06/2015; OMB Number 2060-0551; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 2164.05; Emission Guidelines for Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) Units (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and FFFF; was approved without change on 11/9/2015; OMB Number 2060-0562; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1686.10; NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and X; was approved without change on 11/10/2015; OMB Number 2060-0296; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1957.07; NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and SSSS; was approved without change on 11/10/2015; OMB Number 2060-0487; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0575.15; Health and Safety Data Reporting; Submission of Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies (Renewal); 40 CFR part 716; was approved without change on 11/10/2015; OMB Number 2070-0004; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 2066.06; NESHAP for Engine Test Cells/Stands (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and PPPPP; was approved without change on 11/10/2015; OMB Number 2060-0483; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1745.08; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (Renewal); 40 CFR part 257, subpart B; was approved with change on 11/10/2015; OMB Number 2050-0154; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1363.24; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Change); 40 CFR part 372; was approved without change on 11/12/2015; OMB Number 2025-0009; expires on 11/30/2017.
EPA ICR Number 2267.04; NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts ZZZZZ and A; was approved with change on 11/16/2015; OMB Number 2060-0605; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1127.11; NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subpart I; was approved without change on 11/18/2015; OMB Number 2060-0083; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1054.12; NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and J; was approved without change on 11/18/2015; OMB Number 2060-0022; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 1557.09; NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and A; was approved without change on 11/18/2015; OMB Number 2060-0220; expires on 11/30/2018.
EPA ICR Number 0660.12; NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and TT; was approved without change on 11/18/2015; OMB Number 2060-0107; expires on 11/30/2018.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning the Rab Valley Wood Preserving Superfund Site, located in Panama, LeFlore County, Oklahoma.
The settlement requires Joslyn Manufacturing Company, settling party,
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2016.
The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Kenneth Talton, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-7475. Comments should reference the Rab Valley Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Panama, LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and EPA Docket Number 6-02-16, and should be addressed to Kenneth Talton at the address listed above.
Elizabeth Pletan, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8525.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees (Renewal)”, EPA ICR 2080.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0545 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0119, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Lynn Sohacki, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4851; fax number 734-214-4869; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 2, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
In connection with this application, Applicant has applied to acquire Great Lakes Banc Consulting Inc., Worthington, Ohio and thereby engage in management consulting activities pursuant to section 225.28 (b)(9)(i) of Regulation Y.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 20, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning contractors' purchasing systems reviews. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before May 5, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 703-605-2868 or email at
The objective of a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR), as discussed in Part 44 of the FAR, is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. The review provides the administrative contracting officer (ACO) a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor's purchasing system.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before June 6, 2016.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0114, Right of First Refusal of Employment, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, at 202-208-4949 or via email at
As prescribed in FAR 7.305(c), the clause at FAR 52.207-3, Right of First Refusal of Employment, deals with adversely affected or separated Government employees resulting from the conversion of work from in-house performance to performance by contract. The clause requires the contractor to give these employees an opportunity to work for the contractor who is awarded the contract.
The information gathered will be used by the Government to gain knowledge of which employees, adversely affected or separated as a result of the contract award, have gained employment with the contractor within 90 days after contract performance begins.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0114, Right of First Refusal of Employment, in all correspondence.
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 information collection project entitled “Resources and Services Database of the CDC National Prevention Information Network (NPIN, formerly known as the National AIDS Clearinghouse, OMB Control Number 0920-0255 exp. 12/31/2016). CDC seeks an extension of this information collection.
Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0035 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.
Resources and Services Database of the CDC National Prevention Information Network (OMB Control No. 0920-0255, exp. 12/31/2016)— Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NCHHSTP has the primary responsibility within the CDC and the U.S. Public Health Service for the prevention and control of HIV infection, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and tuberculosis (TB), as well as for community-based HIV prevention activities, syphilis, and TB elimination programs. NPIN serves as the U.S. reference, referral, and distribution service for information on HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB, supporting NCHHSTP's mission to link Americans to prevention, education, and care services. NPIN is a critical member of the network of government agencies, community organizations, businesses, health professionals, educators, and human services providers that educate the American public about the grave threat to public health posed by HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB, and provides services for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). NPIN services are designed to facilitate program collaboration in sharing information, resources,
The NPIN Resources and Services Database contains entries on approximately 9,000 organizations and is the most comprehensive listing of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB resources and services available throughout the country. The American public can also access the NPIN Resources and Services database through the NPIN Web site. More than 1,000,000 unique visitors and more than 3,000,000 page views are recorded annually.
To accomplish CDC's goal of continuing efforts to maintain an up-to-date, comprehensive database, NPIN plans each year to add up to 400 newly identified organizations and to verify those organizations currently described in the NPIN Resources and Services Database each year. Organizations with access to the Internet will be given the option to complete and submit an electronic version of the questionnaire by visiting the NPIN Web site. Methods to be used to collect the information include online, telephone and email survey questionnaires to collect information from representatives of the organizations that provide covered services.
The respondent population includes Registered Nurses, Social and Community Service Managers, Health Educators, Social and Human Service Assistants working within NPIN member organizations that provide HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention, education, testing, and healthcare services.
This data collection uses no inferential statistical methods. The data collected is in textual or anecdotal format and will be used for information purposes.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
A Study of Viral Persistence in Ebola Virus Disease
(EVD) Survivors—Existing Information Collection Without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Much progress has been made in the year since the CDC first responded to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, but the agency's efforts must continue until there are zero new cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD). As the CDC's 2014 Ebola virus response maintains the international goal of zero new EVD cases in 2015, the agency must intensify its efforts to identify and prevent every
Persistence of Ebola Virus (EBOV) in Body Fluids of EVD Survivors in Sierra Leone is the first systematic examination of the post-recovery persistence of EBOV and the risks of transmission from a cohort of convalescent Ebola survivors during close or intimate contact. It is important to fully understand how long the virus stays active in body fluids other than blood in order to target and refine public health interventions to arrest the ongoing spread of disease.
The research study is comprised of three modules based on the body fluids to be studied: A pilot module of adult males (semen) and two full modules: Module A of adult men and women repeating collections and questionnaires every two weeks (semen, vaginal secretions, and saliva, tears, sweat, urine, rectal swab), and Module B of lactating adult women repeating collections and questionnaires every three days (sweat and breast milk).
Participants for each module will be recruited by trained study staff from Ebola treatment units (ETUs) and survivor registries. Participants will be followed up at study sites in government hospitals.
Specimens will be tested for EBOV ribonucleic acid (RNA) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) in Sierra Leone at the CDC laboratory facility in Bo. All positive RT-PCR samples will be sent to CDC Atlanta for virus isolation. Each body fluid will be collected until two negative RT-PCR results are obtained. Participants will be followed until all their studied body fluids are negative. They will receive tokens of appreciation for their participation at the initial visit and again at every subsequent follow-up visit [
Results and analyses are needed to update relevant counseling messages and recommendations from the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health, World Health Organization, and CDC. The study will provide the most current information that is critical to the development of public health measures, such as recommendations about sexual activity, breastfeeding, and other routine activities and approaches to evaluation of survivors to determine whether they can safely resume sexual activity. These approaches in turn are expected to reduce the risk of Ebola resurgence and mitigate stigma for thousands of survivors. The information is likewise critical to reducing the risk that Ebola would be introduced in a location that has not previously been affected.
The total burden hours requested for the research study in Sierra Leone is 1,836 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Request for Nominations for Members to serve on the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Coordinating Committee.
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health is requesting nominations for members to serve on the newly constituted National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (herein referred to as the “Committee”), a Federal advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee's primary mission is to provide advice to the NHLBI and other Federal agencies on matters concerning asthma and to facilitate efficient and effective exchange of information on asthma activities among the member agencies, and voluntary health organizations in order to enhance coordination of asthma-related programs and activities.
Nominations for membership received on or before April 29, 2016, will be considered in the pool of submitted nominations and from other sources as needed to meet statutory requirements for membership on the Committee. Nominations received after April 29, 2016, will be considered for future vacancies.
The NAEPP was created to address asthma in the United States. The objectives of the Committee are to: (1) Raise awareness of patients, health professionals, and the public that asthma is a serious chronic disease and to ensure the recognition of the symptoms of asthma by patients, families, and the public and the appropriate diagnosis by health professionals, (2) continually identify Federal programs that carry out asthma-related activities, and (3) develop or update, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and professional voluntary health organizations, the Federal plan for responding to asthma to aid in effective control of asthma by encouraging a partnership among Federal agencies, patients, physicians, and other health professionals through modern treatment and education programs.
To accomplish these broad program goals, the Committee is made up of members from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), as well as other Federal agencies, intermediaries including major medical associations, voluntary health organizations, and community programs and strives to educate patients, health professionals, and the public.
In accordance with the Committee's charter, “The Committee will consist of up to 15 voting members. Members will consist of Federal employees, Special Government Employees (SGEs), and Representatives.”
At least three members will represent government agencies, from among the NIH national research institutes and centers involved in research with respect to asthma, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or any other Federal departments and agencies whose programs involve health functions or responsibilities relevant to this disease.
At least three non-Federal members will serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) selected from the health and scientific disciplines with respect to asthma. These members will be invited to serve up to four-year terms.
At least three non-Federal members will serve as Representatives from professional societies, voluntary health organizations, and community programs whose purpose is to enhance the quality of life for patients with asthma and decrease asthma-related morbidity and mortality. These members will be invited to serve up to four-year terms. There may be only one Representative per organization.
Terms of more than two years are contingent upon the renewal of the Committee charter by appropriate action prior to its termination. Members may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office. A quorum for the conduct of business by the full Committee will consist of a majority of currently appointed members.
As necessary, subcommittees and ad hoc working groups may be established by the Designated Federal Officer within the Committee's jurisdiction. The advice/recommendations of a subcommittee/working group must be deliberated by the parent advisory committee.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of diverse ethnic and racial groups and people with disabilities are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees, and the Department therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominations must include a current resume or curriculum vitae of each nominee, including current business address, telephone number, and email address, a brief explanation of the nominee's qualifications for the committee, experience and activity on boards, committees, and/or membership in advocacy groups dealing with asthma. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination and is willing to serve as a member.
All nominations for membership should be submitted through the “Nomination Form for Members” Form located at this link
Rachael Tracy, Center for Translation Research and Implementation Science (CTRIS), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 6th Floor, Suite 6070, Bethesda, MD 20892, Phone: 301-496-1051, FAX: 301-402-1051, Email:
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
These regulations meet the directive under 42 U.S.C. 10826 (b) requiring the Secretary to promulgate final regulations to carry out the PAIMI Act. The regulations contain information collection requirements. The Act authorizes funds to support activities on behalf of individuals with significant (severe) mental illness (adults) or significant (severe) emotional impairment (children/youth) as defined by 42 U.S.C. 10802 (4) and 10804 (d). Only entities designated by the governor of each State, including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the tribal councils for the American Indian Consortium (the Hopi and Navajo Nations in the Four Corners region of the Southwest), to protect and advocate the rights of persons with developmental disabilities are eligible to receive PAIMI Program grants [the Act at 42 U.S.C. at 10802 (2)]. These grants are based on a formula prescribed by the Secretary [42 U.S.C. at 10822(a)(1)(A)].
On January 1, each eligible state protection and advocacy (P&A) system is required to prepare a report that describes its activities, accomplishments, and expenditures to protect the rights of individuals with mental illness supported with payments from PAIMI Program allotments during the most recently completed fiscal year. The PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10824 (a) requires that each P&A system transmit a copy of its annual report to the Secretary (via SAMHSA/CMHS) and to the State Mental Health Agency where the system is located. These annual PAIMI Program Performance Reports (PPR) to the Secretary must include the following information:
• The number of (PAIMI-eligible) individuals with mental illness served;
• A description of the types of activities undertaken;
• A description of the types of facilities providing care or treatment to which such activities are undertaken;
• A description of the manner in which the activities are initiated;
• A description of the accomplishments resulting from such activities;
• A description of systems to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with mental illness supported with payments from PAIMI Program allotments;
• A description of activities conducted by States to protect and advocate such rights;
• A description of mechanisms established by residential facilities for individuals with mental illness to protect such rights; and,
• A description of the coordination among such systems, activities and mechanisms;
• Specification of the number of public and nonprofit P&A systems established with PAIMI Program allotments;
• Recommendations for activities and services to improve the protection and advocacy of the rights of individuals with mental illness and a description of the need for such activities and services that were not met by the State P&A systems established under the PAIMI Act due to resource or annual program priority limitations.
The PAIMI Rules [42 CFR part 51] mandate that each State P&A system may place restrictions on either its case or client acceptance criteria developed as part of its annual PAIMI priorities. Each P&A system is required to inform prospective clients of any such restrictions when they request a service [42 CFR 51.32 (b)].
The PAIMI PPR summary must include a separate section, prepared by the PAIMI Advisory Council (PAC), that describes the council's activities and its assessment of the State P&A system's operations [PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805 (7)].
The burden estimate for the annual State P&A system reporting requirements for these regulations is as follows.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15E57-B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4258-DR), dated February 17, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oregon is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 17, 2016.
Clackamas County for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4263-DR), dated March 13, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 13, 2016.
Jackson, Rapides, Red River, and Sabine Parishes for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application from Mr. Chris Perri of Apple Homes Development for a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle likely to occur incidental to the construction of 20 new townhomes, garages, and associated landscaping and infrastructure at two existing legal parcels in Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes the Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for The Terrace of Scotts Valley.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 5, 2016.
You may download a copy of the Habitat Conservation Plan, draft Environmental Action Statement and Low-Effect Screening Form, and related documents on the Internet at
Chad Mitcham, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by U.S. mail to the Ventura office, or by telephone at (831) 768-7794.
We have received an application from Mr. Chris Perri for a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) listed the Mount Hermon June beetle as endangered on January 24, 1997 (62 FR 3616). Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Take of listed plants is not prohibited under the Act unless such take would violate State law. As such, take of plants cannot be authorized under an incidental take permit. Plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided them under a habitat conservation plan. All species, including plants, covered by the incidental take permit receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(55) and 17.32(b)(5)). In addition to meeting other specific criteria, actions undertaken through implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed animal or plant species.
Mr. Chris Perri (hereafter, the applicant) has submitted a Low-Effect HCP in support of his application for an incidental take permit (ITP) to address take of Mount Hermon June beetle that is likely to occur as the result of direct impacts to up to 2.62 acres (ac) (114,214 square feet (sf)) of degraded sandhills habitat occupied by the species. Take would be associated with the construction of the residential development on two existing parcels legally described as Assessor Parcel Number's 022-162-69 and 022-162-74. The current site address is 400 Glen Canyon Road in Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California. The applicant is requesting a permit for take of Mount Hermon June beetle that would result from “covered activities” that are related to the construction of 20 townhomes, garages and associated landscaping/infrastructure.
The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of Mount Hermon June beetle associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the HCP. The following measures will be implemented: (1) Temporary fencing and signs will be installed to clearly delineate the boundaries of the project; (2) if construction occurs during the flight season (considered to be between May and October, annually), exposed soils will be covered with erosion control fabric or other impervious materials to prevent any dispersing Mount Hermon June beetles from burrowing into exposed soil at the construction site; (3) employment of a Service-approved entomologist to capture and relocate into suitable habitat and out of harm's way any Mount Hermon June beetle larvae unearthed during construction activities; (4) all outdoor night lighting will use light bulbs certified not to attract nocturnally active insects, in order to minimize disruption of Mount Hermon June beetle breeding behavior during the adult flight season; and (5) secure off-site mitigation at a ratio of 1:1 to mitigate for permanent habitat impacts through the acquisition of 2.62 ac (114,214 sf) of conservation credits at the Zayante Sandhills Conservation Bank. The applicant will fund up to $733,284 to ensure implementation of all minimization measures, monitoring, and reporting requirements identified in the HCP.
In the proposed HCP, the applicant considers two alternatives to the proposed action: “No Action” and “Redesigned Project.” Under the “No Action” alternative, an ITP for the Terrace at Scotts Valley would not be issued. The Terrace at Scotts Valley would not be built, and the purchase of conservation credits would not be provided to effect recovery actions for Mount Hermon June beetle. Additionally, since the property is privately owned, there are ongoing economic considerations associated with continued ownership without use, which includes payment of associated taxes. The sale of this property for purposes other than the identified activity is not considered economically feasible. Because of economic considerations and because the proposed action results in a net benefit for the covered species, the No Action Alternative has been rejected. Under the “Redesigned Project” alternative, the project would be redesigned to avoid or further reduce take of Mount Hermon June beetle.
The proposed project has already been designed to minimize impacts to the species as the project area does not contain Zayante sands, the preferred habitat of the species. Reduction in the size of the development would not result in a significant reduction in take and is not practical. Additionally, the proposed project provides greater habitat conservation as the purchase of conservation credits at a ratio of 1:1 would result in the protection and management of preferred habitat for the species. As such, the “Project Redesign” alternative has also been rejected.
We are requesting comments on our preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Mount Hermon June beetle and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP as defined by our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). We base our determinations on three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. In our analysis of these criteria, we have made a preliminary determination that the approval of the HCP and issuance of an ITP qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
However, based upon our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice, this preliminary determination may be revised.
We will evaluate the permit application, including the plan and comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Act by conducting an intra-Service Section 7 consultation.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), NEPA's public involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6). We are requesting comments on our determination that the applicants' proposal will have a minor or neglible effect on the Mount Hermon June beetle and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP as defined by our 1996 Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. We will evaluate the permit application, including the plan and
If you wish to comment on the permit applications, plans, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend an enhancement of survival (EOS) permit issued to itself on May 26, 2009, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The EOS permit is associated with a programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) developed for the conservation of the federally-listed endangered Fender's blue butterfly within the Willamette Valley in Oregon. The proposed amendment would extend the term of the SHA and the permit for an additional 11 years. The amendment includes adding Washington County, Oregon, to the geographical area covered by the SHA and the permit. The amended permit would continue to authorize the Service to extend incidental take coverage to eligible landowners who are willing to carry out habitat management actions that benefit the Fender's blue butterfly by enrolling landowners under the SHA through Certificates of Inclusion. We request comments from the public on the proposed amendment of the EOS permit and the SHA, and a draft environmental action statement (EAS) prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Written comments on the permit amendment, SHA amendment, and the EAS for the NEPA categorical exclusion determination must be received from interested parties no later than May 5, 2016.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the Service Agreement Amendment.
•
•
•
•
•
Kathy Roberts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
On May 26, 2009, the Service issued an EOS permit to the Service's Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (OFWO) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. The EOS permit is associated with a programmatic SHA developed for the conservation of the federally-listed endangered Fender's blue butterfly (
The geographic area covered by the current SHA and permit includes the originally known and potential range of the Fender's blue butterfly, which includes prairie habitat within Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties of Oregon. Properties that are eligible for enrollment are non-Federal lands where the Fender's blue butterfly occurs or could occur through colonization, translocation, or reintroduction. Activities under the SHA may also benefit the federally-listed threatened Kincaid's lupine (
The current term of the SHA is 15 years and expires on May 25, 2024. The current term of the permit is 25 years and expires on May 25, 2034. Since the permit was issued on May 26, 2009, the Service has enrolled a number of eligible landowners under Certificates of Inclusion for an average period of 10 years each.
In order to continue issuing new 10-year Certificates of Inclusion, the
The amended permit would continue to authorize the Service to extend incidental take coverage with assurances to eligible landowners who are willing to carry out habitat management actions that would benefit the Fender's blue butterfly by enrolling the landowners under the SHA as cooperators through issuance of Certificates of Inclusion.
The proposed amendment to the permit and the SHA is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The Service will evaluate the proposed amendment to the permit and the SHA, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the amendment meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and the requirements of NEPA. We will not make the final NEPA and permit decisions until after the end of the 30-day public comment period on this notice, and we will fully consider all comments we receive during the public comment period. If we determine that all the requirements are met, we will sign the amended SHA and issue an amended EOS permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Service's OFWO. The OFWO will continue to serve as the permit holder, and continue to extend coverage to interested eligible landowners for the take of Fender's blue butterfly, incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the SHA, Certificates of Inclusion, and the EOS permit.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from site 39BF243, in Buffalo County, SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by State Archaeological Research Center (SARC) and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
In 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 39BF243 in Buffalo County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains were removed by Robert Gant, Assistant Director of the W.H. Over Museum (WHOM), when three coffin burials were disturbed by highway construction activities at Big Bend Dam, along the Missouri River. Funerary objects were associated with the first two individuals, but not the third. The human remains and associated funerary objects were transported to WHOM.
In 1974, the collections from Individuals 1 and 2 were transferred to the newly established SARC. At that time, the location of the human remains from Individual 3 was not known. The human remains from Individuals 1 and 2 were then transferred to the University of Tennessee-Knoxville to be inventoried by Dr. William Bass. After the return of the human remains to SARC, a portion of the human remains from Individual 2 were repatriated to the Oglala Lakota Nation in 1982.
In 1993, SARC conducted a review of the collections and located the human remains and associated funerary objects from Individual 1, identified as a 1.5 to 2.5 year old infant. Also located was additional skeletal material from Individual 2, identified as a child between 6 and 8 years of age, along with the associated funerary objects. In 2000, the human remains of Individual 3, identified as an adult male between 18 and 22 years, were found at the collection center for the Archeology Lab, Augustana College-Sioux Falls. They were then transferred to SARC and placed with the collections from Individuals 1 and 2. No known individuals were identified.
The 11,143 associated funerary objects are 6 copper beads, 10,991 glass beads, 1 fragment of a paper book, 3 fragment of a glass bottle, 31 buttons (metal, glass, pottery), 8 toy fragments (china), 9 cloth fragments, 2 coffin wood fragments, 1 metal and wood comb, 1 Bisque doll, 5 faunal fragments, 1 floral fragment, 1 glass knob, 2 iron rings, 1 iron cup handle, 4 leather fragments, 1 lot of wood, metal, and cloth, 9 metal nails, 3 fragments of paper, 1 plastic flower pendant, 1 pewter pedestal, 13 fragments of ironstone saucer, 1 sewing pin book, 1 tin pill box, 40 fragments tin plate and cup, 3 tin spoons, 2 toy sad irons, and 1 wooden thread spool.
The human remains were collected from coffin burials and are determined to be Native American based the location of the site near a Native American village at the townsite of Fort Thompson and the funerary objects associated with the burials. Based on the use of coffins, the mix of European and Native elements among the funerary objects, and the manufacturing dates for an ironstone saucer, a Bisque done, wire nails, and pink seed beads, the human remains date after A.D. 1870. This represents the Early Reservation Period at the nearby Crow Creek Indian Reservation, which, by the 1870s, was inhabited by the Yanktonai. The associated funerary objects are consistent with Yanktonai historic burials. Today, the Yanktonai are represented by the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 11,143 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Ave., Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Grand Rapids Public Museum in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Grand Rapids Public Museum. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Grand Rapids Public Museum at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Andrea Melvin, Collections Curator, Grand Rapids Public Museum, 272 Pearl Street NW., Grand Rapids, MI 49506, telephone (616) 929-1808, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MI, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
On an unknown date, one unassociated funerary object was removed from a Native American grave in Umatilla County, OR. It was acquired by the Grand Rapids Public Museum from the Ruth Herrick Estate on September 10, 1974. The object is a string of 25 olivella shell beads together with an attached note from the collector stating, “from an Indian grave near Umatilla, Oregon on Columbia River.” Digital images of the object were reviewed by The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation's Preservation Department. It was determined that the beads were excavated from the burial area of the
On an unknown date, 3 unassociated funerary objects were removed from Walla Walla County, WA. They were acquired by the Grand Rapids Public Museum from the Ruth Herrick Estate on September 10, 1974. The objects are: One lot of 5 hawk claw pendants together with a note that describes where they were excavated: “Columbia River grave, Walla Walla Co. Washington;” a string of Old Hudson's Bay Fur Company beads that is comprised of 6 large round cobalt beads, 5
Officials of the Grand Rapids Public Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 4 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Andrea Melvin, Collections Curator, Grand Rapids Public Museum, 272 Pearl Street NW., Grand Rapids, MI 49506, telephone (616) 929-1808, email
The Grand Rapids Public Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Dr. Michael L. Galaty, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University, PO Box AR, 210 Cobb Building, Mississippi State, MS 39762, telephone (662)325-7525, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University. The human remains were removed from Clay and Monroe Counties, MS.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum 16 individuals were removed from the Hang Kettle #1 site, 22CL620, in Clay County, MS, by Mississippi State University (MSU) archeologist Richard Marshall after being exposed by floodwaters. The human remains have been in the possession of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University since their removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains date to the Late Woodland period, A.D. 700 to 1000.
In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum four individuals were removed from an unidentified site, possibly 22CL500, in Clay County, MS, by MSU archeologists. The human remains have been in the possession of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University since their removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. No additional information regarding the age or sex of the human remains is known.
In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum one individual were removed from an unidentified site in Clay County, MS. The human remains have been in the possession of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University since their removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. No additional information regarding the age or sex of the human remains is known.
In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum one individual were removed from an unidentified site in Monroe County, MS, by John Gibbs. The human remains have been in the possession of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University since their removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. No additional information regarding the age or sex of the human remains is known.
Officials of the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their burial context and location.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 22 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Michael L. Galaty, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University, PO Box AR, 210 Cobb Building, Mississippi State, MS 39762, telephone (662)325-7525, email
The Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Shirley Sorrels, Director, Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, 500 North State Street, St. Ignace, MI 49781, telephone (906) 430-0446, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace, St. Ignace, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Marquette Mission Site (20MK82), Mackinac County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe; Chippewa Cree of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and Wyandotte Nation.
On September 8, 2015, an invitation to consult was extended to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and Wyandotte Nation (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”). The invitation was followed by telephone calls and emails.
On November 13, 2015, an offer of joint disposition was extended to The Tribes.
On August 21, 1986, during an excavation of the site by an archeologist from Michigan State University (MSU), human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Marquette Mission Site (20MK82) in Mackinac County, MI. In September 1986, the human remains and cultural items found in the burial fill were transported to MSU where they continue to be housed. An infant and two adults of indeterminate sex were identified. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects are 1 aqua glass pendant and 2 seed beads.
The archeological site is within the Marquette Mission Park. The Museum of Ojibwa Culture manages the Park. Both the Park and the Museum are under the auspices of the City of St. Ignace. Based on the mode of burial and typological cross dating of seed beads found in the burial fill, the time period of burial is A.D. 1673-1701 when French, Huron, and Odawa (Ottawa) people were present in the area.
Officials of the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, or Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes. To date, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, have requested disposition jointly.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Shirley Sorrels, Director, Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, 500 North State Street, St. Ignace, MI 49781, telephone (906) 430-0446, email
The Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, City of St. Ignace is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ryan Prehn, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 313 South Sixth Street, Springfield, IL 62701, telephone (217) 558-8950, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, IL, that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In or around 1918, one cultural item were removed from Tama, in Tama County, IA. The item was given to Mr. John Hauberg by a member of the Meskwaki tribe. In 1939, this cultural item was donated to the Hauberg Indian Museum in Rock Island, IL, by Mr. John Hauberg. The object has remained in the collection of the museum since, and is now under the control of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency at the Black Hawk State Historic Site. The one object of cultural patrimony is one Bear Claw Necklace.
Through consultation with Mr. Johnathan L. Buffalo, a representative of the Meskwaki Nation and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, it has been shown that the Bear Claw Necklace is an object of cultural patrimony, owing to its use as a symbol of tribal governance within the tribe. Mr. Buffalo has demonstrated that this object holds political, social, and ceremonial significance for the Meskwaki, and has ongoing historical, traditional and cultural importance to the tribe. Therefore, it has been determined that the Bear Claw Necklace falls under the definition of objects of cultural patrimony for the purposes of repatriation under NAGPRA.
Officials of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the one cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the object of cultural patrimony and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ryan Prehn, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 313 South Sixth
The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency is responsible for notifying the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Omaha District, Omaha, NE., that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Cultural items consisting of 64 unassociated funerary objects were removed from site 39CA4, the Anton Rygh Site, in Campbell County, SD. They are presently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC) and are under the control of the Omaha District.
The Anton Rygh site was a large fortified village on the east bank of the Missouri River and first reported by W.H. Over Museum in the 1920s. Excavations at the site began in 1932, and over the course of the next 50 years, over 100 individuals have reportedly been removed from the site. A minimum of 66 of these individuals were removed between 1957 and 1959 during excavations sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution River Basic Survey (RBS). A total of 15 individuals from the 1957 to 1959 excavations are stored at SARC and reported in a separate Notice of Inventory Completion.
SARC currently has 64 funerary objects from the RBS collections that are not associated with any individuals currently held by SARC and under control of the Omaha District. The excavation records clearly show these items as having been removed from the burial of a specific individual. These 64 unassociated funerary objects are 13 scapula bone hoes and knives, 1 bone awl, 1 bone whistle, 1 lithic biface, 1 lithic projectile point, 1 dog cranium, and 46 ceramic sherds.
The Anton Rygh site is a Plains Village Tradition multi-component earth lodge village. House structures, burials, cache pits, fortification features, and artifact types suggest at least two levels of occupation. The levels represent an extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 1000-1500) variant while the upper levels represent Extended (A.D. 1500-1675) and Post Contact (A.D. 1675-1780) Coalescent variants. Funerary objects were removed from burials throughout all levels of the site, but their temporal differentiation cannot be determined based on current records.
Archeological, anthropological, and physical anthropological evidence indicate the Extended Middle Missouri are ancestral Mandan, and the Extended Coalescent and Post Contact Coalescent are ancestral Arikara. Both the Mandan and Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Consultation with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation indicates that these objects represent the kinds of objects that are placed with individuals at the time of death.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 64 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Omaha District, Omaha, NE., that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Cultural items consisting of 1,045 unassociated funerary objects were removed from 39DW2, the Four Bear site, Dewey County, SD. They are presently located at the South Dakota SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District.
The Four Bear site, 39DW2 was an earthlodge village on the west bank of the Missouri River. It was first visited in the 1930s by Alfred Bowers of the Smithsonian Institution. Between 1958 and 1959, salvage excavations were conducted at the site prior to inundation by flood waters of the Oahe Reservoir. At least 100 sets of human remains were recovered. Twelve sets of human remains are currently housed at SARC and have been reported under a separate Notice of Inventory Completion. In addition, a total of 64 sets of human remains were reburied either on Four Bear site or at site 39ST15. The whereabouts of the remaining 24 sets of human remains is currently unknown.
SARC currently has physical custody of 1,045 funerary objects that were originally removed with individuals whose remains were either reburied or whose present location is unknown. The excavation records clearly show that all these items were removed from the burials of specific individuals. The 1,045 unassociated funerary objects are 572 shell and glass beads, 4 bone tools, 34 ceramic sherds, 1 ceramic vessel, 333 copper sleeves crimped on leather, 1 bundle of copper sleeves with hide, 7 cooper and brass tubes, 2 metal knife blades, 1 iron wire bracelet, 20 copper ornaments, 2 leather earrings, 1 dog cranium, 23 faunal fragments, 1 mussel shell, 3 chert endscrapers, 1 lot of plant fiber, 2 lots of wood fragments, 7 individual wood fragments, 13 pieces of soil with red ochre, and 17 seeds.
The Four Bear site, 39 DW2 was probably occupied during the last two decades of the 1700s, which falls into the Disorganized Coalescent variant (A.D. 1780-1862) of the Plains Village Tradition. At least 36 circular lodges were identified. The excavators located a cemetery associated with the village a short distance to the southwest of the village site. In addition to the mortuary practices and types of funerary objects in evidence, the architecture of the circular earth lodges, community plan, physical location, and ceramic types support the association of the site to the late 1700s. It is possible that the site was first documented in William Clark's journal on October 6, 1804, as well as being mentioned in journals of members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The journals mention that the “Ricara” had left the village the prior spring. Populations associated with the Coalescent tradition within this area and time frame, as evidenced by the ethnographic and archeological record, are believed to be ancestral to the Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. Consultation with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, indicates that these objects represent the kinds of objects that are placed with individuals at the time of death.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 1,045 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from the specific burial sites of Native American individuals.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from site 39DW02 (Four Bear), in Dewey County, SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the State Archaeological Research Center (SARC) and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Between 1958 and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals and 868 associated funerary objects were collected from 39DW2, the Four Bear site, Dewey County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District.
The Four Bear site, 39DW2, was an earthlodge village on the west bank of the Missouri River. It was visited in the 1930s by Alfred Bowers of the Smithsonian Institution. Between 1958 and 1959, salvage excavations were conducted at the site prior to inundation by flood waters of the Oahe Reservoir. At least 100 sets of human remains were recovered. Twelve sets of human remains, representing 5 adults, 3 children, and 4 infants, are currently housed at SARC. A total of 64 sets of human remains were reburied either at Four Bear site or at site 39ST15. The whereabouts of the remaining 24 sets of human remains are currently unknown. Based on burial type, associated artifacts, the remaining archeological context, and physical anthropological assessment, the 12 individuals presently located at SARC from the Four Bear site are Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 868 associated funerary objects are 5 shell and glass beads, 30 ceramic sherds, 819 copper sleeves crimped on leather, 5 wire earrings, 3 fragments of animal hide, 1 lot of animal hides, 1 faunal fragment, 2 pieces of clay and soil, 1 seed cache, and 1 shell tool.
The Four Bear site, 39 DW2, was probably occupied during the last two decades of the 1700s, which falls into the Disorganized Coalescent variant (A.D. 1780 to 1862) of the Plains Village Tradition. At least 36 circular lodges were identified. The excavators located a cemetery associated with the village a short distance southwest of the village site. In addition to the mortuary practices and types of funerary objects in evidence, the architecture of the circular earth lodges, community plan, physical location, and ceramic types support the association of the site to the late 1700s. It is possible that the site was first documented in William Clark's journal on October 6, 1804, as well as being mentioned in journals of members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The journals mention that the “Ricara” had left the village the prior spring. Populations associated with the Coalescent tradition within this area and time frame, as evidenced by the ethnographic and archeological record, are believed to be ancestral to the Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 868 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Mobile District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Mobile District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Mr. Michael Fedoroff, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, 109 St. Joseph Street, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL 36628-0001, telephone (251) 694-4114, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Mobile District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Burnt Village Site, 9TP9, Troup County, GA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Mobile District in consultation with representatives of the following Indian tribes: Absentee-Shawnee Tribe Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina); Cherokee Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Shawnee Tribe; Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, hereafter “The Consulted Tribes.”
Between 1966 and 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, 21 individuals were removed from the Burnt Village Site in Troup County, GA. The excavations were conducted by the University of Georgia, on behalf of the Mobile District's response to the construction of the West Point Lake reservoir. The human remains have been housed at the University of Georgia since their removal from the site, but are under the control of Mobile District. The human remains were determined to be Native American based on skeletal morphology, burial and site context, and artifact associations. No known individuals were identified during the excavations. The 5,281 associated funerary objects are 6 metal armbands, 37 metal bells, 5 copper bracelets, 64 metal buckles and fasteners, 34 metal buttons, 14 metal rings, 3 metal neckbands, 33 metal cone ornaments, 31 metal ornaments, 33 metal tinklers, 5 metal fragments with beads, 4,067 beads (glass, shell, clay, seed), 11 lots of beads, 3 shell ornaments, 3 brass thimbles, 3 metal nails, 2 fragments iron knife blade, 2 pieces horse bridle, 3 metal tools, 28 pieces of metal/metal fragments, 2 ceramic balls/knobs, 2 ceramic bowls, 441 prehistoric ceramic sherds, 6 clay fragments, 27 pieces of daub, 14 lithic flakes or shatter, 2 lithic projectile points, 1 stone gaming piece, 4 pipe stems, 19 fragments of fabric, 2 fragments of fabric with beads, 10 pieces of cord, thread, or string, 1 mirror fragment, 3 glass fragments, 1 glass bottle, 1 cork, 7 musket balls, 9 gun flints, 6 pieces unmodified shell,1 lot modified mica, 1 piece mica, 172 pieces unmodified fauna, 1 piece modified fauna, 24 fire cracked rock, 89 rocks, 4 samples of botanical remains, 1 piece sandstone, 29 pieces of organic material (
Eight lines of evidence support a cultural affiliation finding for the Burnt Village Site including geographical, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical, and expert opinion. Geographically, the Burnt Village site is the location of the historically known Creek Town of Okfuskeneena. The site is located within established Creek Indian territory on the western bank of the central Chattahoochee River in Troup County, Georgia. This area is both within treaty designated Creek lands, and land known through historic and ethnographic accounts as being home to the Creek Indians. Archeological investigations of the site confirmed historical accounts of the village location, which was recorded as being attacked on September 27, 1793, by white settlers. Evidence includes diagnostic artifacts that correspond to those expected and described in
Historic accounts indicate that the survivors of Creek Town of Okfuskeneena fled and were welcomed into neighboring Creek polities, which eventually became part of the Creek Confederations. Oral tradition provided by tribal members further clarify that the descendents of the Town of Okfuskeneena currently reside within, and are part of, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Officials of the Mobile District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 21 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 5,281 associated funerary objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Michael Fedoroff, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, 109 St. Joseph Street, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001, telephone (251) 694-4114, email
The Mobile District is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from four sites in South Dakota—site 39SL45 (Ft. Sully II) in Sully County; site 39ST15 in Stanley County; site 39WW89, Walworth County; and an unidentified site in Potter County.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by State Archaeological Research Center and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
In 1971 or 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 39SL45, Fort Sully II in Sully County, SD. They are presently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC) and are under the control of the Omaha District.
A human cranium and mammal bones were discovered in a storage unit in Hughes County, SD, in September 2001, and turned over to the County Sheriff's office. The human remains were determined to be of archeological origin and transported to SARC. It was established that the human remains were removed by a private citizen while diving in the Missouri River near Old Fort Sully (39SL45) in 1971 or 1972. Fort Sully II was an active U.S. Army post between 1866 and 1894, and just south of the post were two multicomponent village sites, Fort Sully Village (36SL4) and the Glasshoff site (39SL42). It is possible the skull originated from one of the two village sites. Based on morphological characteristics consistent with a Plain Village population, the human remains are determined to be Native American. No known individual was identified. The 6 associated funerary objects are mammal bone fragments.
Site 39SL4 was occupied during the Extended (A.D. 1500-1675) and Post Contact (A.D. 1675-1780) Coalescent
In 1984 and 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 39ST15, Indian Creek Village in Stanley County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District.
During excavation, three isolated teeth, representing three individuals, were removed from the Indian Creek Village Site, 39ST15, but were not identified as human at that time. The collections from the site were at the Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, until 1995, when they were transferred to SARC. In 1997, the teeth were identified as human. Associated records indicate that teeth were found in features within two separate houses at the site. Based on the archeological context, the human remains are determined to be Native American. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Three variants of the Plains Village Tradition are represented at the multicomponent earth lodge village site 39ST15—Extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 1000-1500), Extended (A.D. 1500-1675), and Post Contact Coalescent (A.D. 1675-1780). Individual 1 is mostly likely associated with the Extended Middle Missouri component, and Individuals 2 and 3 are most likely associated with the Post Contact Coalescent component. Archeological, physical anthropological, historical, ethnographic, and geographical evidence support that Middle Missouri as being ancestral to the Mandan, and the Post Contact Coalescent as being ancestral to the Arikara. Both the Arikara and Mandan are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
In 1979 and 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 39WW89 in Walworth County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District.
The human remains were removed during two separate investigations. In 1979, the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, surveyed the east shore of Lake Oahe and removed human bone fragments representing two individuals, along with a single lithic flake from the surface. In 1982, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, conducted test excavations at the site and removed the human remains of three individuals and two associated funerary objects; human remains from two of the individuals removed in 1982 were determined to be portions of the individuals removed in 1979. The collection was transferred to SARC in 1984, and the human remains were inventoried by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and then reburied in 1991, near Ft. Pierre, SD. In 1999, the human remains from the Augustana College investigation and all the associated funerary objects were located by SARC in their collections. Based on the archeological context and associated funerary objects, the human remains are determined to be Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 3 associated funerary objects are 1 lithic tool and 2 lithic flakes.
Based on radiometric dating, the site was used between A.D. 1400-1560, a time period that includes two archeologically defined components, the Extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 1000-1500) and the Extended Coalescent (A.D. 1500-1675) variants of the Plan Village Tradition. Based on architecture, artifact types, geographical location, and physical anthropological data, the Extended Middle Missouri populations are ancestral Mandan and the Extended Coalescent are ancestral Arikara. Both the Mandan and the Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unidentified site in Potter County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District.
In April 1999, a human skull was donated to the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln. The skull was reported to be removed along the Missouri River near Gettysburg, SD. After transfer to SARC in 1999, and review of the documentation and topographic maps, the human remains were determined to have originated from Omaha District property. Based on morphological characteristics the skull is determined to be Native American. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The morphological characteristics of the cranium are indicative of Arikara ancestry. Additionally, the Arikara generally practiced primary inhumation and the crania exhibits evidence of such a burial method (soil adherence and root etchings, along with lack of weathering). Ethnographic and historic records indicate Arikara villages were located in Potts County during the Extended (A.D. 1500-1675) and Post Contact Coalescent (A.D. 1675-1780). Based on the archeological, physical anthropological, and geographic evidence, the skull is affiliated with the Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the nine objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from four sites in South Dakota—site 39CO19 in Corson County; 39CA117 (Stranded Squirrel) in Campbell County; site 39CA208 (Helb) in Campbell County; and site 39CA4 (Anton Rygh) in Campbell County.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by State Archaeological Research Center and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 39CO19 in Corson County, SD. They are presently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC) and are under the control of the Omaha District. Human remains of five co-mingled individuals and one associated funerary object were located by SARC between 1987 and 1988, but it is not clear if the human remains were removed in that time frame or if they were from a previously made collection that had been sent to SARC in the mid-1980s. SARC transferred the human remains to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where an inventory was completed. After return to SARC, the human remains were reburied at site 39ST15. A portion of Individual 5 was among the human remains reburied, but the pelvis was retained at the University of Tennessee on loan until 1995, when it was returned to SARC.
The current collection at SARC consists of the pelvis from Individual 5, a female over 45 years of age. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a single fragment of mammal cranium, which was found stored with the human remains.
The original co-mingling of the five incomplete individuals suggests a secondary burial, possibly an ossuary. Based on burial type, archeological context, and physical anthropological review, the individuals from the site are Native American. Potts Village, site 39CO19, is an earth lodge village consisting of 35-50 house depressions, some of which are enclosed by a fortification ditch. Based on house types and artifacts, particularly the presence of LaRoche Ware ceramics, the village has been dated to the Extended Coalescent Tradition (A.D. 1500-1675). Both archeological and physical anthropological evidence indicates that the Extended Coalescent Tradition is ancestral Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals and 14 associated funerary objects that were removed from site 39CA117 in Campbell County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District. The site was located in June 1979, during a survey of the east shore of Lake Oahe. Robert E. Pepperl, University of Nebraska, Department of Anthropology, mapped and tested the site in July 1979. Two individuals and 14 funerary objects were recovered from a burial pit slumping from the cutbank onto the lakeshore. The human remains, originally held at the University of Nebraska, were transferred to SARC in 1986, and then submitted to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for inventory. These individuals were returned to SARC in 1987 and the majority of the human remains were reburied at site 39ST15.
During a review of the collection in 2001, additional human remains from both individuals were found with the funerary objects at SARC. The human remains represent two adult males. Based on burial type and associated artifacts, archeological context, and original physical anthropological review, the individuals from the site are Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are 1 lot of charcoal fragments, 4 freshwater gastropod shells, and 9 ceramic body sherds.
The Stranded Squirrel site, 39CA117, is a multicomponent occupation on the left bank of the Missouri River. The ceramic funerary objects associated with the burials indicate that the burials were associated with the later site occupation, the Extended Coalescent Variant (A.D. 1500-1675) of the Plains Village Tradition. The geographical location, physical characteristics of the human remains, and ceramics materials support an affiliation of the Extended
On September 30, 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Helb Site, 39CA208 in Campbell County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains were removed by archeologists from the Illinois State Museum, under contract with the National Park Service Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln (MWAC). A looter's pit was found in the east bank of the Missouri River, in what was identified as a primary interment pit containing human remains identified as an adult male. A nearly complete postcranial skeleton was recovered. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The collections from the site were housed at MWAC until the fall of 1995, when they were transferred to SARC. The human remains were found in the collections in 1996, while documenting the collection transfer.
Based on burial type, archeological context, and physical anthropological review the individual from the site is Native American. The Helb site, 39CA208, is an earth lodge village dated to the Extended (A.D. 1000-1500) and possibly Terminal (A.D. 1500-1675) Middle Missouri Variants of the Plains Village Tradition, based on rectangular house structures, artifact types, and radiocarbon dating. Archeological and physical anthropological evidence suggests that the Extended and Terminal Middle Missouri Variants are ancestral to the Mandan. The Mandan are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
On unknown dates, human remains representing, at minimum, 17 individuals were removed from site 39CA4, the Anton Rygh Site, in Campbell County, SD. They are presently located at the SARC and are under the control of the Omaha District. The collections were the results of two different excavations.
The Anton Rygh site was a large fortified village on the east bank of the Missouri River and first reported by W.H. Over Museum in the 1920s. Excavations at the site began in 1932, and over the course of the next 50 years, over 100 individuals have reportedly been removed from the site. The first set of human remains currently held by SARC were removed during the 1957 to 1959 excavations sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys (RBS), at which time a minimum of 66 individuals were collected. The RBS collections were housed at various locations, and in 1975, a significant portion of them of them were transferred to SARC.
This first collection at SARC contains human remains of Individuals 1 through 15 from the RBS. The human remains were identified as seven adults, five children, and three infants. Based on burial type, archeological context, site artifacts, and physical anthropological review, the individuals from the site are Native American. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The second collection of human remains from 39CA4 at SARC was removed in October 1978 during a pre-survey reconnaissance of the east bank of Lake Oahe by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, for the Omaha District. A burial was exposed in the bank and human bone, ceramics, flaking debris, and wood fragments were recovered. After documentation at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, the collection was transferred to SARC in 1985. The material was then inventoried by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The human remains were identified as an adult male and a child of indeterminate gender. Based on burial type, associated artifacts, archeological context, and physical anthropological review, the individuals from the site are Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 26 funerary objects include 1 primary flake, 24 ceramic body sherds stained with red ochre, and 1 lot of cottonwood bark fragments and cedar.
The Anton Rygh site is a Plains Village Tradition multi-component earth lodge village. House structures, burials, cache pits, fortification features, and artifact types suggest at least two levels of occupation. The levels represent an extended Middle Missouri (A.D. 1000-1500) variant while the upper levels represent Extended (A.D. 1500-1675) and Post Contact (A.D. 1675-1780) Coalescent variants. The specific intrasite proveniences of each individual burial at SARC are not well established and the temporal differentiation of the burials is not apparent. Archeological, anthropological, and physical anthropological evidence indicate the Extended Middle Missouri are ancestral Mandan, and the Extended Coalescent and Post Contact Coalescent are ancestral Arikara. Both the Mandan and Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 21 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 41 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Natchez Trace Parkway at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Mary Risser, Superintendent, Natchez Trace Parkway, 2680 Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS 38804-9715, telephone (662) 680-4005, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Lee, Prentiss, and Tishomingo Counties, MS.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Natchez Trace Parkway.
This notice corrects the description of funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
The 22 associated funerary objects are 1 biface, 1 piece of shatter, 1 concretion, 3 Baldwin Plain vessel fragments, 1 untyped vessel fragment, and 15 fossil fragments.
In the
The 39 associated funerary objects are 7 Saltillo Fabric Marked vessel fragments, 2 Baldwin Plain vessel fragments, 5 untyped vessel fragments, 7 projectile points, 1 Lowe Cluster projectile point, 3 bifaces, 4 flakes, 1 platform pipe, 1 busycon shell, 1 chert knife, 1 piece of shatter, 1 unmodified stone, 2 flake tools, 2 Baldwin Plain bowls, and 1 Furrs Cord Marked jar.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mary Risser, Superintendent, Natchez Trace Parkway, 2680 Natchez Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS 38804-9715, telephone (662) 680-4005, email
Natchez Trace Parkway is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, The Chickasaw Nation, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Catalina Island Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Catalina Island Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Catalina Island Museum at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Michael DeMarsche, Ph.D., Catalina Island Museum, 1 Casino Way, Casino Building, P.O. Box 366, Avalon, CA 90704, telephone (310) 510-2416, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Los Angeles County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Catalina Island Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.
From 1953-1955, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Little Harbor Site (CA-SCAI-17) in Los Angeles County, California. Dr. Clement Meighan, of Department of Anthropology at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and students conducted excavations at various times from 1953 to 1955, as part of a research project. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. Radiocarbon dating is from the Early Period (5580 B.C.), and was occupied until Spanish contact based on the presence of glass trade beads. The date of these human remains is assumed to be fairly late considering its proximity to the surface. The human remains are represented by one adult individual of indeterminate sex and one individual represented by a human phalanx with age and sex indeterminable. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 22 individuals were removed from Ripper's Cove (SCAI-26) in Los Angeles County, CA. Fred Reinman and Hal Eberhart of the California State University, Los Angeles, Department of Anthropology excavated the site as a field school. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. Radiocarbon dates the site from A.D. 1340 to 1730. The collection included four identified burials from Ripper's Cove along with fragmentary human remains from midden contexts. The human remains were determined to be 17 adults, a sub-adult, two juveniles, and an infant, all of indeterminate sex, and one individual that could not identified to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 176 associated funerary objects include 1 projectile point, 125 shell beads, 1 bag of shell beads, 2 fishhook fragments, 2 fragments and 2 bags of shell, 2 fish gorges, 8 red ochre fragments, 6 stone flakes, 6 ground stone fragments, 7 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified animal bone, 3 bags of charcoal, 8 pieces and 1 bag of stone fragments.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from the former location of the Busy Bee Restaurant, Avalon, in Los Angeles County, CA. The location within the village site designated as SCAI-29. The human remains were found during renovations at the restaurant and donated to the Catalina Island Museum in 1983 (accessioned as 83.031). There is no date associated with the human remains. Osteological analysis identified the human remains to be Native American. The five individuals were identified as perinatal, two children, one juvenile, and one adult in age. Sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In February 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Torqua Cave (SCAI-32) in Los Angeles County, CA. This collection was excavated by Nelson Leonard, III of University of California, Riverside, and his undergraduate students as a research project. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. No dates have been determined for the site. One burial was distinguished during excavation. Additional human remains were identified from faunal bone. A minimum of four individuals are included in the collection, two of which are adults and one sub-adult. Sex of these human remains could not be determined. The fourth set of human remains was not distinguishable to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is one bag of soil taken from the burial matrix.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from Empire Landing (CA-SCAI-26) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by Vivian Scott, who donated the collection to the Catalina Island Museum in 1968 (accessioned as 68.015). Site SCAI-26 dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on artifact types. The human remains were identified as five adults, three of them female, and one juvenile. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one fish bone and one shell fragment.
In February 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Empire Landing in Los Angeles County, CA. These human remains were excavated by P. Williams of the Catalina Laboratory for Archaeology (CLFA) from the Empire Landing area along a cliff edge where there is a midden. There was a stone slab above the burial, but there is no record of the slab being collected. The collection was turned over to the Catalina Island Museum after analysis. SCAI-26 is close by and dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on artifact types. Fragmentary human remains of a Native American adult female were identified. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In April 1970 and 1972, human remains representing, at minimum 15 individuals were removed from White's Landing (SCAI-34) in Los Angeles County, CA. The first excavation was led by UCLA undergraduate Dean Decker, in April 1970, as part of the University of California Archaeological Survey. Their goal was to assess settlement patterns on the island using White's Landing West as one chosen site for comparison and analysis. Students from UCLA and the Catalina Island School for Boys assisted in the fieldwork for this project. Catalina Island School (CIS) returned to White's Landing West with Mayfield School in 1972, and continued to excavate the principal village at this cove. The project was likely led by CIS staff archeologist Richard “Duke” Snyder. However, the documentation associated with this separate project is scant at best. The UCLA archeological excavations were sent to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the permit stipulation in 1983. The CIS material was curated with the Catalina Island Museum upon completion of the fieldwork. SCAI-34 dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on artifact types. While only two formal burials were designated in the catalog, fragmentary human remains were pulled from midden contexts as well. The 15 individuals have been identified as 9 adults, 2 juveniles, 2 subadults, and one infant. One individual was to
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from Two Harbors (CA-SCAI-39) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by Preston Taylor, who ran the concessions at Two Harbors during the time. He donated the collection of human remains to the Catalina Island Museum in 1961, and it was accessioned as 61.501. SCAI-39 dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on artifact types. There were a nine adults and one juvenile identified. Further analysis identified four of them as female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In August 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from Two Harbors (SCAI-39) in Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains were recovered by Dorothy Cowper, from construction activities associated with a fuel line. As a docent at the Southwest Museum, she, along with other visitors and Catalina locals, recovered materials that were being destroyed. Many of the artifacts appear to have left with the amateur excavators as souvenirs as indicated in letters between Cowper and the excavators. Records indicate that the human remains were eventually obtained by UCLA from Ben Hawkins, a zoologist at San Jacinto College, who was on site with Cowper in 1963, and donated to the Catalina Island Museum in 1996. SCAI-39 dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on artifact types. The human remains were identified as four adults, and two sub-adults. Two of the adults were further distinguished as female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In October and November 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 70 individuals were removed from Two Harbors (CA-SCAI-39) in Los Angeles County, CA. The University of California Archaeological Survey undertook salvage recovery excavations, where the demolition of structures would impact the site. This salvage excavation was accomplished with the help of volunteers from Catalina Island School for Boys, Catalina Island Museum Society, and CEDAM International. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. SCAI-39 dates from at least the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Spanish contact based on diagnostic artifact types. While there were 16 formal burials identified, many fragmentary human remains were encountered in midden contexts. The 70 individuals were identified as 47 adults (12 distinguished as female and 9 as male), 8 sub-adults, 6 juveniles, 5 infants, 1 neonatal, and 2 perinatal. One set of human remains could not be further identified with age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 226 associated funerary objects include 56 shell and stone beads, 1 fishhook blank, 1 basketry fragment, 1 soapstone plaque, 6 soapstone worked fragments, 5 quartz fragments, 6 stone flakes, 1 core, 1 cobble with asphaltum residue, 2 projectile points, 7 bowl fragments, 1 mano fragment, 4 donut stone fragments, 10 burned seeds, 9 bone awls, 7 charcoal fragments, 101 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified shell, 3 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified animal bone, and 1 bag of stone fragments.
In September 1954, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Parson's Landing (CA-SCAI-102) in Los Angeles County, CA. Dr. Clement Meighan of UCLA, and his students, excavated one test pit and encountered a burial (UCLA Accession 166) as part of a research project. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. No date has been determined for the site or burial, but diagnostic artifacts from the site identify it as prehistoric. The two individuals were identified as an adult male and an adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In April 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the West End Site (SCAI-106) in Los Angeles County, CA. Fredric Plog led a UCLA undergraduate field course at the prehistoric site. Analysis continued with the collection at UCLA. The collection was returned to the Catalina Island Museum as part of the fulfillment of their excavation permit in 1996. No dates have been determined for the site. While no formal burials were removed, a single adult human phalanx was identified within the faunal remains. Sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the summers of 1980 and 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Bullrush Canyon (CA-SCAI-137) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by Jane Rosenthal, of California State University, Long Beach, as an undergraduate field school. The site is estimated to A.D. 1600-1700 based on radiocarbon dating. The collection was donated to the Catalina Island Museum in fulfillment of their Catalina Island Conservancy permit upon competition of their analysis. No formal burials or funerary objects were identified. Fragmentary human remains were discovered among faunal remains from the collection. Age and sex of the human remains could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From 1967 to 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 17 individuals were removed from Toyon Bay (CA-SCAI-564) in Los Angeles County, CA. Jack Zahniser, of the Catalina Laboratory for Archaeology (CLFA), and his students from the Catalina Island Boy's School, undertook salvage recovery during the construction of a new boathouse and the installation of a septic tank. The collection was turned over to the Catalina Island Museum after analysis was completed. Radiocarbon dating estimates site occupation from A.D. 465 to 1685. The collection contains eleven recorded burials and fragmentary human remains found within midden contexts. The 17 individuals were identified as 12 adults (including 2 males and 2 females), 1 sub-adult, 2 infants, and 1 perinatal. One individual was too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 97 associated funerary objects are 24 shell and stone beads, 5 donut stones, 35 ground stone tools and fragments, 2 projectile points, 5 effigies, 13 shell and stone pendants and ornaments, 1 pipe fragment, 2 bowl fragments, 2 unmodified shell fragments, 5 chipped stone tools and flakes, 2 worked bone fragments, and 1 fishhook.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an archeological site at Little Gibraltar in Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains were found eroding from the area by Catalina Island Company staff and donated to the Catalina Island Museum in 1974 (accessioned as 74.253). There is no date associated with the human remains. One set of
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Renton's Mine streambed in Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains were found eroding from the streambed by Buzzy Vickers, and donated to the Catalina Island Museum in 1977 (accessioned as 77.030). There is no date associated with the human remains, but they were found near a known prehistoric archeological site. Fragmentary human remains of an adult female of Native American origin were identified through osteological analysis. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The sites detailed in this notice have been identified by consultation to be within the traditional territories of the Gabrielino (Tongva) with ancestral ties to the Chumash island people. Archeological and ethnohistoric evidence shows that these contact Takic-speaking peoples lived on the southern Channel Islands by at least 5,000 B.C. Island Tongva and Chumash groups have strong ancestral ties through marriage and trade. Analysis of historical records from missions in the Greater Los Angeles area demonstrate kinship ties between these two communities made stronger while in the mission system. The present-day Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians traces an earlier shared group identity with the Gabrielino (Tongva) people that inhabited the Channel Islands during the Middle period and through contact.
Associated funerary objects are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Gabrielino (Tongva) and Chumash people. The material culture of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned above are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 5,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations, and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the pre-contact period until historic times. Native consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed above with present-day Gabrielino (Tongva) and Chumash people. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians tribal members descend from the Channel Islands and specifically represent an ancestral tie to the Gabrielino (Tongva) and Catalina Island by preponderance of the evidence.
Officials of the Catalina Island Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 164 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 563 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michael DeMarsche, Ph.D., Catalina Island Museum, 1 Casino Way, Casino Building, P.O. Box 366, Avalon, CA 90704, telephone (310) 510-2416, email
The Catalina Island Museum is responsible for notifying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; and the Traditional Council of Pimu that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Catalina Island Museum has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Catalina Island Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Catalina Island Museum at the address in this notice by May 5, 2016.
Michael DeMarsche, Ph.D., Catalina Island Museum, 1 Casino Way, Casino Building, P.O. Box 366, Avalon, CA 90704, telephone (310) 510-2416, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA. The human remains were removed from Los Angeles, Santa Barbara Counties, CA and potentially Solano, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Catalina Island Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; Wilton Rancheria, California; Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California (previously listed as the Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: the Ti'at Society and the Traditional Council of Pimu.
In October 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Avalon, Los Angeles County, CA. Collection 61.322 consists of a human crania and mandible that were donated by the Santa Catalina Island Co. The human remains were found along with a notecard that stated, “found in patio of Pavilion Lodge, Avalon, Calif. October 11, 1960.” There is no information to assume they were excavated from the property. Collection 61.323 consists of an incomplete set of human remains donated by the Santa Catalina Island Co. that also may have been removed from the Pavilion Lodge Hotel in Avalon. There is no information to assume they were excavated from the property. The three adults (2 female and 1 male) were identified as Native American based on osteological metric and non-metric analysis. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an abalone shell found with the human remains identified as #61.323.
At an unknown time, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unknown location, presumably Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles, CA. This collection of human remains was found within the Catalina Island Museum's human remains collection when it returned from University of California Santa Barbara in 2010. Unfortunately no documentation could be located to further our understanding of the location and date acquired. There were three bags of human remains with only the date, 8.2.93 identified on each bag. No comparison has been found so far. The human remains were identified as two adults of indeterminate sex and were identified as Native American based on osteological metric and non-metric analysis. One individual shows evidence of burning. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Possibly in 1907, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Channel Islands, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties, CA. This collection was donated to the Catalina Island Museum by Loring L. Bigelow in 2009. Loring Bigelow acquired the human remains from his father Lewis Bigelow who had received the human remains as a gift in 1907 from Orrin Weston, brother of Ben Weston (a Catalina Island rancher-sheep grazer). At that time Orrin Weston stated that he picked up the human remains on one of the Channel Islands while touring on their yacht. The human remains were identified as two adults, one male and one female, of Native American ancestry based on osteological metric and non-metric analysis. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From 1915 to 1928, human remains representing, at minimum, 194 individuals were removed from San Nicolas Island, Santa Catalina Island, and San Clemente Islands in Los Angeles County, CA, from San Miguel Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, as well as purchased from a number of shell mounds located within the Sacramento Valley including Kings Mound, Johnston's Mound, Auburn Mound, and Vacaville Mound located in Solano, Placer, and Sacramento Counties. The Glidden Collection was purchased by the Catalina Museum Society in 1962, and became the foundation for the Catalina Island Museum's archeological collections. Based on photographs and journals, now held within the Catalina Island Museum's archives, hundreds of burials and thousands of objects were removed by Glidden from Santa Catalina, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and San Miguel Islands between 1919 and 1928. A majority of the collection was amassed under the sponsorship of the Gustav Heye Foundation located in New York. After the patronage with the Heye Foundation ended by 1923, Glidden built his own museum. A portion of the Museum of the American Indian of the Channel Islands opened in Avalon in 1926, with the human remains and cultural materials not sent to the Heye Foundation or to Chicago's Field Museum. Glidden continued to add to his collections through additional excavations on Catalina Island. Glidden also added to his collection by purchasing human remains and other objects from dealers located around the country, with documentation identifying several as coming from a number of mounds from Sacramento Valley. The cultural affiliation of the human remains and cultural items from the Glidden collection has been complicated at best. Although Glidden used a basic sequential numbering system to briefly describe his finds in his excavation journals, these numbers were not transferred to the human remains, objects or photos that he took. As a result, linking the physical human remains and burial objects to its original provenience is impossible. We can only surmise that these items could be affiliated with Tongva or Chumash based on the locations of the island within each tribal territory. However, invoices and letters particularly between Glidden and Smith's Coin and Curio Company located in Sacramento, identifies that Glidden ordered, paid for, and received human remains and artifacts. In his letters to Glidden, proprietor Carl Smith states that the human remains and other items came from a number of shell mounds located within the Sacramento Valley including Kings Mound, Johnston's Mound, Auburn Mound, and Vacaville Mound. There are no marks or data that identify provenience with specific human remains or items within the Glidden Collection. Further complicating the situation, correspondence between Glidden and potential collectors shows that Glidden sold some of his collections. During osteological analysis of the human remains, numerous non-Native American ethnicities have been identified including individuals of European, African, and Asian descent. Human remains of non-native ancestry are not included in this notice. There are a minimum of 194 individuals that can be identified to Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric analysis, including 176 adults (of which 89 can be distinguished as female and 82 male) and 18 sub-adults, of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains, the land from which the human remains were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In 2015, the Catalina Island Museum consulted with all Indian tribes who are recognized as
Officials of the Catalina Island Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 201 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains may be to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michael DeMarsche, Ph.D., Catalina Island Museum, 1 Casino Way, Casino Building, P.O. Box 366, Avalon, CA 90704, telephone (310) 510-2416, email
The Catalina Island Museum is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, Wilton Rancheria, California, and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of extension.
The Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service, is extending the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Adoption of a Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam to Monday, May 9, 2016. The Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published in the
Comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until close of business on Monday, May 9, 2016.
You may submit written comments by the following methods:
•
•
Comments will not be accepted by facsimile, email, or in any other way than those specified above. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted.
Ms. Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Group, Bureau of Reclamation,
In response to several requests for an extension, the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service are extending the close of the public comment period for the Draft EIS to Monday, May 9, 2016.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On March 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce published notice in the
Joanna Lo (202-205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be
This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to section 207.40(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.40(a)). This notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.10).
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review, 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.
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 Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone: (703) 305-0470. 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. 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.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review, 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 June 6, 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
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.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed changes and request for comments.
The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) intends to revise the LSC Grant Assurances for calendar year 2017 Basic Field Grants and is soliciting public comment on the proposed changes. The proposed revisions affect Grant Assurances 7, 15, 20, and 22. The proposed LSC Grant Assurances for calendar year 2017 Basic Field Grants, in redline format indicating the proposed changes to the current “LSC 2016 Grant Assurances,” are available at
All comments and recommendations must be received on or before the close of business on May 5, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should be addressed to Reginald J. Haley, Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation. Include “2017 LSC Grant Assurances” as the heading or subject line for all comments submitted.
Reginald J. Haley,
The purpose of the LSC Grant Assurances is to delineate the rights and responsibilities of LSC and the recipient pursuant to the provisions of the grant. As a grant-making agency created by Congress, LSC has Grant Assurances that are intended to reiterate and/or clarify the responsibilities and obligations already applicable through existing law and regulations and/or obligate the recipient to comply with specific additional requirements in order to effectuate the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act, as amended, and other applicable law. A summary of the proposed changes follows.
Grant Assurance 7 requires LSC recipients to provide legal services in accordance with: (a) The grant proposal that LSC approved; (b) the LSC Performance Criteria; (c) the ABA Standards for the Provision of Civil Legal Aid; (d) the ABA standards for Programs Providing Civil Pro Bono Legal Services to Persons of Limited Means; and (e) any applicable code or rules of professional conduct, responsibility, or ethics. The proposed change clarifies the Grant Assurance and notifies the recipient that LSC's consent is required before the recipient makes significant changes to the delivery system described in the approved grant proposal or grant renewal application.
Grant Assurance 15 requires grantees to notify LSC of: (a) An office closing or relocation; (b) a change of board chairperson; (c) a change of chief executive officer; (d) a change in recipient's charter, articles of incorporation, by-laws, or governing body structure; and (e) a change in recipient's main email and Web site address. The proposed change updates the instruction for submitting these notifications to LSC.
Grant Assurance 20 requires LSC recipients to provide advance notification to LSC of a proposed merger, consolidation, change in recipient's name, or status as a legal entity. In addition, Grant Assurance 20 directs recipients to LSC's instructions
Grant Assurance 22 requires recipients to give recognition and acknowledgement of LSC support and funding by displaying the LSC logo on the recipient's Web site, annual reports, press releases, letterhead, and other similar announcements and documents. The proposed change updates the Web site link to the digital and camera-ready versions of the LSC logo.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of six amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, River Bend Station, Unit 1, and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Comments must be filed by May 5, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 6, 2016. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0058 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0058, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing 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.
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
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by June 6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by June 6, 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 (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the [PVNGS TS] to incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN® rack inserts and corrects non-conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety analysis.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously evaluated events and accidents:
Implementation of the proposed amendment will be accomplished in accordance with the Spent Fuel Pool Transition Plan and does not involve new fuel handling equipment or processes. The radiological source term of the fuel assemblies is not affected by the proposed amendment request. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated with fuel enrichment at this level are addressed in the PVNGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.7.4 and remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of a[n] FHA.
To address the proposed additional arrays, several elements of the current process were reviewed. Pool layout, region eligibility specifications and the development of fuel move sheets are separate tasks. Each of these activities is procedurally controlled and performed by trained and qualified individuals. This segregation of activities separates and insulates the complexity of [SFP] module geometry, fuel region specifications and interface considerations from the development of fuel movement sheets.
Creation of fuel move sheets in accordance with the proposed amendment will not significantly change the probability of a fuel misload event because development of fuel move sheets will continue to be controlled by approved procedures and developed by qualified personnel. A review of the additional proposed arrays and the transitional period (when both the current and new arrays would be effective in the [SFP]) was performed. The human performance shaping factors evaluated did not identify significant potential impacts due to the process changes themselves or the additional arrays. The review, therefore, confirmed that the potential for human performance errors resulting in the probability of a misload event is not significantly increased.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not significantly change the probability of a fuel misload event because fuel movement activities will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures and performed by qualified personnel. Although there will be additional allowable storage arrays defined by the amendment, the fuel handling procedures will continue to require identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved.
The consequences of a fuel misload event are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the limiting fuel misload event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability or consequences of a boron dilution event because the systems and events that could affect SFP soluble boron concentration are unchanged. The current boron dilution analysis demonstrates that the limiting boron dilution event will reduce the boron concentration from the TS limit of 2150 [parts per million (ppm)] to 1900 ppm. This leaves sufficient margin to the 1460 ppm credited by the SFP criticality safety analysis. The analysis confirms that the time needed
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a seismic event since there are no elements of the updated criticality analysis that influence the occurrence of a seismic event. The consequences of a seismic event are not significantly increased because the forcing functions for seismic excitation are not increased and because the mass of storage racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts is not appreciably increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in the storage racks when inserts are installed.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The consequences are not significantly increased because there are no changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures, or components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts installed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the PVNGS TS to incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN® rack inserts and corrects non-conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety analysis.
The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The effects of operating with the proposed amendment are listed below. The proposed amendment was evaluated for the potential of each effect to create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident:
• Addition of inserts to the SFP storage racks,
• new storage patterns,
• additional weight from the inserts, and
• displacement of SFP water by the inserts.
Each NETCO-SNAP-IN® insert will be placed between a fuel assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up some of the space available on two sides of the fuel assembly. Analyses demonstrate that the presence of the inserts does not adversely affect spent fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality. The aluminum and boron carbide materials of construction have been shown to be compatible with nuclear fuel, storage racks, and SFP environments, and generate no adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing the inserts into the SFP storage racks cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
Operation with the added weight of the NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts will not create a new or different accident. The analyses of the racks with NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts installed demonstrate that the stress levels in the rack modules continue to be considerably less than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the added weight from the inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel storage safety, including subcriticality requirements. Analyses demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
The scenario involving the inadvertent removal of a SNAP-IN® insert was evaluated and found to not represent a “new or different kind of accident.” Rather, it represents a loss of reactivity configuration control, which is a less significant form of a fuel assembly misload event. Whenever a fuel assembly is placed in a storage configuration that is not explicitly allowed, a fuel assembly misload condition is created, whether it is the removal of a SNAP-IN® insert or the placement of a fuel assembly in a location that is missing a specified SNAP-IN® insert. An inadvertent removal of a SNAP-IN® insert is, therefore, not a new kind of accident but rather an alternate way of creating a previously evaluated accident. Loading a fuel assembly into a storage cell location required to be vacant and blocked (the limiting accident of this type) bounds the removal of a SNAP-IN® insert.
Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling tool weighs less than the weight of a single fuel assembly. Single fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over fuel assemblies and the same level of safety in design and operation will be maintained when moving the inserts.
The installed rack inserts will displace a negligible quantity of the SFP water volume and therefore, will not reduce operator response time to previously-evaluated SFP accidents.
The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the TS to incorporate the results of an updated criticality safety analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel storage. The revised criticality safety analysis provides an updated methodology that allows credit for neutron absorbing NETCO-SNAP-IN® rack inserts and corrects non-conservative input assumptions in the previous criticality safety analysis. It was evaluated for its effect on current margins of safety as they relate to criticality, structural integrity, and spent fuel heat removal capability. The margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New criticality analyses confirm that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the required subcriticality margins.
The structural evaluations for the racks and [SFP] with NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts installed show that the rack and SFP are unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion, and there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack and NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts.
The proposed amendment does not affect spent fuel heat generation, heat removal from the fuel assembly, or the SFP cooling systems. The effects of the NETCO-SNAP-IN® inserts are negligible with regards to volume of water in the pool, flow in the SFP rack cells, and heat removal system performance.
The addition of a Spent Fuel Pool Rack Neutron Absorber Monitoring program (proposed TS 5.5.21) provides a method to identify potential degradation in the neutron absorber material prior to challenging the assumptions of the criticality safety analysis related to the material. Therefore, the addition of this monitoring program does not reduce the margin of safety; rather it ensures the margin of safety is maintained for the planned life of the spent fuel storage racks.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P, Revision 0, “Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,” to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). The benchmark calculations performed confirm the accuracy of the codes and models. The proposed use of this methodology does not affect the performance of any equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P, Revision 0, “Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,” to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plat (RNP). It does not change any system functions or maintenance activities. The change does not physically alter the plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The software is not installed in any plant equipment, and therefore the software is incapable of initiating an equipment malfunction that would result in a new or different type of accident from any previously evaluated. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses but ensures that the core will operate within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed change requests review and approval of DPC-NE-3008-P, Revision 0, “Thermal-Hydraulic Models for Transient Analysis,” to be applied to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP). DPC-NE-3008-P will be used in thermal-hydraulic transient analyses as a portion of the overall Duke Energy methodology for cycle reload safety analyses. As with the existing methodology, the Duke Energy methodology will continue to ensure (a) the acceptability of analytical limits under normal, transient, and accident conditions, and (b) that all applicable design and safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found MSSV setpoint tolerance from ±1% to ±3%. In addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS 3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-analysis of the HNP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Section 15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure event. The proposed changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints. The proposed TS changes have been evaluated on a plant specific basis. The required plant specific analyses and evaluations included transient analysis of the turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3), evaluation of the changes on the peak clad temperature from the [Small Break] Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) event, and disposition of the changes on all other FSAR events. The revised analysis evaluations were based on the existing design pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS) and the main steam (MS) system.
These analyses and evaluations demonstrate that there is adequate margin to the specified acceptable fuel design limits (SAFDL) and the design pressures of the RCS and the MS system. The evaluations also demonstrate that the change will result in acceptable peak clad temperature (PCT) results for LOCA analyses. The change has no impact on the design pressure for the containment as peak containment pressure and temperature are obtained from postulated pipe breaks in the containment that do not challenge the MSSV lift setpoints. The MSSVs vent directly to open, ambient conditions and do not directly contribute to the temperature or pressure profile for any structure, system, or component.
There is a change in the flow rate credited for the auxiliary feedwater system (AFW) based on the higher MSSV opening tolerance. This change has been evaluated for each of the FSAR Chapter 15 events. The impact of the decrease in AFW flow is included in the PCT change for SB [small break] LOCA. The AFW flow effects for all other events have been determined to be acceptable.
As a result, the probability of a malfunction of the RCS and the main steam system are not increased and the consequences of such an accident remain acceptable. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found MSSV setpoint tolerance from ±1% to ±3%. In addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative change to the reactor trip on high pressurizer level and makes TS 3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-analysis of the FSAR, Section 15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure event.
Plant specific analyses and evaluations indicate that the plant response to any previously evaluated event will remain acceptable. All plant systems, structures, and components will continue to be capable of performing their required safety function as required by event analysis guidance.
The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment important to safety has been evaluated and found to be acceptable. All structures and components will continue to be operated within acceptable operating and/or design parameters. No system, structure, or component will be subjected to a condition that has not been evaluated and determined to be acceptable using the guidance required for specific event analysis.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes allow for an increase in the as-found MSSV setpoint tolerance from ±1% to ±3%. In addition, the proposed amendment request includes a conservative change to the reactor trip setpoint on high pressurizer level and makes TS 3.4.3 consistent with the initial pressurizer level used in the re-analysis of the FSAR Section, 15.2.3 turbine trip overpressure event.
The proposed TS changes do not alter the MSSV nominal lift setpoints. The operation and response of the affected equipment important to safety is unchanged. All systems, structures, and components will continue to be operated within acceptable operating and/or design parameters. The calculated peak reactor vessel pressure and main steam system pressure for the turbine trip overpressure event remains within the acceptance criteria. A new analysis is submitted to support the change. The model used for the re-analyzed turbine trip event (FSAR, Section 15.2.3) is based on methodologies previously approved by the NRC for other licensees.
The consequences of the turbine trip event continue to be within the regulatory limit for the event, thus the margin of safety for overpressure remains unchanged. The impact on LOCA has been evaluated and the PCT change results in a PCT that is lower than the regulatory limit. Therefore, the margin to safety for cladding performance in this event is not reduced.
The margin of safety for the containment is unaffected by the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The safety analysis assumption of a constant moderator density coefficient and the actual value assumed are not changing. The Bases for and values of the most negative MTC Limiting Condition for Operation and for the Surveillance Requirement are not changing. Instead, a revised prediction is compared to the MTC Surveillance limit to determine if the limit is met.
The proposed changes to the TS do not affect the initiators of any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the proposed TS changes ensures that the previously evaluated accidents will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety.
The probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the [updated final safety analysis report] UFSAR are unaffected by this proposed change because there is no change to any equipment response or accident mitigation scenario. There are no new or additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures.
Additionally the proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses. Thus, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, and components important to safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-related systems and components. A change to a surveillance requirement is proposed based on an alternate method of confirming that the surveillance is met. The Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) limits are not being changed.
The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the SFP cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-evaluated criticality events and accidents and no impacts were identified: (1) Fuel assembly misloading, (2) loss of spent fuel pool cooling, and (3) spent fuel boron dilution.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection and fuel handling procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly and fuel assembly insert that is moved. The consequences of a fuel misloading event are not changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because the change in fuel burnup requirements and SFP boron concentration have no bearing on the systems, structures, and components involved in initiating such an event. The proposed amendment does not change the heat load imposed by spent fuel assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool. Finally, a criticality analysis of the limiting fuel loading configuration confirmed that the condition would remain subcritical at the resulting temperature value. Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the proposed amendment.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not change the probability of a boron dilution event because the incremental changes in TS values have no bearing on the systems, structures, and components involved in initiating or sustaining the intrusion of unborated water to the spent fuel pool. The consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged because the proposed amendment has no bearing on the systems that operators would use to identify and terminate a dilution event. Also, implementation of the proposed amendment will not affect any of the other key parameters of the boron dilution analysis which includes SFP water inventory, volume of SFP contents, the assumed initial boron concentration of the accident, and the sources of dilution water. Finally, a criticality analysis of the limiting fuel loading configuration confirmed that the dilution event would be terminated at a soluble boron concentration value that ensured a subcritical condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a criticality accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve incremental changes to TS values, and represent minimal
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current margins of safety as they relate to criticality. The margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. The new criticality analysis confirms that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to meet the required subcriticality margin. Increasing the minimum SFP soluble boron concentration ensures that subcriticality margins will be preserved, and increases the margin of safety associated with a boron dilution event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access 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
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for action; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a director's decision on a petition dated March 25, 2014 [sic], filed by Michael Mulligan (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action regarding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) and the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS). The petitioner's requests and the director's decision are included in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0200 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:
•
•
•
Stephen Koenick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6631; email:
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML16054A731) on a petition filed by the petitioner on March 25, 2014 [sic] (ADAMS Accession No. ML15090A487). The petition was supplemented by emails dated July 7, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15198A091), and September 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15286A003).
The petitioner requested that the NRC take a number of actions regarding VY and KPS, which have been permanently shut down and are currently undergoing decommissioning, to include:
• Conduct exigent and immediate full-scale ultrasonic inspections on the VY and the KPS reactor pressure vessels (RPVs), with similar or better technology, as conducted on the RPVs at Doel 3 and Tihange 2, which revealed thousands of cracks.
• Take large borehole samples out of both the VY and KPS RPVs and transport them to a respected metallurgic laboratory for comprehensive offsite testing.
• Issue an immediate NRC report and hold a public meeting on any identified vulnerabilities.
• Ultrasonically test all RPVs in U.S. plants within 6 months if distressed and unsafe results are discovered at VY or KPS.
As the basis of the request, the petitioner asserted that the requested actions should be taken to determine whether foreign operating experience (OpE)—specifically several thousand cracks that have been discovered during testing on the Doel 3 and Tihange 2 RPVs—could have implications on U.S. operating reactors. The petitioner also requested several related actions of the NRC, such as, collaboration with the Belgian regulator, and posed several questions related to water chemistry and the discovered cracks.
On May 19, 2015, the petitioner spoke with the NRC's Petition Review Board. The teleconference provided the petitioner and the licensees an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues cited in the petition. The transcript for that teleconference is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15181A127.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and the licensees for comment on January 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15286A235, ML15286A265, and ML15286A258, respectively). The petitioner and the licensees were asked to provide comments within 14 days on any part of the proposed director's decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not addressed. The petitioner's comments are addressed in the final director's decision. The NRC staff did not receive any comments from the licensees on the proposed director's decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that the requests, to require the licensees to conduct exigent and immediate full scale ultrasonic inspections on the VY and the KPS RPVs, with similar or better technology, as conducted on the RPVs at Doel 3 and Tihange 2; to require the licensees to take large borehole samples out of both the VY and KPS RPVs and transport them to a respected metallurgic laboratory for comprehensive offsite testing; and associated follow-on requested actions be denied. The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's decision DD-16-01 pursuant to section 2.206 of title 10 of the
The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. The director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to a Global Expedited
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On March 30, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a second modification to the existing Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1-2.
The Modification allows the customer to use Priority Mail Express International service, revises the minimum commitment, and amends Annex 1 of the contract.
The Postal Service intends for the Modification to become effective on April 15, 2016.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2015-143 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than April 7, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 1 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 & Parcel Select Contract 1 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. MC2016-113 and CP2016-141 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 1 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 April 6, 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. MC2016-113 and CP2016-141 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
3. Comments are due no later than April 6, 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 March 29, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FLEX Broad-Based Index Options provide users with the ability to customize key contract terms, like exercise prices, exercise styles, expiration dates and exercise settlement values. Pursuant to CBOE Rules 24A.5 and 24B.5, to initiate a FLEX transaction, a Submitting Trading Permit Holder submits a Request for Quotes (“RFQs”) to a FLEX Post Official or into CBOE's Hybrid System.
On March 21, 2016, the Exchange will begin offering Asian style settlement and Cliquet style settlement for certain FLEX Broad-Based Index Options. In general, Asian style settlement provides for payout based on the average of prices of a broad-based index on pre-determined dates over a specified time period, and Cliquet style settlement provides for a payout that is the greater of $0 or the (positive) sum of “capped” monthly returns of a broad-based index on pre-determined dates over a specified period of time. These settlement types are also referred to as “Exotics” due to their untraditional nature.
After surveying potential FLEX Broad-Based Index Options users, the Exchange learned that indexed annuity writers (insurance companies) extensively use over-the-counter (“OTC”) options with Asian and Cliquet style settlement as a crediting method.
The Exchange proposes an Exotic Surcharge of $0.25 to be assessed on all customer (“C” origin code) Exotic contracts executed on CBOE.
The Exchange also proposes a FLEX Asian and Cliquet FLEX Trader Incentive Program (“Program”). The Program will provide monthly payments to FLEX Traders who trade orders with origin codes other than “C” against customer orders in FLEX Asian and Cliquet options. A compensation pool
A FLEX Trader will be entitled to a pro-rata share of the monthly compensation pool based on the customer order fees collected from customer orders traded against that FLEX Trader's orders with origin codes other than “C” in FLEX Asian and Cliquet options each month. The Exchange believes the Program will incentivize FLEX Traders to provide liquidity in FLEX Asian and Cliquet options. The Program shall be in place until December 31, 2016 or until total average daily volume in Exotics exceeds 15,000 contracts for three consecutive months, whichever comes first. At the time the FLEX Asian & Cliquet FLEX Trader Incentive Program ends, the Exchange will submit a rule filing removing the program from the fee schedule and notice shall be given via regulatory circular.
The following examples demonstrate how the program will work when both the monthly cap is and is not reached.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the Exotic Surcharge of $0.25 is reasonable because the amount of the new fee is within the range of surcharges assessed for customer transactions in other products (for example, customers are currently assessed a $0.21 Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge (which essentially acts as a customer priority surcharge) in SPX options). Furthermore, the Exchange believes customers are willing to pay premium exchange fees on FLEX Asian and Cliquet options to obtain traditional exchange-traded benefits, like price discovery, transparency and centralized clearing.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess the Exotic Surcharge to customers and not other market participants because customers are not subject to additional costs for effecting transactions in FLEX Broad-Based Index options that are applicable to other market participants, such as license surcharges. Additionally, customers are not subject to fees for effecting transactions in general that are applicable to other market participants, such as connectivity fees and fees relating to Trading Permits, and are not subject to the same obligations as other market participants, including regulatory and compliance requirements and quoting obligations.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer FLEX Traders a pro-rata share of a compensation pool equal to the lesser of 20% of the customer exchange fees collected on FLEX Asian and Cliquet options (from customer orders traded against orders with origin codes other than “C”) or $50,000. FLEX Asian and Cliquet options currently trade exclusively in the OTC market. The traditional benefits of exchange-traded options cannot be realized unless there is liquidity in the FLEX markets as compared to OTC. Providing FLEX Traders with incentives to trade FLEX Asian and Cliquet options should result in a more robust price discovery process that will result in better execution prices for customers. In addition, FLEX Traders in broad-based index options have equal opportunity to receive and respond to RFQs in FLEX Asian and Cliquet options and accordingly equal opportunity to receive a pro-rata allocation of the compensation pool (based upon the share of total fees collected from customer contracts against which the respective FLEX Trader trades orders with origin codes other than “C” orders).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While different transaction fees are assessed to different market participants, different market participants have different obligations and circumstances as noted above. Furthermore the incentive program encourages market participants to bring liquidity in FLEX Asian and Cliquet options to the Exchange (which benefits all market participants).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As of March 21, 2016, CBOE will be the only exchange to trade FLEX Asian and Cliquet options. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants. Finally, as mentioned above, FLEX Asian and Cliquet options on the CBOE will provide competition with OTC products while providing the benefits of trading on an exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10036.
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6819 or Dalia Osman Blass, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6821 (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 for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. OHAI is a Maryland corporation organized as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act.
2. Each of the Existing Co-Investment Affiliates would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act.
3. OHA is a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). OHA serves as the investment adviser to OHAI and the Existing Co-Investment Affiliates.
4. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit a Regulated Fund
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
6. In selecting investments for the Regulated Funds, an Adviser will consider only the investment objective, investment policies, investment position, capital available for investment (“Available Capital”) and other factors relevant to each Regulated Fund. Each of the Co-Investment Affiliates has or will have investment objectives and strategies that are similar to or overlap with the Objectives and Strategies
7. After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), other than in the case of pro rata Dispositions (as defined below) and Follow-On Investments,
8. All subsequent activity, meaning either to (a) sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of an investment (collectively, a “Disposition”) or (b) complete a Follow-On Investment, in respect of an investment acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction will also be made in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the application. With respect to the pro rata Dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata Disposition or Follow-On Investment without
9. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will have a financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than indirectly through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
10. If an Adviser or its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Co-Investment Affiliates (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other matter under either the Act or applicable state law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. The Independent Directors shall evaluate and approve any independent third party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates may be deemed to be a person related to a Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction 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 other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any Order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for a Co-Investment Affiliate or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the applicable Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the Adviser will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the maximum amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with information concerning each participating party's Available Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the amount proposed to be invested by each Regulated Fund and each Co-Investment Affiliate to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Co-Investment Affiliates only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) the interests of the Regulated Fund's stockholders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by the other Regulated Funds or any Co-Investment Affiliates would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Co-Investment Affiliate, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition 2(c)(iii), if:
(A) the Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Board of the Regulated Fund with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Fund, or any Co-Investment Affiliate, or any affiliated person of either receives in connection with the right of any other Regulated Fund or a Co-Investment Affiliate to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Co-Investment Affiliates (which each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Co-Investment Affiliates, the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8 below,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Co-Investment Affiliate. The grant to a Co-Investment Affiliate or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such Disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to any participating Co-Investment Affiliates and any other Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and Regulated Fund in such Disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Disposition; (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such Dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all Dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the applicable Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(d) Each Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund will bear its own expenses in connection with any such Disposition.
8. (a) If any Co-Investment Affiliate or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Co-Investment Affiliate and each Regulated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; (ii) the Board of the
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) The amount of the Follow-On Investment is not based on the Co-Investment Affiliates' and the Regulated Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Co-Investment Affiliates, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity; then the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the maximum amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Independent Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by the Co-Investment Affiliates and the other Regulated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Independent Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
11. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act), of any Co-Investment Affiliate.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the 1933 Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective advisory agreements with the Co-Investment Affiliates and the Regulated Funds, be shared by the participating Co-Investment Affiliates and the participating Regulated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or being acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other matter under either the Act or applicable state law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 4 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On February 10, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BATS”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend BATS Rule 11.23(a)(8) to modify the term “Eligible Auction Order” to delineate the types of orders that may participate in an auction for a BATS listed corporate security
Currently, “Eligible Auction Order” is defined as any Market-On-Open (“MOO”),
The Exchange proposes to exclude the following types of orders from participation in an IPO Auction and would reject such orders: (1) Stop Orders
The Exchange also proposes to specify the types of orders that would be converted by the Exchange for purposes of participating in the IPO Auction for a BATS listed corporate security.
The Exchange also proposes to ignore certain order modifiers for orders that have been entered to participate in an IPO Auction.
The Quote-Only Period is the designated period of time prior to a Halt Auction, a Volatility Closing Auction, or an IPO Auction during which Users may submit orders to the Exchange for participation in the auction.
The Exchange proposes to extend the Quote-Only Period with respect to an IPO Auction for an ETP such that it would commence at 8:00 a.m.,
Finally, the Exchange proposes to extend the Quote-Only Period in the event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange that may impair the ability of Users to participate in the IPO Auction or of the Exchange to complete the IPO Auction.
After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange believes that refining the types of orders processed in an IPO Auction and/or those that would be placed onto the BATS Book
Specifically, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to reject orders with the characteristics described above from participating in the IPO Auction because doing so would aid in reducing systems complexity and risk associated both with completing the IPO Auction and with transferring any unexecuted portion of such orders to the BATS Book once the auction is complete.
In addition, in contrast to those orders that would be rejected, the Exchange notes that the types of orders the Exchange proposes to convert are more commonly used by Members than those order types the Exchange proposes to reject.
The Exchange further believes it is reasonable to ignore certain modifiers on an order during the IPO Auction because doing so would simplify and reduce the complexity of the auction process or such modifiers are incompatible with the IPO Auction process.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that amending the definition of Eligible Auction Orders to reject, convert, or ignore certain types of orders in connection with the IPO Auction process for a BATS listed corporate security is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to seek to simplify and reduce the complexity of the IPO Auction process and to clearly describe the treatment of those orders and modifiers submitted during an IPO Auction that would be rejected, converted, or ignored.
The Exchange states that it believes that a longer Quote-Only Period for ETPs is warranted because it will encourage the entry of orders prior to an IPO Auction for newly issued ETPs, which typically have lower participation rates especially as compared to IPO Auctions for corporate securities.
In addition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend the Quote-Only Period for a BATS listed corporate security to begin at a time announced in advance by the Exchange that shall be between fifteen and thirty minutes plus a short random period prior to such IPO Auction because it will allow market participants more time to enter orders to participate in the IPO Auction.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to extend the Quote-Only Period in the event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange that may impair the ability of market participants to participate in an IPO Auction as such an event may prevent market participants from entering orders during the Quote-Only Period, which in turn could result in less liquidity that may prevent the underwriters from adequately accessing the trading interest of the IPO Security.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to the Quote-Only Period are consistent with the Act because these changes are designed to allow market participants additional time in advance of an IPO Auction, and the proposed technical amendment to BATS Rule 11.23(d)(2)(A) conforms the terminology used in that section of BATS Rule 11.23(d) with the current terminology used in the BATS rule book.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.1, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete these Rules: 902 entitled, “Admission to Partnership-Partnership Arrangements”; and 907 entitled, “Partners and Officers.” 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 delete certain Phlx membership rules in order to harmonize and modernize the Exchange's Rulebook. Specifically, Exchange proposes to delete Rules: 902 entitled, “Admission to Partnership-Partnership Arrangements”; and 907, entitled “Partners and Officers.” Rule 902 was retained through the demutualization process in 2004 and is no longer applicable to the business today. Although Rule 907 was established following the demutualization the requirements are no longer necessary. The proposed changes related to the former need for the Exchange to more acutely understand the ownership structure of partnerships as discussed in greater detail below.
Rule 902 was applicable when Phlx offered seats to its members, prior to demutualization. Before demutualization, Phlx seats conveyed ownership of the Exchange, which created a greater obligation on Phlx to gather information on the members' corporate structure. Specifically, Phlx was obligated to maintain a heighted vigilance on the structure, ownership, and change of control in a partnership in order to ensure the financial integrity of its ownership structure.
Today, permits are issued to Exchange members and member organizations. The Exchange no longer needs to differentiate ownership structure as required under Rule 902 and 907 because the permit structure conveys no ownership of the Exchange to the membership. These membership rules related to partnerships are no longer applicable today. The distinctions regarding the admission of member as a partnership, as compared to a corporation, are no longer relevant. The Exchange proposes to remove these outdated Rules.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that Rules 902 and 907(a) are burdensome and unnecessary. These rules regarding admission of partnerships and changes to the partnership serve no modern purpose to the Exchange. The former ownership structure required the Exchange to be vigilant of the ownership structure of its members in case of financial distress or bankruptcy as the seat structure was vital to the financial condition of the Exchange. Before demutualization, members had an ownership interest in the Exchange. Today, permits convey no ownership and therefore such vigilance as to the ownership structure of members is not warranted.
The only changes to the rules since demutualization were in 2009 in order to replace the term “Membership Committee” with “Membership Department,” which was done in conjunction with other changes to the Exchange's standing committees and corporate governance processes in order to make the Exchange more similar to the other Nasdaq SROs.
Rule 907(b) is burdensome and unnecessary as well. The obligations on the firm, its employees, and officers are not predicated on the requirement that one of the officers be a member of the exchange, therefore this rule has become obsolete. These rules have remained on the books of the exchange for several years, despite their obsolescence because they were not inconsistent with the membership process and the overall regulatory goals of the Exchange.
The removal of Rules 902 and 907 will promote just and equitable principles of trade, and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by removing burdensome requirements so that members and member organizations may properly focus on other relevant requirements which benefit the marketplace.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed amendments seek to delete certain unnecessary rules
The deletions of Rules 902 and 907(a) will remove a current burden on competition which requires members and member organizations that are partnerships to disclose unnecessary information as compared to other corporate entities not structured as a partnership.
The deletion of 907(b) will remove a current burden on competition by eliminating the need to identify an officer that is a member of the exchange which will have no practical effect on the exchange's interaction with the company. The Exchange does not believe that there is any impact on inter-market competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. The Exchange has provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-36 and should be submitted on or before April 26, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the Exchange, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., the Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), BATS BYX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively “Participants”), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan. As is described more fully below, the proposed rules would require member organizations to comply with the applicable data collection requirements of the Plan.
The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a control group of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each (selected by a stratified random sampling process).
In approving the Plan, the Commission noted that the Trading Center data reporting requirements would facilitate an analysis of the effects of the Pilot on liquidity (
The Plan contains requirements for collecting and transmitting data to the Commission and to the public.
Appendix B.II of the Plan (Market and Marketable Limit Order Data) requires Trading Centers to submit information relating to market orders and marketable limit orders, including the time of order receipt, order type, the order size, the National Best Bid and National Best Offer (“NBBO”) quoted price, the NBBO quoted depth, the average execution price-share-weighted average, and the average execution time-share-weighted average.
The Plan requires Appendix B.I and B.II data to be submitted by Participants
The Exchange is proposing new Rule 67(b)—Equities to set forth the requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Plan. Proposed Rule 67(b)—Equities is substantially similar to the proposed rule changes by BZX that were recently approved by the Commission to adopt BZX Rule 11.27(b) which also sets forth requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Plan.
Proposed Rule 67(b)(1)—Equities requires that a member organization that operates a Trading Center shall establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data collection and transmission requirements of Items I and II to Appendix B of the Plan, and a member organization that is a Market Maker shall establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data collection and transmission requirements of Item IV of Appendix B of the Plan and Item I of Appendix C of the Plan.
Proposed Rule 67(b)(2)—Equities provides that the Exchange shall collect and transmit to the SEC the data described in Items I and II of Appendix B of the Plan relating to trading activity in Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities
Appendix B.IV (Daily Market Maker Participation Statistics) requires a Participant to collect data related to Market Maker participation from each Market Maker
The Exchange understands that some member organizations may utilize a DEA that is not a Participant to the Plan and that their DEA would not be subject to the Plan's data collection requirements. In such case, a DEA that is not a Participant of the Plan would not be required to collect the required data and may not establish procedures for which member organizations it acts a DEA for to report the data required under subparagraphs (b)(3)(A) of Rule 67—Equities and in accordance with Item IV of Appendix B of the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt subparagraph (b)(3)(B) to Rule 67—Equities to require a member organization that is a Market Maker whose DEA is not a Participant to the Plan to transmit the data collected pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) of Rule 67(b)—Equities to FINRA, which is a Participant to the Plan and is to collect data relating to Item IV of Appendix B of the Plan on behalf of the Participants. For Market Makers for which it is the DEA, FINRA issued a Market Maker Transaction Data Technical Specification to collect data on Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities from Trading Centers to comply with the Plan's data collection requirements.
Proposed Rule 67(b)(3)(C)—Equities provides that the Exchange shall transmit the data collected by the DEA or FINRA pursuant to Rule 67(b)(3)(A)—Equities and Rule 67(b)(3)(B)—Equities above relating to Market Maker activity on a Trading Center operated by the Exchange to the SEC in a pipe delimited format within 30 calendar days following month end. The Exchange shall also make such data publicly available on the Exchange Web site on a monthly basis at no charge and shall not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.
Appendix C.I (Market Maker Profitability) requires a Participant to collect data related to Market Maker profitability from each Market Maker for which it is the DEA. Specifically, the Participant is required to collect the total number of shares of orders executed by the Market Maker; the raw
The Exchange is therefore proposing Rule 67(b)(4)—Equities to set forth the requirements for the collection and transmission of data pursuant to Appendix C.I of the Plan. Proposed Rule 67(b)(4)(A)—Equities requires that a member organization that is a Market Maker shall collect and transmit to their DEA the data described in Item I of Appendix C of the Plan with respect to executions in Pilot Securities that have settled or reached settlement date that were executed on any Trading Center. The proposed rule also requires member organizations to provide such data in a format required by their DEA by 12 p.m. EST on T+4 for executions during and outside of Regular Trading Hours in each: (i) Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for the period beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period through the trading day immediately preceding the Pilot Period; and (ii) Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
For the same reasons set forth above for subparagraph (b)(3)(B) to Rule 67—Equities, the Exchange proposes to adopt subparagraph (b)(4)(B) to Rule 67—Equities to require a member organization that is a Market Maker whose DEA is not a Participant to the Plan to transmit the data collected pursuant to paragraph (4)(A) of Rule 67(b)—Equities to FINRA. As stated above, FINRA is a Participant to the Plan and is to collect data relating to Item I of Appendix C of the Plan on behalf of the Participants. For Market Makers for which it is the DEA, FINRA issued a Market Maker Transaction Data Technical Specification to collect data on Pre-Pilot Data Collection Securities and Pilot Securities from Trading Centers to comply with the Plan's data collection requirements.
The Exchange is also adopting a rule setting forth the manner in which Market Maker participation will be calculated. Item III of Appendix B of the Plan requires each Participant that is a national securities exchange to collect daily Market Maker registration statistics categorized by security, including the following information: (i) Ticker symbol; (ii) the Participant exchange; (iii) number of registered market makers; and (iv) the number of other registered liquidity providers. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 67(b)(5)—Equities providing that the Exchange shall collect and transmit to the SEC the data described in Item III of Appendix B of the Plan relating to daily Market Maker registration statistics in a pipe delimited format within 30 calendar days following month end for: (i) Transactions in each Pre-Pilot Data Collection Security for the period beginning six months prior to the Pilot Period through the trading day immediately preceding the Pilot Period; and (ii) transactions in each Pilot Security for the period beginning on the first day of the Pilot Period through six months after the end of the Pilot Period.
The Exchange is also proposing, through
The Exchange and the other Participants have determined that it is appropriate to create a new flag for reporting orders that are affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands. Accordingly, a Trading Center shall report a value of “Y” to their DEA when the ability of an order to execute has been affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands in effect at the time of order receipt. A Trading Center shall report a value of “N” to their DEA when the ability of an order to execute has not been affected by the Limit-Up Limit-Down bands in effect at the time of order receipt.
The Exchange is proposing
The Exchange is proposing
The Exchange is proposing
Finally, the Exchange is proposing
The proposed rule change will be effective on April 4, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements and clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant of the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading, liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act because the proposal implements and clarifies the requirements of the Plan and applies specific obligations to member organizations in furtherance of compliance with the Plan.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant of the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the data collection requirements for member organizations that operate Trading Centers will apply equally to all such member organizations, as will the data collection requirements for Market Makers.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 86 to add additional order types to the NYSE Bonds
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 86 to add NYSE Bonds Fill-or-Kill Order, NYSE Bonds All-or-None Order and NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order as new order types to the NYSE Bonds platform, and to codify the operation of NYSE Bonds Good 'Til Date Order and NYSE Bonds Timed Order that are currently available on NYSE Bonds platform. The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of IMP to provide greater detail of how an IMP is established with respect to Bond Auctions.
NYSE Bonds is the Exchange's electronic system for receiving, processing, executing and reporting bids, offers, and executions in bonds. Rule 86 prescribes how bonds are traded on the NYSE Bonds trading platform and sets forth available order types. NYSE Bonds currently allows Users
The Exchange believes each of the order types described below is currently offered by alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) for bonds, such as Tradeweb's BondDesk Group, KCG Bondpoint, and TMC Bonds.
A NYSE Bonds Fill-or-Kill Order (“NYSE Bonds FOK Order”) is a NYSE Bonds Limit Order that would be executed immediately in its entirety at the best price available against a single contra party and, if not executed immediately in its entirety, would be cancelled.
The following example illustrates the proposed functionality:
A NYSE Bonds All-or-None Order (“NYSE Bonds AON Order”) is a NYSE Bonds Limit Order (whose AON contingency would be displayed on the order book) that would be executed in its entirety against one or more contra party, or not at all.
A NYSE Bonds AON Order must be designated as “day,” “good 'til cancelled,” or “good ’til date.” A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “day” can participate in all trading sessions. A NYSE bonds AON Order designated as “day,” if not executed or cancelled, would expire at the end of the trading session for which it was designated, on the day on which it was entered. A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “day” and not designated for a particular trading session but entered during the Opening Bond Trading Session would participate in the Opening Bond Trading Session, and if not executed during the Opening Bond Trading Session or cancelled, would be eligible for execution in the Core Bond Trading Session. A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “day” and not designated for a particular trading session but entered during the Core Bond Trading Session would participate in the Core Bond Trading Session only and if not executed in full, the order would be cancelled at the end of such trading session.
A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “good 'til cancelled” may be entered during the Opening Bond Trading Session and the Core Bond Trading Session but can be executed in the Core Bond Trading Session only. A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “good ’til cancelled” and not designated for a particular trading session but entered during the Core Bond Trading Session would participate in the Core Bond Trading Session only and if not executed in full, the order would remain on NYSE Bonds until cancelled. Unless a NYSE Bonds AON Order that is designated as “good 'til cancelled” is executed or cancelled in full, the order would be placed on the order book for the following day in price-time priority for participation in the Core Bond Trading Session after the end of the Core Bond Auction.
A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “good `til date” may be entered during the Opening Bond Trading Session and the Core Bond Trading Session but can be executed in the Core Bond Trading Session only. A NYSE Bonds AON Order designated as “good 'til date” and not designated for a particular trading session but entered during the Core Bond Trading Session would participate in the Core Bond Trading Session only and if not executed in full, would remain on NYSE Bonds until the end of the Core Bond Trading Session on the date specified. Unless a NYSE Bonds AON Order that is designated as “good 'til date” is executed or cancelled in full, the order would be placed on the order book for the following day in price-time priority for participation in the Core Bond Trading Session after the end of the Core Bond Auction.
The following examples illustrate the proposed functionality:
• T4 enters an order to buy 400 bonds @ $102.01.
A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order is a NYSE Bonds Limit Order (whose minimum quantity contingency would be displayed on the order book) that would trade against one or more contra side order(s), provided the order's quantity requirement is met.
A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order may be partially executed as long as each partial execution is for the minimum number of bonds or greater. If there remains a balance after one or more partial executions and such balance is for less than the minimum quantity specified on the order, such balance would be treated as a regular limit order and placed on the order book in price-time priority. A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order would not participate in either the Opening Bond Auction or the Core Bond Auction and the order would be eligible for execution only in the trading session during which it was sent.
A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order must be designated as “day,” “good 'til cancelled,” or “good 'til date.” A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order designated as “day” is eligible to participate in all three trading sessions. A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order designated as “day,” if not executed or cancelled, would expire at the end of the trading session for which it was designated, on the day on
A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order designated as “good 'til cancelled” may be entered during the Opening Bond Trading Session and the Core Bond Trading Session but would be eligible to participate in the Core Bond Trading Session only. Unless a NYSE bonds Minimum Quantity Order that is designated as “good 'til cancelled” is executed in full, or is cancelled, the order would be placed on the order book for the following day in price-time priority for participation in the Core Bond Trading Session after the end of the Core Bond Auction.
A NYSE Bonds Minimum Quantity Order designated as “good 'til date” may be entered during the Opening Bond Trading Session and the Core Bond Trading Session but would be eligible to participate in the Core Bond Trading Session only. Unless a NYSE bonds Minimum Quantity Order that is designated as “good 'til date” is executed in full, or is cancelled, the order would be placed on the order book for the following day in price-time priority for participation in the Core Bond Trading Session after the end of the Core Bond Auction.
The following examples illustrate the proposed functionality:
A NYSE Bonds Good 'Til Date Order (“NYSE Bonds GTD Order”) is a NYSE Bonds Limit Order or a NYSE Bonds Reserve Order, which if not executed or cancelled, would expire at the end of the Core Bond Trading Session on the date specified on the order. A NYSE Bonds GTD Order must include an Expire Date or be designated for the Core Bond Trading Session; otherwise, the order would be rejected. A NYSE Bonds GTD Order can participate in the Core Bond Auction and the Core Bond Trading Session only. A NYSE Bonds GTD Order would participate in the Core Bond Auction if it is entered before commencement of the Core Bond Auction, and if not executed in the Core Bond Auction, would remain live on NYSE Bonds and would be eligible for execution in the Core Bond Trading Session, unless the order is cancelled. A NYSE Bonds GTD Order entered after commencement of the Core Bond Auction would participate in the Core Bond Trading Session, unless the order is cancelled.
A NYSE Bonds GTD Order can participate only in the Core Bond Trading Session, and such order designated for any other trading session would be rejected. A NYSE Bonds GTD Order that is not executed or cancelled in full at the end of the trading day would be placed on the order book for the following day in price-time priority for participation in the Core Bond Trading Session after the end of the Core Bond Auction.
The following example illustrates how a NYSE Bonds GTD Order would be executed once it becomes effective:
Suppose on October 14, a NYSE Bonds trading day, at 7:00 a.m. (during the Early Bond Trading Session):
On the same trading day, at 8:00 a.m., when the Core Bond Auction commences, these orders would be processed as follows:
On the same trading day, at 8:30 a.m. (during the Core Bond Trading Session):
On the same trading day, at 5:01 p.m. (during the Late Bond Trading Session), the remaining orders would be processed as follows:
On the next trading day, October 15, at 7:58 a.m. (during the Opening Bond Trading Session):
On the same trading day, October 15, at 5:00 p.m., when the Late Bond Trading Session commences, the remaining orders would be processed as follows:
A NYSE Bonds Timed Order is a NYSE Bonds Limit Order or a NYSE Bonds Reserve Order that remains in effect for a period of time specified on the order (
A NYSE Bonds Timed Order would participate in the Core Bond Auction and Core Bond Trading Session if the order is entered before commencement of the Core Bond Auction, and if the order is not executed in the Core Bond Auction, or not cancelled, it would be eligible for execution in the Core Bond Trading Session. A NYSE Bonds Timed Order must include at least one of the following: An Effective Time, an Expire Time or a designated trading session, otherwise the order would be rejected.
A NYSE Bonds Timed Order submitted with an Effective Time alone becomes effective at the Effective Time and if not executed, the order would be cancelled at the end of the Late Bond Trading Session. A NYSE Bonds Timed Order submitted with an Expire Time alone becomes effective at the time it is sent to the Exchange and if not executed, the order would be cancelled at the Expire Time designated on the order. A NYSE Bonds Timed Order submitted with a designated trading session alone or with a designated trading session and either an Effective Time or an Expire Time would become effective at the time the designated trading session begins and if not executed, the order would be cancelled at the end of the designated trading session.
The following examples illustrate the functionality:
Suppose on October 14, a NYSE Bonds trading day, at 8:05 a.m. (during the Core Bond Trading Session):
On the same trading day, October 15, at 5:00 p.m., when the Late Bond Trading Session commences, with no executions occurring during the day, the remaining orders would be processed as follows:
Suppose on October 14, a NYSE Bonds trading day, at 8:35 a.m. (during the Core Bond Trading Session):
Suppose on October 14, a NYSE Bonds trading day, at 8:35 a.m. (during the Core Bond Trading Session):
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Indicative Match Price (“IMP”) in current Rule 86(b)(2)(G) to provide greater detail of how an IMP is established with respect to Bond Auctions. Specifically, the IMP in a particular bond means a single price at which the maximum number of bonds is executable. If there are two or more prices at which the maximum number of bonds is executable, the IMP would be the price that is closest to the Reference Price provided that the IMP cannot be lower (higher) than any unmatched top of book order to buy (sell) that was eligible to participate in an auction at the IMP. For the Opening Bond Auction, the Reference Price is the closing price in a bond on the previous trading day or if the bond did not trade on the previous trading day, the closing price on the last day that the bond traded.
Current Rule 86(l)(3)(A) provides that a Bond Auction would not occur in the event of a failure to establish an IMP. The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule to provide that, for non-marketable buy and sell orders entered in NYSE Bonds where the size of the best bid and best offer are the same, an IMP would not be established and a Bond Auction would not occur.
Current Rule 86(n)(2)(E) provides that a Bond Halt Auction would not occur in the event of a failure to establish an IMP. The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule to provide that, for non-marketable buy and sell orders entered in NYSE Bonds where the size of the best bid and best offer are the same, an IMP would not be established and a Bond Halt Auction would not occur.
The following example illustrates how an IMP would be established and there is no overlapping interest for a trade to occur:
Suppose that the previous closing price of a bond is $101.50 and the order book just prior to a Bond Auction is as follows:
The following example illustrates how an IMP would be established and there is overlapping interest for a trade to occur:
Suppose that the previous closing price of a bond is $101.50 and the order book just prior to a Bond Auction is as follows:
In addition to adding order types to the NYSE Bonds platform and codifying functionality of order types currently available on NYSE Bonds, the Exchange also proposes to amend other parts of Rule 86 that are impacted by this proposed rule change. Rule 86(h) currently states that orders can only be designated for Bond Trading Sessions and cannot be designated for participation in Bond Auctions. The rule further states that participation in Bond Auctions is automatic if an order is designated for participation in a particular Bond trading Session and is entered prior to the commencement of the related Bond Auction . Given that not all of the new order types are eligible to participate in Bond Auctions, the Exchange proposes to amend the current rule to clarify that participation in Bond Auctions is not automatic if an order is designated for participation in a particular Bond Trading Session.
Additionally, Rule 86(j) currently states that buy and sell orders in NYSE Bonds are displayed, matched and executed according to price, with the highest bid price and the lowest offer price receiving highest priority and within each price, according to the time of order entry. For Timed Orders, priority within each price is determined based on the effective time of the order, as provided in proposed Rule 86(b)(2)(B)(vi)(3)(a)-(c). Timed Orders submitted with an Effective Time become effective at the time designated on the order.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive organizational changes to the rule text in order to make the rule easier to read and understand. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to renumber each of paragraphs (C), (D) and (E) to (B)(ii), (B)(iii) and (B)(iv) and to renumber each of paragraphs (F) through (O) to (C) through (K).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would protect investors and remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system by offering Users additional order types and therefore afford them greater opportunities to execute their bond orders on the Exchange.
The proposal to adopt All-or-None, Fill-or-Kill and Minimum Quantity order types would allow Users the discretion to utilize specifically designed order execution strategies. These new order types would be substantially the same as other All-or-None, Fill-or-Kill or Minimum Quantity order types that have been available on debt and equity markets and ATSs.
The proposed rule change to codify Good 'Til Date Orders and Timed Orders is designed to add clarity and transparency regarding current functionality without substantively modifying such functionality. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide additional clarity and specificity regarding the functionality of NYSE Bonds and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to a free and open market. The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and would provide Users greater flexibility in how they quote and trade bonds on the NYSE Bonds platform, while also enhancing the overall market quality for bonds traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by aligning the Exchange's offerings of order type functionality for bonds with those available for over-the-counter trading of bonds. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because the new order types would be available to all Users.
The determination of the IMP is essential to executing the greatest number of bonds during a Bond Auction and the Exchange believes providing the level of detail, as proposed in the revised definition, will promote transparency and provide clarity to the rule, which serves to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed amendments to current Rules 86(h) and (j) reflect the addition of new order types and the codification of existing order types and provide clarity and transparency to Exchange rules, which serves to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange also believes that the proposed non-substantive organizational changes are reasonable, fair, and equitable because they are designed to make the rule easier to comprehend. The proposed amendments to Rules 86(h) and (j) and the organizational changes to Rule 86
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to require listed companies to publicly disclose compensation or other payments by third parties to any nominee for director or sitting director in connection with their candidacy for or service on the companies' Board of Directors.
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
Nasdaq Rules require listed companies to make public disclosure in several areas. For example, a listed company is required to publicly disclose material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors' decisions as well as when non-independent directors serve on a committee that generally requires only independent directors, such as for a controlled company or under exceptional and limited circumstances.
In recent years, Nasdaq has observed one area where investors may not have complete information. This is when third parties compensate directors in connection with their candidacy for and/or service on company Boards of Directors. This third-party compensation, which may not be publicly disclosed, arises when a shareholder privately offers to compensate nominee directors in connection with those nominees' candidacy or service as directors. These arrangements vary but may include compensating directors based on achieving benchmarks such as an increase in share price over a fixed term.
Nasdaq believes these undisclosed compensation arrangements potentially raise several concerns, including that they may lead to conflicts of interest among directors and call into question the directors' ability to satisfy their fiduciary duties. These arrangements may also tend to promote a focus on short-term results at the expense of long-term value creation. Nasdaq believes that enhancing transparency around third-party board compensation would help address these concerns and would benefit investors by making available information potentially relevant to investment and voting decisions. Nasdaq further believes that the proposed disclosure would not create meaningful burdens on directors or those making these payments nor on the companies required to make the disclosure.
Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to adopt Rule 5250(c) to require listed companies
A listed company's obligation under the proposed rule to publicly disclose such arrangements is continuous and will terminate at the earlier of the resignation of the director subject to the arrangement or one year following the termination of the arrangement. The proposed rule is intended to be construed broadly and apply to both compensation and other forms of payment such as health insurance premiums that are made in connection with a person's candidacy or service as a director. Further, at a minimum, the disclosure should identify the parties to and the material terms of the agreement or arrangement. To allow listed companies affected by the proposed rule a transition period, the rule will be effective on June 30, 2016.
In recognition of circumstances that do not raise the concerns noted above or where such disclosure may be duplicative, the proposed rule would not apply to agreements and arrangements that existed before the nominee's candidacy and have been otherwise publicly disclosed, for example, pursuant to Items 402(a)(2) or 402(k) of Regulation S-K or in a director's biographical summary included in periodic reports filed with the Commission. An example of an agreement or arrangement falling under this exception is a director or a nominee for director being employed by a private equity fund where employees are expected to and routinely serve on the boards of the fund's portfolio companies and their remuneration is not materially affected by such service. If such a director or a nominee's remuneration is materially increased in connection with such person's candidacy or service as a director of the company, only the difference between the new and the previous level of compensation needs to be disclosed under the proposed rule.
Additionally, the proposed rule would not apply to agreements and arrangements that relate only to reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with candidacy as a director, whether or not such reimbursement arrangement has been publicly disclosed. Finally, Commission Rule 14a-12(c) subjects persons soliciting proxies in opposition to companies' proxy solicitation to certain disclosure requirements of Schedule 14A of the Act. The proposed rule relieves the company from the initial disclosure requirements of the proposed rule where an agreement or arrangement for a director or a nominee has been disclosed under Item 5(b) of Schedule 14A of the Act. However, such an agreement or arrangement is subject to the continuous disclosure requirements of the proposed rule on an annual basis.
Further, in recognition that a company, despite reasonable efforts, may not be able to identify all such agreements and arrangements, the proposed rule provides that a company shall not be deficient with the proposed requirement if it has undertaken reasonable efforts to identify all such agreements and arrangements, including by asking each director or nominee in a
In cases where a company is considered deficient, the company must provide a plan to regain compliance. Consistent with deficiencies from most other rules that allow a company to submit a plan to regain compliance,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed rule to require listed companies to disclose third party compensation and payments in connection with board service is intended to provide meaningful information to investors and to address potential concerns with undisclosed compensation schemes without creating unnecessary burdens on directors or those making the payments.
Further, the proposed rule change is intended to promote transparency and protect investors and is not being adopted for competitive purposes. To the extent a competitor marketplace believes that the proposed rule change places them at a competitive disadvantage, it may file with the Commission a proposed rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
Applicants request an order that would permit (a) series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to perform creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
FactorShares Trust (the “Trust”), Factor Advisors, LLC and ETF Managers Group LLC (together, the “Initial Advisers”), and ALPS Distributors, Inc. (the “Distributor”).
The application was filed on July 2, 2015, and amended on December 22, 2015 and March 22, 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 April 25, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on 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.
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Trust and the Initial Advisers, 35 Beechwood Road, Suite 2B, Summit, New Jersey 07901; The Distributor, 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-8707, or Holly L. Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (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 for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. FactorShares Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
2. The Initial Advisers are registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and will be the investment adviser to the Trust's existing funds that operate as index-based exchange-traded funds (the “Current Funds”) and the Funds (defined below). Any other Adviser (defined below) will also be registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Each Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with one or more investment advisers to act as sub-advisers to particular Funds, or their respective Master Funds, (each, a “Sub-Adviser”). Any Sub-Adviser will either be registered under the Advisers Act or will not be required to register thereunder.
3. The Trust has entered into a distribution agreement with the Distributor. The distributor for the Current Funds is and will be the Distributor. The Distributor is a broker-dealer (“Broker”) registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and will act as distributor and principal underwriter of one or more of the Funds. The distributor of any one Fund may be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of that Fund's Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers. No distributor will be affiliated with any Exchange (defined below).
4. Applicants request that the order apply to the Current Funds and any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or series thereof, that may be created in the future that operate as an exchanged-traded fund (“ETF”) and that track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”) (together, the “Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by the Initial Advisers or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Advisers (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application. The Current Funds and Future Funds, together, are the “Funds.”
5. Applicants state that a Fund may operate as a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure (“Feeder Fund”). Applicants request that the order permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (“Master-Feeder Relief”). Applicants may structure certain Feeder Funds to generate economies of scale and incur lower overhead costs.
6. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will hold certain securities, currencies, other assets and other investment positions (“Portfolio Holdings”) selected to correspond generally to the performance of its Underlying Index. Certain of the Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of equity and/or fixed income securities issued by one or more of the following categories of issuers: (i) Domestic issuers and (ii) non-domestic issuers meeting the requirements for trading in U.S. markets. Other Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of foreign and domestic, or solely foreign, equity and/or fixed income securities (“Foreign Funds”).
7. Applicants represent that each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will invest at least 80% of its assets (excluding securities lending collateral) in the component securities of its respective Underlying Index (“Component Securities”) and TBA Transactions,
8. Future Funds may seek to track Underlying Indexes constructed using 130/30 investment strategies (“130/30 Funds”) or other long/short investment strategies (“Long/Short Funds”). Each Long/Short Fund will establish (i) exposures equal to approximately 100% of the long positions specified by the Long/Short Index
9. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will utilize either a replication or representative sampling strategy to track its Underlying Index. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a replication strategy will invest in the Component Securities of its Underlying Index in the same approximate proportions as in such Underlying Index. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a representative sampling strategy will hold some, but not necessarily all of the Component Securities of its Underlying Index. Applicants state that a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a representative sampling strategy will not be expected to track the performance of its Underlying Index with the same degree of accuracy as would an investment vehicle that invested in every Component Security of the Underlying Index with the same weighting as the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that the returns of each Fund will have an annual tracking error relative to the performance of its Underlying Index of less than 5%.
10. Each Fund is or will be entitled to use its Underlying Index pursuant to either a licensing agreement with the entity that compiles, creates, sponsors or maintains an Underlying Index (each, an “Index Provider”) or a sub-licensing arrangement with the applicable Adviser, which will have a licensing agreement with such Index Provider.
11. Applicants recognize that Self-Indexing Funds could raise concerns regarding the potential ability of the Affiliated Index Provider to manipulate
12. Applicants propose that each day that a Fund, the NYSE and the national securities exchange (as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act) (an “Exchange”) on which the Fund's Shares are primarily listed (“Listing Exchange”) are open for business, including any day that a Fund is required to be open under section 22(e) of the Act (a “Business Day”), each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Listing Exchange, the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Holdings that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the Business Day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to maintain full portfolio transparency will provide an additional alternative mechanism for addressing any such potential conflicts of interest.
13. Applicants do not believe the potential for conflicts of interest raised by an Adviser's use of the Underlying Indexes in connection with the management of the Self Indexing Funds, and the Affiliated Accounts will be substantially different from the potential conflicts presented by an adviser managing two or more registered funds. Both the Act and the Advisers Act contain various protections to address conflicts of interest where an adviser is managing two or more registered funds and these protections will also help address these conflicts with respect to the Self-Indexing Funds.
14. Each Adviser and any Sub-Adviser has adopted or will adopt, pursuant to Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act, written policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder. These include policies and procedures designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest among the Self-Indexing Funds, their respective Master Funds, and the Affiliated Accounts, such as cross trading policies, as well as those designed to ensure the equitable allocation of portfolio transactions and brokerage commissions. In addition, the Initial Advisers have adopted policies and procedures as required under section 204A of the Advisers Act, which are reasonably designed in light of the nature of its business to prevent the misuse, in violation of the Advisers Act or the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder, of material non-public information by the Adviser or an associated person (“Inside Information Policy”). Any other Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser will be required to adopt and maintain a similar Inside Information Policy. In accordance with the Code of Ethics
15. To the extent the Self-Indexing Funds or their respective Master Funds transact with an Affiliated Person of an Adviser or Sub-Adviser, such transactions will comply with the Act, the rules thereunder and the terms and conditions of the requested order. In this regard, each Self-Indexing Fund's board of directors or trustees (“Board”) will periodically review the Self-Indexing Fund's use of an Affiliated Index Provider. Subject to the approval of the Self-Indexing Fund's Board, an Adviser, Affiliated Persons of the Adviser (“Adviser Affiliates”) and Affiliated Persons of any Sub-Adviser (“Sub-Adviser Affiliates”) may be authorized to provide custody, fund accounting and administration and transfer agency services to the Self-Indexing Funds. Any services provided by an Adviser, Adviser Affiliates, Sub-Adviser and Sub-Adviser Affiliates will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules under the Act and any relevant guidelines from the staff of the Commission.
16. The Shares of each Fund will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
17. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
18. Creation Units will consist of specified large aggregations of Shares,
19. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The list of Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will apply until a new list is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the list except to correct errors in the published list. Each Listing Exchange or other major market data provider will disseminate, every 15 seconds during regular Exchange trading hours, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association, an amount for each Fund stated on a per individual Share basis representing the sum of (i) the estimated Cash Amount and (ii) the current value of the Deposit Instruments.
20. Transaction expenses, including operational processing and brokerage costs, will be incurred by a Fund when investors purchase or redeem Creation Units in-kind and such costs have the potential to dilute the interests of the Fund's existing shareholders. Each Fund will impose purchase or redemption transaction fees (“Transaction Fees”) in connection with effecting such purchases or redemptions of Creation Units. In a master-feeder structure, the Transaction Fee would be paid indirectly to the Master Fund.
21. Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded individually on an Exchange. It is expected that one or more member firms of an Exchange will be designated to act as a market maker (each, a “Market Maker”) and maintain a market for Shares trading on the Exchange. Prices of Shares trading on an Exchange will be based on the current
22. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their roles to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for the Shares, may from time to time find it appropriate to purchase or redeem Creation Units. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
23. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. A redeeming investor will pay a Transaction Fee, calculated in the same manner as a Transaction Fee payable in connection with purchases of Creation Units.
24. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or a “mutual fund.” Instead, each such Fund will be marketed as an “ETF.” All marketing materials that describe the features or method of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on an Exchange, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such 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) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the owner, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through an underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the price at which Shares trade will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the option continually to purchase or redeem
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants state that settlement of redemptions for Foreign Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the United States market, but also on current delivery cycles in local markets for the underlying foreign securities held by a Foreign Fund. Applicants state that the delivery cycles currently practicable for transferring Redemption Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to fifteen (15) calendar days.
8. Applicants believe that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants propose that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Foreign Fund to be made within fifteen calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants suggest that a redemption payment occurring within fifteen calendar days following a redemption request would adequately afford investor protection.
9. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Foreign Funds, or their respective Master Funds, that do not effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind.
10. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter and any other broker-dealer from knowingly selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
11. Applicants request an exemption to permit registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are not advised or sponsored by the Advisers and are not part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds (such management investment companies are referred to as “Investing Management Companies,” such UITs are referred to as “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts are collectively referred to as “Funds of Funds”), to acquire Shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any Broker registered under the Exchange Act, to sell Shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
12. Each Investing Management Company will be advised by an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (the “Fund of Funds Adviser”) and may be sub-advised by investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each a “Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser”). Any investment adviser to an Investing Management Company will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each Investing Trust will be sponsored by a sponsor (“Sponsor”).
13. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief adequately address the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees and overly complex fund structures. Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
14. Applicants believe that neither a Fund of Funds nor a Fund of Funds Affiliate would be able to exert undue influence over a Fund.
15. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Funds, including that no Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board,
16. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, under condition B.5., a Fund of Funds Adviser, or a Fund of Funds' trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Applicants state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
17. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Fund, nor its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, other than a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary,
18. Applicants also note that a Fund may choose to reject a direct purchase of Shares in Creation Units by a Fund of Funds. To the extent that a Fund of Funds purchases Shares in the secondary market, a Fund would still retain its ability to reject any initial investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) by declining to enter into a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds.
19. Applicants also are seeking the Master-Feeder Relief to permit the Feeder Funds to perform creations and redemptions of Shares in-kind in a master-feeder structure. Applicants assert that this structure is substantially identical to traditional master-feeder structures permitted pursuant to the exception provided in section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(E) provides that the percentage limitations of section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) shall not apply to a security issued by an investment company (in this case, the shares of the applicable Master Fund) if, among other things, that security is the only investment security held by the investing investment company (in this case, the Feeder Fund). Applicants believe the proposed master-feeder structure complies with section 12(d)(1)(E) because each Feeder Fund will hold only investment securities issued by its corresponding Master Fund; however, the Feeder Funds may receive securities other than securities of its corresponding Master Fund if a Feeder Fund accepts an in-kind creation. To the extent that a Feeder Fund may be deemed to be holding both shares of the Master Fund and other securities, applicants request relief from section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B). The Feeder Funds would operate in compliance with all other provisions of section 12(d)(1)(E).
20. Sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with the power to vote by the other person, and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the 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, and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of a company's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”). Any investor, including Market Makers, owning 5% or holding in excess of 25% of the Trust or such Funds, may be deemed affiliated persons of the Trust or such Funds. In addition, an investor could own 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding shares of one or more Affiliated Funds making that investor a Second-Tier Affiliate of the Funds.
21. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons of the Funds, or Second-Tier Affiliates of the Funds, solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an
22. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making “in-kind” purchases or “in-kind” redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for “in-kind” purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for “in-kind” redemptions of Creation Units will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. There will be no discrimination between purchasers or redeemers. Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments for each Fund will be valued in the identical manner as those Portfolio Holdings currently held by such Fund and the valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in an identical manner regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Applicants do not believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching, but rather assert that such procedures will be implemented consistently with each Fund's objectives and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will be made on terms reasonable to applicants and any affiliated persons because they will be valued pursuant to verifiable objective standards. The method of valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund is identical to that used for calculating “in-kind” purchase or redemption values and therefore creates no opportunity for affiliated persons or Second-Tier Affiliates of applicants to effect a transaction detrimental to the other holders of Shares of that Fund. Similarly, applicants submit that, by using the same standards for valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund as are used for calculating “in-kind” redemptions or purchases, the Fund will ensure that its NAV will not be adversely affected by such securities transactions. Applicants also note that the ability to take deposits and make redemptions “in-kind” will help each Fund to track closely its Underlying Index and therefore aid in achieving the Fund's objectives.
23. Applicants also seek relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b) from section 17(a) to permit a Fund that is an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds to sell its Shares to and redeem its Shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
24. To the extent that a Fund operates in a master-feeder structure, applicants also request relief permitting the Feeder Funds to engage in in-kind creations and redemptions with the applicable Master Fund. Applicants state that the customary section 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) relief would not be sufficient to permit such transactions because the Feeder Funds and the applicable Master Fund could also be affiliated by virtue of having the same investment adviser. However, applicants believe that in-kind creations and redemptions between a Feeder Fund and a Master Fund advised by the same investment adviser do not involve “overreaching” by an affiliated person. Such transactions will occur only at the Feeder Fund's proportionate share of the Master Fund's net assets, and the distributed securities will be valued in the same manner as they are valued for the purposes of calculating the applicable Master Fund's NAV. Further, all such transactions will be effected with respect to pre-determined securities and on the same terms with respect to all investors. Finally, such transaction would only occur as a result of, and to effectuate, a creation or redemption transaction between the Feeder Fund and a third-party investor. Applicants believe that the terms of the proposed transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy of each Fund and will be consistent with the investment objectives and policies of each Fund of Funds, and the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The requested relief, other than the section 12(d)(1) Relief and the section 17 relief related to a master-feeder structure, will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of index-based ETFs.
2. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of such Fund will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
4. Each Fund's Web site, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis for the Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
5. Each Self-Indexing, Long/Short and 130/30 Fund will post on its Web site on each Business Day, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Exchange, the Fund's, or its respective Master Fund's, Portfolio Holdings.
6. No Adviser or any Sub-Adviser to a Self-Indexing Fund, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Self-Indexing Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for a Self-Indexing Fund, or its respective Master Fund, through a transaction in which the Self-Indexing Fund, or its respective Master Fund, could not engage directly.
1. The members of a Fund of Funds' Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of a Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Fund of Funds' Advisory Group or the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, for which the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Fund of Funds Adviser and Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or a Fund of Funds Affiliate from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Fund exceeds the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“non-interested Board members”), will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to the Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-l under the Act) received from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, by the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, or its affiliated person by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Any Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, by the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the non-interested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to ensure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
8. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A), a Fund of Funds and the Trust will execute a FOF Participation Agreement stating without limitation that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Fund of Funds Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of any changes to the list of the names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Fund of Funds will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be fully recorded in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent (i) the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, acquires securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes, (ii) the Fund acquires securities of the Master Fund pursuant to the Master-Feeder Relief or (iii) the Fund invests in a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary that is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of the Fund (or its respective Master Fund) as described in the Application. Further, no Wholly-Owned Subsidiary will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act other than money market funds that comply with rule 2a-7 for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On February 1, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BATS”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund pursuant to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
According to the Exchange, the Fund's investment objective will be to provide total return which exceeds that of the Dow Jones RAFI Commodity Index (“Benchmark”)
The Fund will be an actively managed fund that seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions,
The Fund's Commodities investments, in part, will be comprised of exchange-traded futures contracts on commodities that comprise the Benchmark. Although the Fund, through the Subsidiary, will generally hold many of the futures contracts included in the Benchmark, the Fund and the Subsidiary will be actively managed and will not be obligated to invest in all of (or to limit investments solely to) such futures contracts. In addition, with respect to investments in exchange-traded futures contracts, the Fund and the Subsidiary will not be obligated to invest in the same amount or proportion as the Benchmark, or be obligated to track the performance of the Benchmark. In addition to exchange-traded futures contracts, the Fund's Commodities investments will also be comprised of the following: Centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared swaps on commodities; exchange-traded options on futures contracts that provide exposure to the investment returns of the commodities markets; and exchange-traded commodity-linked instruments, without investing directly in physical commodities.
The Fund will invest in Commodities through investments in the Subsidiary and will not invest directly in physical commodities. The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary may not exceed 25% of the Fund's total assets. In addition to Commodities, the Fund's assets will be invested in: (1) Short-term, investment grade fixed income securities, including only the following instruments: U.S. government and agency securities,
The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary will be designed to help the Fund achieve exposure to commodity returns in a manner consistent with the federal tax requirements applicable to the Fund and other regulated investment companies. The Fund intends to qualify for, and to elect to be treated as, a separate regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Subsidiary will generally seek to make investments in Commodities, and its portfolio will be managed by the Adviser or a Sub-Adviser.
The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary is intended to provide the Fund with exposure to commodity markets within the limits of current federal income tax laws applicable to investment companies such as the Fund, which limit the ability of investment companies to invest directly in the derivative instruments. The Subsidiary will have the same investment objective as the Fund, but unlike the Fund, it may invest without limitation in Commodities. The Subsidiary's investments will provide the Fund with exposure to domestic and international markets.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has adopted substantial amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5 relating to the permissible exemptions and conditions for reliance on exemptions from registration as a commodity pool operator. As a result of the instruments that will be indirectly held by the Fund, the Adviser will register as a commodity pool operator and will also become a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Any Sub-Adviser will register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading adviser, as required by CFTC regulations. The Fund and the Subsidiary will be subject to regulation by the CFTC and NFA and additional disclosure, reporting, and recordkeeping rules imposed upon commodity pools.
While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Subsidiary's shares will be offered only to the Fund, and the Fund will not sell shares of the Subsidiary to other investors. The Fund and the Subsidiary will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities (other than shares of the Subsidiary). The Fund will not purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies, except in compliance with the 1940 Act or any applicable exemptive relief. In addition, the Exchange represents that, with respect to the futures contracts and exchange-traded options on futures contracts in which the Subsidiary invests, not more than 10% of the weight (to be calculated as the value of the contract divided by the total absolute notional value of the Subsidiary's futures and options contracts) of the futures and options contracts held by the Subsidiary, in the aggregate, shall consist of instruments whose principal trading market is a market from which the Exchange may not obtain information regarding trading in the futures contracts and exchange-traded options on futures contracts by virtue of: (a) Its membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”); or (b) a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily, and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange further represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including:
(1) The Shares will be subject to BATS Rule 14.11(i), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares.
(4) The Exchange will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and in the exchange-traded Commodities and exchange-traded investment companies not included within the definition of Commodities (together, “Exchange Traded Instruments”) held by the Fund and the Subsidiary with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and in the Exchange Traded Instruments held by the Fund and the Subsidiary from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and in the Exchange Traded Instruments held by the Fund and the Subsidiary from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange also will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE.
(5) With respect to the futures contracts and exchange-traded options on futures contracts in which the Subsidiary invests, not more than 10% of the weight (to be calculated as the value of the contract divided by the total absolute notional value of the Subsidiary's futures and options contracts) of the futures and options contracts held by the Subsidiary, in the aggregate, shall consist of instruments whose principal trading market is a market from which the Exchange may not obtain information regarding trading in the futures contracts and exchange-traded options on futures contracts by virtue of: (a) Its membership in ISG; or (b) a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(6) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular (“Circular”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) BATS Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
(7) For initial and continued listing, the Fund and the Subsidiary must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
(8) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser under the 1940 Act.
(9) The Fund will invest in Commodities through investments in the Subsidiary and will not invest directly in physical commodities. The Fund's investment in the Subsidiary may not exceed 25% of the Fund's total assets. The Fund and the Subsidiary will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities (other than shares of the Subsidiary).
(10) Investments in non-centrally cleared swaps (through the Subsidiary) will not represent more than 20% of the Fund's net assets.
(11) At least 75% of corporate debt obligations will have a minimum principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. In addition, the exchange-traded investment companies and commodity-linked instruments in which the Fund invests will be listed and traded in the U.S. on registered exchanges.
(12) While the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
(13) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in the filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and description of the Fund, including those set forth above and in the Notice. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of BATS Rule 14.11(i), including those set forth in this proposed rule change, to be listed and traded on the Exchange on an initial and continuing basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
By letter dated March 30, 2016 (the “Letter”), as supplemented by conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets, counsel for J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Trust, the JPMorgan Diversified Return International Currency Hedged ETF and the JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency Hedged ETF (each, a “Fund” and collectively the “Funds”), any national securities exchange on or through which shares issued by the Funds (“Shares”) may subsequently trade, SEI Investments Distribution Co. (the “Distributor”), and persons or entities engaging in transactions in Shares (collectively, the “Requestors”), requested exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in connection with secondary market transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations of Shares of at least 50,000 shares (“Creation Units”).
The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The JPMorgan Diversified Return International Currency Hedged ETF will seek to provide investment results that closely correspond, before fees and expenses, to the performance of the FTSE Developed ex North America Diversified Factor 100% Hedged to USD Index (the “JPIH Index”), which consists of (a) the equity securities included in the FTSE Developed ex North America Diversified Factor Index (the “JPIH Underlying Index”), and (b) a currency hedging component (reflecting the effect of selling the applicable non-U.S. currency forward each month), which is intended solely to mitigate exposure to fluctuations between the currencies of the securities included in the JPIH Index and the U.S. dollar. The Fund intends to track the JPIH Index by (a) holding shares of the JPMorgan Diversified Return International Equity ETF (the “JPIH Underlying ETF”), an ETF whose investment objective is to seek investment results that correspond generally to the performance, before fees and expenses, of the JPIH Underlying Index, instead of the Fund investing directly in the shares of issuers of the individual securities of the JPIH Underlying Index
Similarly, the JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Currency Hedged ETF will seek to provide investment results that closely correspond, before fees and expenses, to the performance of the FTSE Developed Europe Diversified Factor 100% Hedged to USD Index (the “JPEH Index” and together with the JPIH Index, the “Indexes”; each an “Index”), which consists of (a) the equity securities included in the FTSE Developed Europe Diversified Factor Index (the “JPEH Underlying Index” and together with the JPIH Underlying Index, the “Underlying Indexes”; each an “Underlying Index”), and (b) a currency hedging component (reflecting the effect of selling the applicable non-U.S. currency forward each month), which is intended solely to mitigate exposure to fluctuations between the currencies of the securities included in the JPEH Index and the U.S. dollar. The Fund intends to track the JPEH Index by (a) holding shares of the JPMorgan Diversified Return Europe Equity ETF (the “JPEH Underlying ETF” and together with the JPIH Underlying ETF, the “Underlying ETFs”; each an “Underlying ETF”), an ETF whose investment objective is to seek investment results that correspond generally to the performance, before fees and expenses, of the JPEH Underlying Index, instead of the Fund investing directly in the shares of issuers of the individual securities of the JPEH Underlying Index; and (b) entering into foreign currency forward contracts.
Accordingly, each Fund intends to operate primarily as an “ETF of ETFs.” Except for the fact that each Fund intends to operate primarily as an ETF of ETFs, and enter into forward currency contracts as described above, each Fund will operate in a manner similar to its respective Underlying ETF.
The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
• Shares of each Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-end management investment company that is registered with the Commission;
• The Trust will continuously redeem Creation Units at net asset value (“NAV”), and the secondary market price of the Shares should not vary substantially from the NAV of such Shares;
• Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded on the NYSE Arca (the “Exchange”) or other exchange in accordance with exchange listing standards that are, or will become, effective pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act;
• Each ETF in which each Fund is invested will meet all conditions set forth in a relevant class relief letter;
• All the components of each Index (except for each Index's currency hedging component)
• The intra-day proxy value of each Fund per share and the value of each Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market data vendor throughout the trading day;
• On each business day before the opening of business on the Exchange, the Funds' custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make publicly available the list of the names and the numbers of securities and other assets (except the forward currency contracts) of each Fund's portfolio that will be applicable that day to creation and redemption requests;
• The Exchange or other market information provider will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing on a per-share basis, the current value of the securities and cash to be deposited as consideration for the purchase of Creation Units;
• Each Fund will invest at least 80% of its total assets (but typically far more) in component securities of the applicable Index (primarily by indirect investments through the applicable Underlying ETF), except for entering into forward currency contracts
• Each Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate an effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create workable hedges;
• The Requestors believe that arbitrageurs are expected to take advantage of price variations between each Fund's market price and its NAV;
• The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the transparency of each Fund's portfolio and the availability of the intra-day indicative value, the liquidity of securities and other assets held by each Fund, and the ability to acquire such securities, as well as arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges; and
• A close alignment between the market price of Shares and each Fund's NAV is expected.
While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for the Shares.
Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any “distribution participant” and its “affiliated purchasers” from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase any security which is the subject of a distribution until after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines “distribution” to mean any offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or are participating in a distribution of
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will continuously redeem at the NAV Creation Unit size aggregations of the Shares of each Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and each Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with respect to each Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a distribution of Shares of each Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares during their participation in such distribution.
Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security holders, or any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer or selling security holder.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will redeem at the NAV Creation Units of Shares of each Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and each Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (e) of Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to the Funds, thus permitting each Fund to redeem Shares of each Fund during the continuous offering of such Shares.
Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the representations and facts in the Letter, and subject to the conditions below, we find that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because market participants will receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending distribution, and thus the concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rule 10-b17 will not be implicated.
This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
• The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17 except for Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
• The Trust will provide the information required by Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Persons relying upon this exemptive relief shall discontinue transactions involving the Shares of the Funds, pending presentation of the facts for the Commission's consideration, in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any of the facts or representations made by the Requestors and, consistent with all preceding letters, particularly with respect to the close alignment between the market price of Shares and each Fund's NAV. In addition, persons relying on this exemptive relief are directed to the antifraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a) and 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on this exemptive relief.
This order should not be considered a view with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed transactions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice; issuance and effective date of Revised SBA Model Form of Agreement of Limited Partnership for an SBIC Issuing Debentures Only.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has updated the SBA Model Form of Agreement of Limited Partnership for an SBIC Issuing Debentures Only (“Model Version 3.0”). This update reflects comments received
The effective date of the Model Version 3.0 is October 1, 2016.
Michael Schrader, Attorney Advisor, Department of Financial Law and Lender Oversight, Office of General Counsel, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205-7115.
The SBIC Program was established under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. SBICs are privately owned and managed investment funds, licensed and regulated by SBA, that use privately-raised capital plus funds borrowed with an SBA guarantee to make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses. The SBIC license application (SBA Forms 2181, 2182 and 2183) requires an applicant to submit, among other things, its organizational documents. The majority of applicants to the SBIC program are formed as limited partnerships, and these applicants must submit their limited partnership agreement as part of their application. The original version of SBA's model limited partnership agreement was developed in 2000 to assist SBIC applicants in producing a limited partnership agreement suitable for an SBIC and to facilitate this process by including provisions required by the regulations governing the SBIC Program (13 CFR part 107) and other SBA policy requirements designed to minimize the risk of loss to SBA in providing financial assistance to SBICs. That version was updated in 2004, with additional limited updates since that time (“Model Version 2.0”). The Model Version 2.0 is available on SBA's Web site at
Since the last comprehensive update to the Model Version 2.0, changes have occurred both in the structure and operation of limited partnerships and in the venture capital industry. As part of its process of updating the Model Version 2.0, SBA published notices in the
All applicants, whether first time or subsequent fund applicants, that submit an SBIC license application on or after October 1, 2016 must use the Model Version 3.0 and follow the instructions set forth therein.
15 U.S.C. 681.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated 03/29/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14679 B and for economic injury is 14680 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Texas.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before May 5, 2016.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030,
In accordance with regulations and policy, the Small Business Development Centers (SBDC's) must provide SBA semi-annual financial and programmatic reports-outlining expenditures and accomplishments. The information collected will be used to monitor the progress of the program.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated 03/29/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates Are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14681 B and for economic injury is 14682 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including the authority contained in 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 22 U.S.C. 2656, and 8 U.S.C. 1182e and 1182f, and delegated pursuant to Delegation of Authority 245-1, dated February 13, 2009, and to the extent authorized by law, I hereby delegate the authorities and duties vested in the Secretary of State, as follows:
a. To the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 1182e and 1182f, and in consultation with other officials as appropriate, the authority to “find, based on credible and specific information” that a foreign national is or has been directly involved in the activities prohibited in § 1182e(a) and § 1182f(a), and to determine whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that the foreign national has discontinued his or her involvement with, and support for, such practices.”
b. To the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, in consultation with other officials as appropriate, the authority to direct consular officers not to issue visas under § 1182e(a) or § 1182f(a) as well as to waive the prohibitions set forth in those sections; and
c. To the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, the authority to submit to Congress written notification of waiver justifications required by § 1182e(c)(2) and § 1182f(c)(2), based on determinations made by the Secretary or other official with delegated authority.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time. This delegation of authority revokes Delegation of Authority 356, dated April 12, 2013, but does not supersede or otherwise affect any other delegation of authority to submit Congressional notifications.
The Assistant Secretaries of Consular Affairs and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor may, to the extent consistent with applicable law, redelegate these functions within their respective bureaus, with the limitation that waiver authority may not be delegated below the level of Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated hereunder. The Under Secretary for Management may at any time exercise any authority or function that is delegated herein to the Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs. The Under Secretary of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights may at any time exercise any authority or function that is delegated herein to the Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Salah Abdeslam, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise a previously approved information collection. Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Information is collected to determine compliance with Federal regulations. This revision addresses requirements from the Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) Rule, RIN 2120-AJ94.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting.
The meeting will be held May 5, 2016 from 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0662.
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 Special Committee 224. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 48 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles and equipment on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S.
The effective date of the waiver is April 6, 2016.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 48 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles (including sedans, vans, pickups, trucks, buses, and street sweepers) and equipment (such as trail grooming equipment) on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S. The waiver would apply to approximately 393 vehicles and equipment acquisitions. The requests for the third quarter of calendar year 2015, available at
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, section 635.410 requires that steel or iron materials (including protective coatings) that will be permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid project must be manufactured in the U.S. For FHWA, this means that all the processes that modified the chemical content, physical shape or size, or final finish of the material (from initial melting and mixing, continuing through the bending and coating) occurred in the U.S. The statute and regulations create a process for granting waivers from the Buy America requirements when its application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. In 1983, FHWA determined that it was both in the public interest and consistent with the legislative intent to waive Buy America for manufactured products other than steel manufactured products. However, FHWA's national waiver for manufactured products does not apply to the requests in this notice because they involve predominately steel and iron manufactured products. The FHWA's Buy America requirements do not have special provisions for applying Buy America to “rolling stock” such as vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of Buy America rolling stock provisions for other DOT agencies).
Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers that produce the vehicles and vehicle components identified in this notice in such a way that their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically. The FHWA's Buy America requirements were tailored to the types of products that are typically used in highway construction, which generally meet the requirement that steel and iron materials be manufactured domestically. In today's global industry, vehicles are assembled with iron and steel components that are manufactured all over the world. The FHWA is not aware of any domestically produced vehicle on the market that meets FHWA's Buy America requirement to have all its iron and steel be manufactured exclusively in the U.S. For example, the Chevrolet Volt, which was identified by many commenters in a November 21, 2011,
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the “Consolidated and
Based on FHWA's conclusion that there are no domestic manufacturers that can produce the vehicles and equipment identified in this notice in such a way that steel and iron materials are manufactured domestically, and after consideration of the comments received, FHWA finds that application of FHWA's Buy America requirements to these products is inconsistent with the public interest (23 U.S.C. 313(b)(1) and 23 CFR 635.410(c)(2)(i)). However, FHWA believes that it is in the public interest and consistent with the Buy America requirements to impose the condition that the vehicles and the vehicle components be assembled in the U.S. Requiring final assembly to be performed in the U.S. is consistent with past guidance to FHWA Division Offices on manufactured products (see Memorandum on Buy America Policy Response, Dec. 22, 1997,
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical Corrections Act of 2008” (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice of its finding that a public interest waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate on the condition that the vehicles and equipment identified in the notice be assembled in the U.S. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) has requested an exemption for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver from the Federal requirement to hold a U.S. commercial driver's license (CDL). Daimler requests a five-year exemption for Ms. Melanie Baumann, executive assistant to the head of the Daimler Trucks and Bus Division. Ms. Baumann holds a valid German commercial license and wants to test drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements in “real world” environments, and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German commercial license ensure that operation under the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0032 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Section 5206(a)(2) of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,” (FAST Act) [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, Dec. 4, 2015], effective October 1, 2015, permits exemptions for no longer than five years from their dates of inception, instead of the previous two years. This statutory provision will be codified in 49 CFR part 381 in a forthcoming rulemaking.
Daimler has applied for a 5-year exemption for Melanie Baumann from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. Ms. Baumann is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to her lack of residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
The exemption would allow Ms. Baumann to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote technological advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. Ms. Baumann needs to drive Daimler vehicles on public roads to better understand “real world” environments in the U.S. market. According to Daimler, Ms. Baumann will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on Interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. She will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
Ms. Baumann holds a valid German commercial license, and as explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Ms. Baumann is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide.
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79410)].
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) a limited exemption from the commercial learner's permit (CLP) requirement in 49 CFR 383.25(c). All State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) are allowed to use this exemption at their discretion. The exemption will allow ODOT and participating SDLAs to extend to one year the 180-day timeline for the CLP from the date of issuance, without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and endorsement knowledge tests. Under the exemption, an applicant wishing to have a new CLP after the previous one expires will be required to take all applicable tests before a new CLP is issued.
This exemption is effective April 5, 2016, and expires April 5, 2018.
Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards;
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
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 decision of the Agency must be published in the
ODOT requested an exemption from the Agency's CLP requirement in 49 CFR 383.25(c). The regulation provides that the CLP be valid for no more than 180 days from the date of issuance. The State may renew the CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and endorsement knowledge tests. ODOT proposed that it be allowed to extend the 180-day timeline to one year for CLPs issued to its drivers.
ODOT provided multiple reasons for regulatory relief from the CLP rule. First, ODOT believes that the 180-day time line required to renew the CLP adds nothing to the effectiveness of the rule itself, the purpose of which is to “enhance safety by ensuring that only qualified drivers are allowed to operate commercial vehicles on our nation's highways” (76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011). ODOT asserts that neither FMCSA staff nor the States were able to identify any highway safety enhancement arising from this requirement. ODOT states that it is unaware of any data suggesting that persons who have not renewed their CLP or obtained their CDL within six months pose less risk on the Nation's highways.
Second, ODOT agrees that requiring CLP holders to retake the knowledge test after not obtaining a CDL within one year improves highway safety, but disagrees that the requirement for renewal at six months is needed. According to ODOT, if the exemption is granted, ODOT's CLP would have a validity period of one year with no renewal allowed. All applicable knowledge tests would be required before a new CLP could be issued, which would accomplish the objective of not allowing a person to have a CLP longer than one year without passing knowledge tests.
The third reason for the request is that Oregon's “Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) field offices have a very large volume of work to accomplish and, at best, limited resources with which to accomplish it. Adding the bureaucratic requirement for a CLP holder to visit a DMV office and pay a fee in order to get a second six months of CLP validity will add unnecessary workload to offices already stretched to the limit. ODOT is confident there would be no negative impact on safety if the exemption is granted.”
According to ODOT, “If this exemption is not granted, Oregon drivers with CLPs who have not passed the CDL skills test within six months of CLP issuance would have to go to a DMV office and pay for a renewal of the CLP. This would cause undue hardship to the drivers, from the perspectives of both their time and their pocketbooks. It would also cause undue hardship to our agency, where scarce resources would be used to process bureaucratic transactions that add nothing to highway safety.”
In addition, because the issues concerning ODOT's request could be applicable in each State, FMCSA requested public comment on whether the exemption, if granted, should apply to all SDLAs.
On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comment (80 FR 74199). The Agency received 10 comments representing various interests in response to the proposed exemption.
Six comments received in support of the exemption were from the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA); Colorado Department of Revenue CDL Unit (Colorado); New York Department of Motor Vehicles (New York DMV); Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc. (OTA); and two individuals.
The ALEA commented that “this requirement is an added financial burden to the CLP holder by having to pay additional fees for renewal and if applicable, any re-testing fees. Therefore, ALEA is in complete agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation in their petition to allow the CLP to be valid for one year.”
Colorado commented “Regarding FMCSA's request that should this be applicable to all states. Colorado is concerned that 77% of the SDLA's have already made the programming changes to issue only a 180 day CLP. Making a change at this point could be very confusing and possibly expensive for SDLA's and the CDL industry. Colorado would suggest that FMCSA leave the rule as is. However, Colorado would also suggest that FMCSA work with ODOT one on one regarding this issue to determine if an exemption should be granted to ODOT. If FMCSA believes an exemption should be granted to ODOT, Colorado would support FMCSA granting Oregon's exemption request.”
The New York DMV commented that “New York supports granting Oregon's request for an exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(c) which requires that a CLP must be valid for no more than 180 days. The exemption should apply to all SDLAs, allowing states to set their own CLP expiration date, provided the CLP's validity does not exceed one year.”
The OTA commented “FMCSA has asked if the exemption requested by ODOT should be extended to other states? Our response is, absolutely and we believe FMCSA should go one step further and change the underlying regulation to allow issuance of a CLP for 1-year.”
Mr. Vardis Gaus wrote “I believe this extension to be valid.”
Mr. Daniel Tucker commented “As a CDL driver, instructor and state-certified third-party evaluator I believe this proposal/request makes all the sense in the world. Allowing up-to a year practice and development for an entry level driver candidate or re-entering driver allows them to take as much time necessary to build (or rebuild) skills.”
Four comments opposing the exemption were from the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) and three individuals.
The CVTA summarized its opposition to the exemption by stating “We urge FMCSA to deny ODOT's request for an exemption from the 180-day CLP renewal requirement. Granting such an exemption carries serious safety concerns and sends the wrong message regarding FMCSA's willingness to accommodate underfunded CDL programs across the Country. Granting this exemption would signal to states that FMCSA will not only tolerate state practices of underfunding CDL programs, but will accommodate them. Moreover, granting this exemption would undercut Congress' recent efforts to put greater pressure on FMCSA and states to ensure that state CDL programs are more adequately funded and efficiently administered.”
Josh Anonymous wrote “Don't do it. Six months is plenty.”
Mr. Roland Doe wrote “Send a message to such an unfriendly bureaucracy: NO dice on the waiver request. If other states can meet the Federal requirement—and the majority of them are much easier to do business with—even California—so can ODOT.”
Mr. Gary Scott commented that “A learner's permit should only be valid for 6 months. If a person cannot achieve a level of proficiency within that time period to acquire a permanent CDL then maybe they should consider another line of work.”
All comments are available for review in the docket for this notice.
The FMCSA has evaluated ODOT's application on its merits following full consideration of the comments submitted to the docket, and has decided to grant the exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(c) for a period of 2 years. The exemption covers ODOT and all SDLAs. Extending the exemption to cover all SDLAs, at their discretion, will preclude the need for other SDLAs choosing to use the exemption to file identical exemption requests. FMCSA believes that safety would not be diminished by allowing a validity period of one year for the CLP. The maximum time allowed between taking the knowledge tests and obtaining the CDL is 12 months under the current rule and under the exemption. The exemption avoids the necessity of obtaining a renewal of the CLP after 6 months if the State chooses to allow that. FMCSA determined that the exemption would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
This notice details the application requirements and procedures for obtaining funding for eligible Railroad Safety Technology Grant projects. The opportunities described in this notice are available under Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number 20.321, “Railroad Safety Technology.”
Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no later than 5:00 p.m. DST May 20, 2016. Applications for funding received after 5:00 p.m. DST on May 20, 2016 will not be considered. See Section 4 of this notice for additional information regarding the application process.
Applications must be submitted via Grants.gov. For any required or supporting application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via Grants.gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), an applicant may submit an original and two (2) copies to Mr. Marvin Winston, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W36-440, Washington, DC 20590; Email:
If you have a project related question, you may contact Dr. Mark Hartong, Scientific and Technical Advisor (Phone: (202) 493-1332; email:
The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications for grants for eligible railroad safety technology projects. Congress appropriated the funding available under this NOFO, $25 million, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division L, Title I (Pub. L. 114-113 (December 18, 2015)), to carry out railroad safety technology grants as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 20158. To maximize the benefits of the funding available, FRA is limiting the eligible projects to those that implement a Positive Train Control (PTC) system or, as described in Section 3, will otherwise benefit overall PTC system implementation on freight, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads.
FRA anticipates making multiple awards from the funding made available in this notice and is not predetermining any minimum or maximum dollar amounts for awards. However, given the limited amount of funding currently available, applicants are encouraged to
Applications will proceed through a three-part review process:
1. Screening for completeness and eligibility;
2. Evaluation of eligible applications by technical panels applying the evaluation criteria; and
3. Project selection by the FRA Administrator applying additional selection criteria.
Each application will first be screened for eligibility (requirements outlined in Section 3 of this notice) and completeness (containing all required documentation outlined in Section 4 of this notice).
A technical panel consisting of subject-matter experts will evaluate eligible and complete applications using the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 3 of this notice. FRA will award funds to projects that are well-aligned with one or more of the evaluation and selection criteria. In addition, FRA will consider whether a project has a negative effect on any of the evaluation and selection criteria, and any such negative effect may reduce the likelihood that it will select the project for award.
The following entities are eligible applicants for PTC implementation projects:
• Passenger and freight railroad carriers;
• Railroad suppliers; and
• State and local governments for projects that have a public benefit of improved safety and network efficiency.
To be eligible for assistance, the above entities subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157(a) must have submitted a revised Positive Train Control Implementation Plan (PTCIP) to FRA as required by 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). FRA considers the development and submission of a revised PTCIP under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a) to meet the eligibility requirement related to submitting a plan required under 49 U.S.C. 20156(e)(2) containing an analysis of the impact, feasibility, costs and benefits of implementing PTC system technology. FRA believes that any submission connected to sec. 20156(e)(2), which has yet to be incorporated into a Federal regulation, would merely be duplicative of what a railroad analyzed when it developed and submitted a revised PTCIP. Thus, FRA considers the submission of a revised PTCIP to meet the eligibility requirements in 49 U.S.C. 20158(b)(3) for purposes of this NOFO. If an applicant is not required to comply with either sec. 20157(a) or sec. 20156(e)(2), the applicant must demonstrate that to FRA's satisfaction in its NOFO application.
The FRA is soliciting applications for projects that will benefit overall PTC system implementation on freight, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads. Under 49 U.S.C. 20158(b)(2), the FRA shall give priority to projects that (A) focus on making technologies interoperable between railroad systems, such as train control technologies; (B) accelerate train control technology deployment on high-risk corridors, such as those that have high volumes of hazardous materials shipments or over which commuter or passenger trains operate; or (C) benefit both passenger and freight safety and efficiency. Given that the amount of funding available is not likely sufficient to cover the costs necessary to deploy PTC on any given railroad, FRA will further prioritize projects that not only fall within these areas but also involve:
1. An entity or entities that have submitted a revised PTCIP and demonstrated progress in implementing PTC in accordance with its PTCIP and have shown good faith in attempting to timely complete PTC implementation;
2. Collaboration between freight and passenger railroad carriers, railroad suppliers, and State and local governments, particularly related to interoperability and other industry-wide PTC technical and management issues;
3. The development and deployment of technologies that will lower costs, accelerate implementation, increase interoperability between host and tenant operations, and improve reliability of PTC systems; and
4. The development and deployment of technologies that will eliminate PTC communications interference, provide solutions to configuration management of multi-railroad PTC software and firmware deployments, eliminate PTC communications interference; provide configuration management of multi-railroad PTC software and firmware deployments; and provide host-tenant railroad PTC interoperability/system certification.
Examples of eligible projects include the following:
• Costs for implementation, installation, and testing of PTC systems;
• Costs for shared PTC infrastructure (
• Costs to advance PTC interoperability, such as pilot programs, standardization committees, development of standard processes, and spectrum acquisition, sharing, and desensitization.
By statute, 49 U.S.C. 20158 allows for up to an 80 percent Federal share of project costs. The required 20 percent non-Federal match may be comprised of public sector (state or local) or private sector funding. However, the FRA cannot consider any other Federal funds, nor any non-Federal funds already expended (or otherwise encumbered), towards the matching requirement. Additionally, FRA is limiting the method for calculating the non-Federal match to cash contributions only—“in-kind” contributions will not be accepted. Matching funds provided in excess of the minimum requirement will be considered in evaluating the merit of an application.
FRA intends to award funds to PTC projects that achieve the maximum public benefits possible. Analysis provided by applicants that quantifies the monetary value (whenever possible) of the anticipated public benefits of the proposed project will be particularly relevant to the FRA in evaluating applications. The systematic process of comparing expected benefits and costs helps decision-makers organize information about, and evaluate tradeoffs between, alternative transportation investments. FRA will consider benefits and costs using standard data and qualitative information provided by applicants and will evaluate applications in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12893 (Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59 FR 4233), Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
• PTC Deployment Benefits;
• Technical Merit; and
• Project Development approach.
The following factors will be considered in assessing a proposed project's achievement of PTC deployment benefits:
• The degree to which the successful implementation of the proposed project would advance the technical deployment of PTC, including improvements to reliability, safety, security, and maintainability;
• The degree to which the successful implementation of the proposed project would decrease PTC implementation and maintenance costs; and
• The degree to which the project maximizes the return on investment (ROI) towards industry-wide implementation efforts.
The following factors will be considered in assessing a proposed project's technical merit:
• The degree to which the proposed project exhibits a sound scientific and engineering basis;
• The degree to which the proposed project could be practically applied in and compatible with the railroad's operating environment and infrastructure; and
• The perceived likelihood of technical and practical success.
The following factors will be considered in assessing the proposed project's planning and development to date:
• The technical qualifications and demonstrated experience of key personnel proposed to lead and perform the technical efforts, and qualifications of primary and supporting organizations to fully and successfully execute the proposal plan within the proposed timeframe and budget;
• The degree to which proposed effort is supported by multiple entities (letters of support are encouraged);
• The affordability and degree to which the proposed effort appears to be a good value for the amount of funding requested. Good value is defined as believing or concluding that the goods/services received were worth the price paid. Examples of the types of factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, suitability, quality, skills, price, and life-cycle cost. The mix of these and other factors and the relevant importance of each will vary on a case by case basis;
• The reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs;
• The extent of proposed cost sharing or cost participation under the proposed effort (exclusive of the applicant's prior investment); and
• Preference will be given to projects that can demonstrate an ability to substantially complete work, or otherwise provide benefits to industry, prior to December 31, 2018.
All evaluation criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price alone. While cost or price will be a factor that is considered, technical merit is appreciably more important and, as such, greater consideration will be given to technical excellence. An offer must be found acceptable under all applicable evaluation factors to be considered eligible for award.
In addition to the evaluation criteria outlined above, the FRA Administrator will apply the following selection criteria to further ensure that the projects selected for funding advance FRA's current mission and key priorities:
• Improving transportation safety;
• Maintaining transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair;
• Promoting economic competitiveness;
• Advancing environmentally sustainable transportation policies;
• Enhancing quality of life; and
• Building ladders of opportunity to expand the middle class.
Proposed projects that demonstrate the ability to provide reliable, safe and affordable transportation choices to connect economically disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities in disconnected communities with employment, training and education will receive particular consideration during project selection.
• The applicant's track record in successfully delivering previous FRA and DOT grants on time, on budget, and for the full intended scope;
• The applicant's means for achieving satisfactory continuing control over project assets in a timely manner, including public ownership of project assets or agreements with railroad operators and infrastructure owners at the time of application; and
• The extent to which the proposed project complements previous FRA or DOT awards.
• The extent to which the proposed project increases the economic productivity of land, capital, or labor at specific locations, particularly in economically distressed areas;
• Ensuring appropriate level of regional balance across the country;
• Ensuring consistency with national transportation and rail network objectives; and
• Ensuring integration with other rail services and transportation modes.
• Pursuing new rail technologies that result in favorable public return on investment and ensure delivery of project benefits; and
• Promoting innovations that demonstrate the value of new approaches to, among other things, transportation funding and finance, contracting, project delivery, congestion management, safety management, asset management, or long-term operations and maintenance.
Before making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (see 2 CFR 200.88 Simplified Acquisition Threshold), FRA will review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (SAM) (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313).
An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.
FRA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2
Complete applications must be submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. DST, May 20, 2016. Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply early to ensure that all materials are received before this deadline.
To apply for funding through Grants.gov, applicants must be properly registered. Complete instructions on how to register and submit an application can be found at Grants. gov. Registering with Grants.gov is a onetime process; however, it can take up to several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password. FRA recommends that applicants start the registration process as early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude submitting an application package by the application deadline. Applications will not be accepted after the due date. Delayed registration is not an acceptable justification for an application extension. (Please note that if a Dun &Bradstreet (DUNS) number must be obtained, this may take a significant amount of time to complete.)
Required documents for the application package are outlined in the following paragraphs. Applicants must complete and submit all components of the application package. FRA welcomes the submission of other relevant supporting documentation that may have been developed by the applicant (planning, engineering and design documentation, and letters of support). In particular, applications accompanied by completed feasibility studies and cost estimates may be more favorably considered during the evaluation process, as they demonstrate that an applicant has a greater understanding of the scope and cost of the project.
Applicants should submit all application materials through Grants.gov. For any required or supporting application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via Grants.gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), an applicant may submit an original and two (2) copies to Mr. Marvin Winston, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W36-440, Washington, DC 20590; Email:
The following points describe the minimum content which are required in the Project Narrative component of grant applications (additionally, FRA recommends that the Project Narrative generally adhere to the following outline). These requirements must be satisfied through a narrative statement submitted by the applicant, and may be supported by spreadsheet documents, tables, maps, drawings, and other materials, as appropriate. The Project Narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length (including any appendices). Applications containing Project Narratives that exceed this 25 page limitation will not be reviewed or considered for award.
Applicants should read this section carefully and must submit all required information.
1. Include a title page that lists the following elements in either a table or formatted list: Project title, location (
2. Designate a point of contact for the applicant and provide his or her name and contact information, including phone number, mailing address and email address. The point of contact must be an employee of an eligible applicant.
3. Indicate the amount of Federal funding requested, the proposed non-Federal match, and total project cost. Additionally, identify any other sources of Federal funds committed to the project, as well as any pending Federal requests. Make sure to also note if the requested Federal funding must be obligated or expended by a certain date due to dependencies or relationships with other Federal or non-Federal funding sources, related projects, or other factors. Finally, specify whether Federal funding has ever previously been sought for the project and not secured, and name the Federal program and fiscal year for funding request.
4. Explain how the applicant meets the applicant eligibility criteria, as outlined in Section 3 of this notice.
5. Provide a brief 4-6 sentence summary of the proposed project, capturing the transportation challenges the proposed project aims to address, as well as the intended outcomes and anticipated benefits that will result from the proposed project.
6. Include a detailed project description that expands upon the brief summary required above. This detailed description should provide, at a minimum, additional background on the transportation challenges the project aims to address, the expected users and beneficiaries of the project, the specific components and elements of the project, and any other information the applicant deems necessary to justify the proposed project. The detailed description should also clearly explain how the proposed project meets the project eligibility criteria, as outlined in Section 3 of this notice.
7. Include a thorough discussion of how the project meets all of the evaluation criteria for the respective project type, as outlined in Section 3 of this notice. Applicants should note that FRA reviews applications based upon the evaluation criteria. If an application does not sufficiently address the evaluation criteria, it is unlikely to be a competitive application. In responding to the criteria, applicants are reminded to clearly identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits and costs of proposed projects. The FRA understands that the level of detail and sophistication of analysis that should be expected for relatively small projects (
8. Describe proposed project implementation and project management arrangements. Include descriptions of the expected arrangements for project contracting, contract oversight, change-order management, risk management, and conformance to Federal requirements for project progress reporting.
Applicants must:
○ Submit a Statement of Work (SOW) that addresses the scope, schedule, and budget for the proposed project if it were to be selected for award. The SOW must contain sufficient detail so that both FRA and the applicant can understand the expected outcomes of the proposed work to be performed and monitor progress toward completing project tasks and deliverables during a prospective grant's period of performance. FRA has developed a standard SOW template that applicants must use to be considered for award. The SOW templates and other required forms are located at
○ Describe anticipated environmental and historic preservation impacts associated with the proposed project, any environmental or historic preservation analyses that have been prepared, and progress toward
○ Submit the FRA's Additional Assurances and Certifications;
○ Submit an SF 424A—Budget Information for Non-Construction or SF 424C—Budget Information for Construction;
○ Submit an SF 424B—Assurances for Non-Construction or SF 424D—Assurances for Construction; and
○ Submit an SF LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.
Award Notices for applications selected for funding will be announced after the application review period. FRA will contact successful applicants after announcement with information and instructions about the award process. Notification of a selected application is not an authorization to begin proposed project activities. The period of performance for grants awarded under this notice is dependent upon the project, and will be determined on a grant-by-grant basis. Extensions to the period of performance will be considered only through written requests to the FRA with specific and compelling justifications for why an extension is required. Any obligated funding that has not been spent by the grantee and reimbursed by the FRA upon completion of the grant will be de-obligated.
The grantee and any sub-grantee must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. A non-exclusive list of administrative and national policy requirements that grantees must follow includes: 2 CFR part 200, procurement standards, compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations, disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE), debarment and suspension, drug-free workplace, FRA's and OMB's Assurances and Certifications, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), labor standards, safety oversight, environmental protection, NEPA, environmental justice, and Buy America or Buy American provisions (as applicable).
The applicant will be required to comply with all standard FRA reporting requirements, including quarterly progress reports, quarterly Federal financial reports, and interim and final performance reports. Reports may be submitted electronically. The applicant must comply with all relevant requirements of 2 CFR 180.335 and 180.350.
The grantee must comply with all post-award reporting, auditing, monitoring, and close-out requirements.
If you have a project related question, you may call Dr. Mark Hartong, Scientific and Technical Advisor (Phone: (202) 493-1332; email:
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revision of the currently approved information collection:
49 U.S.C. Sections 5310 and 5311—Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities and Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program
OMB Control No.: 2132-0500
Comments must be submitted before June 6, 2016.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Marianne Stock, Office of Program Management, (202) 366-2677 or email
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend the following currently approved information collection:
Comments must be submitted before June 6, 2016.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms. Danielle Nelson, FTA Office of Program Management (202) 366-2160, or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the
(
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew the following information collection:
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141) authorized the Emergency Relief Program at 49 U.S.C. 5324. FTA's Emergency Relief program enables FTA to provide assistance to public transit operators in the aftermath of an emergency or major disaster. This program helps States and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing, and/or replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage as a result of an emergency, including natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. The program can fund capital projects to protect, repair, or replace facilities or equipment that are in danger of suffering serious damage, or have suffered serious damage as a result of an emergency. The program can also fund the operating costs of evacuation, rescue operations, temporary public transportation service, or reestablishing, expanding, or relocating service before, during or after an emergency.
Comments must be submitted before June 6, 2016.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mr. Adam Schildge, Office of Program Management (202) 366-0778, or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden
Under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 113-2), Congress provided $10.9 billion for FTA's Emergency Relief Program for recovery, relief and resilience efforts in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Approximately $10.2 billion remained available after implementation of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-25) and after intergovernmental transfers to other bureaus and offices within DOT. FTA has allocated approximately $9.27 billion in multiple tiers for response, recovery and rebuilding, for locally prioritized resilience projects, and for competitively selected resilience projects. In addition, FTA has reserved approximately $817 million for remaining unfunded recovery expenses.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 4 individuals and 2 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on March 31, 2016.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On March 31, 2016, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following 4 individuals and 2 entities pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. MCLINTOCK, James Alexander (a.k.a. AL RASHIDI, Yaqoob Mansoor; a.k.a. AL-RASHIDI, Mohammad Yaqub; a.k.a. AL-RASHIDI, Yaqub Mansoor; a.k.a. MACCLINTOCK, Yakoob; a.k.a. MCLINTOCK, Yaqub; a.k.a. MCLINTOK, James Alexander; a.k.a. UR RASHIDI, Yaqoob Mansoor; a.k.a. “AL SCOTLANDI, Qari”; a.k.a. “AL-SKOTLANDI, Abu Abdullah”; a.k.a. “MANSOOR, Yaqub”; a.k.a. “MOHAMMED, Yaqub”; a.k.a. “YACOUB, Qari”; a.k.a. “YACUB, Qari”; a.k.a. “YAKUB, Qari”; a.k.a. “YAQOOB, Muhammad”; a.k.a. “YAQOOB, Qari”; a.k.a. “YAQUB, Muhammad Qari Maulana”; a.k.a. “YAQUB, Qari”), House 6B, Street 40,, Sector F-10/4, Islamabad, Pakistan; Peshawar, Pakistan; DOB 23 Mar 1964; alt. DOB 22 Mar 1964; POB Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom; alt. POB Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom; nationality United Kingdom; alt. nationality Pakistan; Passport 706309249 (United Kingdom); alt. Passport 40526584 (United Kingdom) issued 10 Nov 2003; alt. Passport 039822418 (United Kingdom); alt. Passport AA1721192 (Pakistan); alt. Passport AA1721191 (Pakistan); National ID No. 6110159731197 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 8265866120651 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA; Linked To: TALIBAN; Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
2. SAFARASH, Muhammad Ijaz (a.k.a. ALI, Mohammad Ijaz Safarash; a.k.a. ALI, Mohammad Ijaz Safarish; a.k.a. ALI, Mohammed Ijaz Safarish; a.k.a. ALI, Mohd Ijaz Safarash; a.k.a. ALI, Mohd Ijaz Safrash; a.k.a. ALI, Muhammad Ijaz Safarash; a.k.a. ALI, Muhammed Ijaz Safarash; a.k.a. NASAR, Muhammad Ijaz; a.k.a. NASIR, Muhammad Ajaj; a.k.a. NASSARUDDIN, Muhammad Ajaj; a.k.a. SAFARASH, Mohammad Ijaz; a.k.a. SAFARISH, Mohammed Ejaz; a.k.a. “IJAZ, Muhammad”), Banimalik, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; T 3814774 Park, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia; DOB 16 Jun 1976; alt. DOB 01 Jan 1976; POB Sialkot, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; Passport CM9991171 (Pakistan); alt. Passport KF468635 (Pakistan); National ID No. 3460354961173 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 30576241062; Residency Number 2168561849 (Saudi Arabia) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA).
3. NURISTANI, Abdul Aziz (a.k.a. AL-NURISTANI, 'Abd al-Aziz; a.k.a. AL-NURISTANI, Abdul Aziz; a.k.a. NOORISTANI, Abdul Aziz; a.k.a. NURISTANI, Abdul Aziz-e; a.k.a. “AL-'AZIZ, Abd”; a.k.a. “AZIZ, Abdul”; a.k.a. “AZIZ, Abdullah”), Takal region, Peshawar, Pakistan; DOB 01 Jan 1943 to 31 Dec 1943; POB Du Ab, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan; alt. POB Parun, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan; citizen Pakistan; Passport AK1814292 (Pakistan); alt. Passport AK1814291 (Pakistan) issued 22 Nov 2006 expires 21 Nov 2011; National ID No. 1730190144291 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 13743484497 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA; Linked To: AL QA'IDA; Linked To: TALIBAN).
4. QAMAR, Naveed (a.k.a. KHAN, Naveed Qamar; a.k.a. QAMAR, Naved; a.k.a. QAMAR, Navid; a.k.a. QAMAR, Nuwayd), Flat #R9, Nauman Grand Sati, Gulistan Johar, Block 17, Karachi Sharqi, Karachi Province, Sindh, Pakistan; DOB 27 Oct 1971; POB Bahawalnagar, Pakistan; alt. POB Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan; nationality Pakistan; Passport ZG4109521 (Pakistan) issued 07 Jun 2008 expires 06 Jun 2013; National ID No. 4220149109527 (Pakistan); alt. National ID No. 35171469484 (Pakistan) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA).
1. AL RAHMAH WELFARE ORGANIZATION (a.k.a. AL RAHMAH WELFARE ORGANISATION; a.k.a. AL RAHMAN WELFARE ORGANISATION; a.k.a. ALRAHMAH WELFARE ORG; a.k.a. ALRAHMAH WELFARE ORGANISATION; a.k.a. AL-REHMAH WELFARE ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. AR RAHMA WELFARE TRUST; a.k.a. AR RAHMAH WELFARE ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. AR RAMMA WELFARE ORGANISATION; a.k.a. AR-RAHMA WELFARE ORGANISATION; a.k.a. AR-RAHMAH WELFARE
2. JAMIA ASARIYA MADRASSA (a.k.a. AL JAMATUL ASARYAH MADRASSA; a.k.a. AL JAMIA AL ASARIA; a.k.a. AL JAMIAH AL ASARIA MADRASSA; a.k.a. AL-JAMAHATUL ASREYA MADRASSA; a.k.a. AL-JAMIA AL-ASARIA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMA'AT UL-SARIA MOSQUE; a.k.a. JAMAH-YE SARYA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMEAT-UL ASRYA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMEHA-E-AL AHSERYA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMIA AL-ASSARIA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMIA ASRIYA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMIA ASSARIA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMIAE HAZAREA MADRASSA; a.k.a. JAMIYYA ASRIYYA; a.k.a. MADRASSA JAMIA AL-ASRIA; f.k.a. MADRASSA TALIM QURAN USONA), Inqilab Road, Village Chamkani, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25001, Pakistan [SDGT] (Linked To: NURISTANI, Abdul Aziz; Linked To: LASHKAR E-TAYYIBA).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form (GMC 6-25-09), Authorized Cyber Assistant Host Application.
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2000-37, Reverse Like-Kind Exchanges (modified by Revenue Procedure 2004-51).
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Definition of Contribution in Aid of Construction Under Section 118(c)(§ 1.118-2).
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 706-GS(T), Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Return For Terminations.
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Nonaccrual-Experience Method of Accounting Under Section 448(d)(5).
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 97-45, Highly Compensated Employee Definition.
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the notice should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend existing BOEM regulations related to air quality measurement, evaluation, and control with respect to oil, gas, and sulphur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States (U.S.), in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the area offshore the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, as part of the BOEM approval process for offshore oil and gas exploration and development plans, right-of-use and easement (RUE), pipeline rights-of-way (ROW), and lease term pipeline applications. The proposed rule would: (1) Fulfill BOEM's statutory responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing BOEM standards and benchmarks for those pollutants to those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); (2) change the manner in which lessees would evaluate and model vessel emissions attributed to OCS facilities; (3) change the methods for measuring and evaluating air emissions including measuring their impacts over State submerged lands; (4) provide a process by which exemption thresholds are established and updated; (5) change the circumstances when emission reduction measure(s) (ERM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establish new criteria for the application of ERM; (6) formalize requirements for the consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (7) consistent with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulate a schedule and requirements for ensuring that all plans, including those previously approved, will remain compliant on an ongoing basis with these updated regulations; and (8) include an air quality component in the submission of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications.
Key policy changes include the following: (1) Aligning the list of pollutants that are subject to an air quality review with the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and cross-referencing the ambient air quality standards and benchmarks (AAQSB) for those pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and application of the term “attributed emissions;” (3) changing the locations where air emissions will be measured and evaluated; and (4) modifying the process by which exemption thresholds are established and updated. This rulemaking would be the first major re-write of the OCS air quality regulations in 35 years.
Submit comments on the substance of this rulemaking by June 6, 2016. Send your comments on the substance of the proposed rule to the Department as directed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the number 1010-AD82, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include your name, return address and phone number and/or email address, so we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Send comments on the IC of this rule to: Interior Desk Officer 1010-AD82, Office of Management and Budget; 202-395-5806 (fax); email
Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at
Do not submit CBI or proprietary information to BOEM through
Any CD or data submitted to BOEM must be virus-free and usable, as submitted. BOEM will not attempt to correct, fix or amend any CD or other electronic media that is not readily accessible.
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Organize Comments—When your comments respond to specific provisions, organize your comments by referencing the relevant CFR part or section number in the proposed rule.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest alternatives, and/or substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
A number of documents relevant to this air quality rulemaking, including past and planned environmental studies and analysis, are available on the BOEM Web site at
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the Department of the Interior (DOI) to promulgate regulations for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401
BOEM is proposing to revise and replace its air quality regulations with a new set of regulations that reflect a number of policy changes with respect to the existing air quality regulatory program (AQRP (30 CFR 550 subpart C)). While the existing underlying framework would remain the same in a number of key aspects, the proposed rule would change in significant ways the manner in which BOEM regulates emissions from certain sources on the OCS. The most significant changes in the proposed rule relate to: (1) Fulfilling BOEM's statutory responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing the AAQSB for those pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and application of the term “attributed emissions;” (3) changing the methods for determining the locations from which air emissions will be measured and evaluated; (4) modifying the process by which emission exemption thresholds (EETs) are established and updated; (5) changing the circumstances when ERM, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establishing new criteria for the application of ERM; (6) revising the boundary at which BOEM determines air quality compliance to the State seaward boundary (SSB), rather than the coastline; (7) formalizing requirements for the consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (8) consistent with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulating a schedule for ensuring that plans, including previously approved plans, will be compliant with these updated regulations; (9) adding an air quality component to the submission of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications; (10) an expanded use of offsets as an alternative in circumstances where BACT was previously required; and (11) the addition of a new requirement for all plans to be reviewed at least every 10 years, to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, as amended from time to time.
BOEM is proposing to amend the current regulations to provide a mechanism by which the regulations remain up-to-date in the future, particularly when the USEPA changes an applicable AAQSB; to reflect the
BOEM is proposing to define a number of additional key terms, to clarify the objectives and procedures associated with the AQRP, and to reorganize a number of existing provisions in its regulations. The proposed rule would consolidate all the existing data collection and information requirements in a single section dedicated to air quality. The pertinent provisions of BOEM's regulations related to air quality would be either substantially updated or entirely replaced.
The proposed rule would make a number of changes to the existing requirements associated with reporting, tracking, modeling, and monitoring the air emissions from stationary facilities operating on the OCS and emissions from associated non-stationary sources, including vessels and vehicles, and aircraft traversing above the OCS or over State submerged lands
Since BOEM's current air quality regulations were published in 1980, the USEPA has revised the NAAQS to include additional criteria pollutants (
This proposed rule would enhance the process by which operators of OCS facilities determine whether their proposed exploratory or developmental activities could cause or contribute to a significant adverse impact to the air quality of any State. It would define the circumstances under which BOEM would require lessees and operators
Because the USEPA's current NAAQS include standards for both annual and short-term averaging times, the proposed rule would also provide for the collection, evaluation, and consideration of data with respect to the long-term and short-term exposure to air pollution originating from the OCS. Under current BOEM regulations, most of the effects that are evaluated relate to an annual exposure to a certain level of pollution. Short-term averaging times measure something different, namely the potential impact of a short-term exposure to the same pollutant, where the level of pollution is much greater. In some cases, the long-term exposure to low levels of pollution may be harmful; in other cases, the short-term exposure to high levels of pollution may also be harmful. Because the proposed rule would evaluate different levels of exposure over different time periods, the proposed rule would more accurately determine whether any OCS operations would have the potential to cause an adverse effect to a State's air quality. The proposed rule would require the modeling of emissions over any averaging time that the USEPA has determined would be relevant whenever the projected annual emissions of a given pollutant exceed the EETs. This change would, therefore, enable BOEM to better ensure compliance with all the NAAQS. This change is of particular relevance in the case of nitrogen oxides (NO
In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS referenced in OCSLA, the proposed rule would also provide for the collection of additional information on approved activities described in any initial, revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental EP, DPP, or DOCD, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline (hereinafter referred to by the general term “plan”), in order to verify the information reported in the plan. As is the case with the current BOEM regulations, the proposed rule would establish emissions exemptions thresholds. The proposed rule would continue to require facilities whose projected emissions of criteria and major precursor pollutants would exceed the thresholds to model those emissions in order to determine whether such emissions could potentially cause the air quality of any State to exceed the NAAQS.
To ensure that OCS operations do not cause any such impact to the air quality of a State, the proposed rule would require large emitters of air pollutants, namely, those whose facilities exceed BOEM's EETs—not only to project their emissions in their plan, but also to demonstrate that their actual emissions do not exceed their projected emissions (as contained in their original plan). To ensure ongoing compliance, three major new procedures have been proposed. First, under the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises any AAQSB that applies (NAAQS, or any applicable SIL, or AAI), BOEM would examine the appropriateness of its EETs, and, BOEM, at its discretion, would periodically revise its EETs for the air pollutant(s) corresponding to USEPA's revision(s). Second, certain large emitters would be required to develop a method for measuring and reporting their emissions to demonstrate their actual emissions do not exceed the original projections upon which approval was granted. Third, starting in 2020,
Although BOEM does not issue air quality permits and instead reviews air emissions in the context of its AQRP, BOEM recognizes that a one-time review of a particular facility's compliance with AAQSB may not be adequate to ensure that the facility does not cause or
Finally, this rule proposes to codify the existing mechanism BOEM uses in the GOM OCS Region to report ongoing emissions information (
OCSLA grants DOI authority to issue leases for the development of the nation's energy and mineral resources on the OCS. The U.S. OCS extends from three to nine nautical miles (nm) offshore (this varies by State) to the extent of U.S. claimed jurisdiction and control, which is 200 nm or more from the coastal States' baseline.
In 1990, Congress amended section 328 of the CAA and transferred authority to regulate air emissions on the OCS, other than in the Central and Western GOM, from DOI to the USEPA. In 2011, Congress again amended section 328 to transfer the authority for regulating air emissions from the USEPA back to DOI for those parts of the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. As of the publication of this proposed rule, DOI's jurisdiction for ensuring compliance with the NAAQS pursuant to the CAA includes OCS areas adjacent to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska.
Congress has geographically divided air quality regulatory authority for authorized OCS activities between the USEPA and BOEM, based upon where those activities occur on the OCS. While the overall objectives of BOEM's and the USEPA's air quality regulations are similar, there are differences in each agency's statutory authority and differences in the way each agency implements its statutory charge. The USEPA implements its charge through permitting (CAA Sections 165 and 173). The CAA directs the USEPA to establish requirements to control air pollution from sources on the OCS to attain and maintain federal and State ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of subchapter I of the CAA (CAA Section 328(a)). USEPA regulations for permitting OCS sources “ensure that there is a rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of federal and State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of part C of title I, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the OCS” (40 CFR 55.1). The USEPA's OCS air quality regulations incorporate requirements derived from other areas of the CAA and USEPA regulations and for sources within 25 miles of the State boundary require compliance with local rules as if the source were located onshore, the result of which is that operators must demonstrate compliance with several different types of requirements.
BOEM's jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to promulgate regulations “for compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the [CAA] . . . to the extent that activities under OCSLA significantly affect the air quality of any State.” Thus, regulations implementing this section regulate offshore emissions specifically to protect State air quality rather than protecting air quality above the OCS generally. Upon submission by a lessee or operator of a plan, BOEM will determine whether the plan is consistent with the OCSLA and BOEM's regulations. If BOEM determines that a plan is inconsistent with OCSLA or BOEM's regulations, BOEM will require modifications of the plan as necessary to achieve consistency. BOEM may approve, require modification of, or disapprove an EP. BOEM can disapprove an EP only if there are no possible modifications that would avoid “serious harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), to property, to any mineral (in areas leased or not leased), to the national security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment,” as described in 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(2)(A)(i). With respect to a DPP or a DOCD, BOEM must approve, disapprove, or require modification of the plan after conducting a compliance review, which includes compliance with the regulations implementing section 1334(a)(8). In addition, the timing of BOEM's decisions is also circumscribed
BOEM's predecessor, USGS, developed the current air quality regulatory framework in 1980 to address potential onshore air quality impacts of OCS operations on adjacent States. These regulations require lessees or operators to submit information on projected air emissions in their proposed EPs, DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM considers air emissions information submitted by lessees and operators as one component of its review of the overall exploration or development plan. The regulatory process by which BOEM evaluates the submitted emissions information is referred to in this document as BOEM's AQRP. The 1980 regulations first established a process for determining whether the potential air quality impacts from any given plan are low enough that they should be exempt from further air quality regulatory analysis. Plans that do not exceed these EETs are generally exempt from further analysis. For plans that exceed these exemption thresholds, BOEM regulations require lessees and operators to conduct modeling intended to help BOEM determine whether emissions from any facility could cause an exceedance of the AAIs or NAAQS onshore, and if so, what mitigation (
BOEM conducts its AQRP analysis whenever a lessee or operator proposes new exploration, development, or production operations on the OCS or submits a revised or supplemental plan, which would modify operations in a manner that could cause an increase in the release of regulated pollutants above the amounts described in a previously approved plan. The AQRP focuses on the impact of emissions from a specific exploration or development and production project and its potential onshore impacts on air quality. The AQRP does not directly regulate OCS air quality, since 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to focus its plan review on the potential impacts to the air quality of the States. The AQRP consists of a quantitative review of specific air quality data that informs a decision to approve, require modification of, or disapprove a specific plan. Any modifications BOEM requires as a result of the AQRP review become an enforceable provision of the approved plan. As BOEM fulfills its statutory obligation, its AQRP also achieves other objectives: (1) To protect public health from adverse air quality effects; (2) to protect public welfare by preventing a deterioration in the air quality of the environment (
The AQRP analysis is intended to account for emissions of pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment from facility and associated support craft. The plan must include descriptions of all relevant emissions sources—offshore, stationary and nonstationary, and certain onshore ones—regardless of whether they are intended to be used on a short-term or long-term basis, and regardless of attainment status. As part of the AQRP analysis, BOEM currently evaluates the emissions of most pollutants that the USEPA has designated as NAAQS “criteria pollutants” (CPs) in the USEPA's air quality regulatory scheme. The USEPA currently defines the following six pollutants as CPs: Carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO
In addition to regulating CPs, BOEM currently regulates most of the major precursor pollutants that lead to the formation of the CPs. Some CPs are also precursors for other CPs. For example, USEPA has identified SO
The USEPA has found that GHG
The Bureau, however, is still interested in addressing GHGs
Separate but related to the GHG issue is the matter of black carbon (BC) dispersion and deposition in Alaska and other parts of the Arctic, which is an environmental concern. BC is a component of PM
BOEM is actively investigating this issue and our evaluation of the potential impacts of BC and a determination of appropriate controls is continuing to evolve. BOEM and the USEPA are coordinating their efforts on this matter.
In addition to the health effects associated with the PM
IPCC, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution Of Working Group I To The Fourth Assessment Report Of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 129, 132 (2007), available at
V. Ramathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon, 1 NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221-22 (23 March 2008) (“The BC forcing of 0.9 W m-2 (with a range of 0.4 to 1.2 W m-2) . . . is as much as 55% of the CO
While BOEM does not currently have sufficient data to support a specific limit on BC, the exemption thresholds research study currently underway for the Gulf of Mexico (which is described in detail in section III.D.1, under the heading of “Exemption Threshold Analysis”) will analyze BC as part of the overall review. The study will apply the Community Multi-scale and Air Quality (CMAQ) Model and the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAM
BOEM requests comments and data on the extent of BC emissions from OCS-related operations and potential means of reducing such emissions and their negative effects. BOEM also requests comment on other factors, information, or data that BOEM should consider in its analysis of BC, either in connection with or in addition to its air quality regulatory analysis.
As explained above, BOEM's AQRP review, conducted under existing regulations at 30 CFR part 550 subparts B and C, is triggered when a lessee or operator submits or resubmits an exploration or development plan. With respect to air quality, BOEM currently requires the submitter to provide the following information:
Under existing BOEM regulations, the lessee or operator must provide tables showing the projected air emissions of all regulated criteria and major precursor pollutants, except PM
The lessee or operator must base all of its projected air emissions identified in (1) above on the maximum rated capacity of the equipment on the plan's drilling unit or facility.
The lessee or operator must provide a description of processes, processing equipment, combustion equipment, fuels, and storage units, including the characteristics and the frequency, duration, and maximum burn rate of any well test fluids to be burned.
The lessee or operator must provide the distance between any given facility and the closest shoreline of an adjacent State.
Each lessee or operator must describe any proposed air emission reduction measures (ERM), including a description of the relevant source(s), the emission reduction control technologies or procedures, the quantity of reductions to be achieved, and any monitoring system proposed to measure emissions.
The lessee or operator must provide a description of how the lessee or operator intends to address the emissions generated, if emissions from the plan are greater than the lessee's or operator's respective emission-exemption amounts and if modeling indicates that some form of emissions reductions will be necessary.
The lessee or operator must document the basis for all of its calculations, including engine size, rating, and applicable operational information. In the GOM region, BOEM and industry have historically used worksheets contained in forms BOEM-0138 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for EPs) and BOEM-0139 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs) for air quality information.
The following flow chart illustrates the analytical approach that a lessee or operator would use to evaluate its projected emissions under this proposed rule. The flow chart is intended for informational purposes only. In any circumstances where the flow chart may be interpreted to conflict with the regulatory text, the regulatory text is controlling.
[See attached flowchart]
While many significant changes would be made to BOEM's AQRP under the proposed rule, the analytical framework remains fundamentally the same. Under both the current regulations and the proposed rule, the
BOEM's current air quality evaluation methodology is based in large part on the USEPA's New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction permitting program.
BOEM uses emission exemption thresholds to determine whether the lessee's plan emissions would potentially impact the air quality of the State. When the thresholds are not exceeded, those emissions are presumed to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. The USEPA uses applicability thresholds to determine if a source is subject to the requirements of the respective parts of the NSR permitting program and then applies screening criteria like the SILs
Given BOEM's distinct mandate to focus on State impacts from OCS activities, BOEM currently uses a formula that accounts for the distance of the facility from the shoreline. Specifically, the determination as to whether a facility could significantly affect onshore air quality under BOEM's AQRP is based on a formula that considers both the amount of air pollutant emitted and the distance of the proposed facility from the shoreline.
The first step in the approach of both the current regulations and the proposed rule is the exemption threshold analysis discussed above. BOEM determines, based on the information provided by the lessee or operator, whether or not any given plan (EP, DPP or DOCD) will generate emissions above a defined exemption threshold. If so, further analysis is required. If not, the impact to the air quality of the State is presumed to be
BOEM currently has only one set of exemption thresholds, which are, under the existing regulations, applied identically in the Central and Western GOM OCS Regions and offshore of the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. BOEM is now in the process of conducting scientific studies to re-evaluate the exemption thresholds formulas, for both the GOM and Alaska OCS Regions to tailor those thresholds to the relevant environmental characteristics of each region and to take into consideration USEPA standards applied to various time periods, whether annual or shorter intervals. These BOEM studies will evaluate and, if necessary, provide the basis for updating the current exemption threshold equations and consider whether recent advances in the field of computer simulation modeling and the availability of comprehensive meteorological datasets unique to each region may be applied to improve the exemption threshold equations by applying the updated underlying data. The studies will use computer-simulated air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling to provide the information necessary to evaluate the current threshold equations (
The GOM and Alaska OCS studies are designed to fulfill the following objectives:
• Prepare onshore and offshore emissions inventories for use in computer simulation air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling, based on the multi-sale 2017-2022 scenario emissions for both OCS Regions;
• Evaluate current meteorological data and develop new data, as necessary, for input into air quality models;
• Conduct air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling to discern the collective effect of onshore and offshore emissions on the onshore area of adjacent States;
• Investigate the current exemption threshold formulas for evidence the rates are protective of the annual and short-term (24-hours or less) AAQSB using dispersion and photochemical air quality modeling and, if necessary, develop a new method;
• Conduct visibility analyses for the GOM Region Class I areas: Breton Wilderness; Saint Marks Wilderness; Chassahowitzka Wilderness; and Bradwell Bay; and,
• Perform a 40 CFR part 51 appendix W section 3.2.2 “Equivalency Demonstration” for modeling purposes in the GOM region. Such an “Equivalency Demonstration” would involve determining the most appropriate model for the exemption thresholds, taking into account the USEPA list of preferred models and the relevant criteria for evaluating alternatives.
As discussed above, BOEM is considering establishing two or more sets of EETs (
The USEPA recently established new one-hour NAAQS for NO
Until such time as new EETs are established, the existing exemption thresholds will continue to apply identically in both regions.
In the event the exemption threshold analysis indicates that one or more criteria or major precursor pollutants would exceed an applicable threshold, the plan submitter must proceed to the second step in the BOEM AQRP, which is the modeling analysis. The purpose of the modeling analysis is to help BOEM determine, based on the information provided by the lessee or operator, whether or not the proposed operations that generate emissions above an exemption threshold would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
These Significance Levels in BOEM's existing regulations are based on USEPA's SILs (as they existed approximately 35 years ago), which are ambient concentration levels used by the USEPA to determine whether the ambient air concentration of any given air pollutant could cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS at a given location. Under USEPA's historical practice in the PSD program, if the ambient air impacts of each criteria air pollutant are below the applicable SILs for all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are considered to have an impact that is
Under BOEM's existing regulations, in order to evaluate the potential onshore effects of offshore emissions, the models project the ambient concentration of any given air pollutant at various measurement points onshore, which are referred to as receptor locations. If any projected concentration of a given air pollutant does not exceed BOEM's applicable Significance Level(s) at all receptor locations onshore for all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are presumed
At the time the current BOEM regulations were promulgated, there were no USEPA-approved modeling approaches to quantify the impacts of single sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions on ambient O
If it is determined through modeling that the planned operations will generate an onshore concentration of one or more air pollutants in excess of the SILs, various further analyses must be done in order to determine what controls must be applied. Under the current AQRP, if a facility is projected to cause ambient concentrations of air pollution above acceptable levels (
Under the proposed rule, if the projected concentration increase due to emissions from the proposed short-term facility exceeds the SILs but such exceedance only affects attainment areas, the lessee or operator would be required to determine the maximum amount of emissions reductions that it can achieve with operational controls and/or equipment replacements that are technically and economically feasible. This would represent a level of emissions reductions that achieves the maximum efficiency of their operations with respect to emissions reduction. At that point, the lessee or operator could decide whether to apply those operational controls and/or equipment replacements, or to instead obtain emissions credits. If it is determined that there are no operational controls and/or equipment replacements that are technically and economically feasible, and the emissions from the proposed facility would affect only attainment areas, then no ERM would be required. In BOEM's proposed rule, a maintenance area is treated as an attainment area; thus, the same requirements would apply.
If the projected emissions for the proposed short-term facility exceed the SILs and such exceedance would affect a designated non-attainment area, the lessee or operator would not only be required to conduct an ERM analysis, but might also be required by the Regional Supervisor to apply additional types of ERM (beyond that which was proposed in the original plan).
Under the proposed rule, described in more detail in the section-by-section analysis for section 550.306, a process has been outlined to facilitate the determination of the most appropriate ERM, of which BACT is one option. If the lessee or operator proposes to use BACT, the lessee or operator would be required to provide a description of the associated energy, environmental and economic impacts,
In the case of a short-term facility, the application of ERM would generally be sufficient for BOEM to conclude, without further analysis, that the facility does not cause a significant effect on the air quality of a State. As explained in the next Section, this presumption would not apply in the case of a long-term facility. Although BOEM would set the air emissions limits in connection with its approval of the plan, BSEE would be responsible for ensuring that any required ERM, including BACT, are actually applied in compliance with the plan requirements.
If emissions from a long-term facility generate onshore concentrations of air pollutants in excess of the SILs, under the current regulations, the lessee or operator must apply BACT. If only an attainment area is affected, the proposed BACT must result in the plan or facility meeting the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACIs), which are set out in a table in BOEM's regulations. The MACIs are based on the USEPA's AAIs, and are designed to prevent the air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to an unacceptable level as set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS represent a maximum allowable concentration “ceiling” for each air pollutant and averaging time that does not vary geographically. A MACI, on the other hand, represents the maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for any given pollutant. Baseline concentrations vary geographically. When the MACI
These MACIs, and the AAIs on which they were based, vary depending on whether any given location is defined as a Class I, a Class II or Class III location (described below in the discussion of the definitions of those terms) and the relevant timeframes of exposure (
Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in an attainment area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to generate concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an ERM analysis, excluding BACT, to determine the most effective and technically and economically feasible approach for reducing the projected emissions from its facility. If the projected concentration increase due to emissions from the proposed facility exceed the SILs but do not exceed the AAIs, the proposed plan could be approved without the lessee or operator having to bring the concentration increase due to the emissions from its operations below the SILs. If the projected emissions exceed the AAIs after the application of ERM, the lessee or operator would be required to use additional ERM until it could demonstrate its emissions no longer resulted in such an exceedance.
Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in a non-attainment area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to generate concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an ERM analysis, including BACT, to determine the most environmentally effective of the technically and economically feasible approaches for reducing the projected emissions from its facility. If the projected concentration increase—due to emissions from the proposed facility—continue to exceed the SILs after the application of ERM, the proposed plan could not be approved without the lessee or operator having to bring the concentration increase due to emissions from its operations below the SILs. Regardless of whether the projected emissions would affect a designated non-attainment or attainment area, the lessee or operator would be free to propose emissions credits in lieu of any other ERM to accomplish this objective.
The proposed rule retains a requirement in the current regulations (in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B)) that no plan can be approved if that plan would result in the generation of emissions sufficient to cause an area of a State to switch from attainment to a non-attainment status. For that reason, any long-term facility that demonstrates projected emissions in excess of the SILs would be required to demonstrate that those emissions do not cause the
As part of the 1977 amendments to the CAA (Pub. L. 95-95; 91 Stat. 685), Congress mandated that the country be divided into various areas based on their sensitivity to potential problems associated with poor air quality. These amendments establish Class I, II, and III areas. The restriction on emissions are most strict in Class I areas and are progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. In addition to the three classifications mentioned in the statute, the Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
Thus, parts of the country are designated as Class I or sensitive Class II areas to indicate that they have been identified for special protections. National parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value are generally designated as Class I
Under the CAA, FLMs are charged with reviewing available information about proposed facilities in order to determine their potential air quality impacts on Class I areas. FLMs have established Air Quality Related Values (AQRV), which represent resources which are sensitive to air quality and include a wide array of vegetation, soils, water, fish and wildlife, and visibility. The goal of the FLMs is to ensure that pollution levels stay below the critical loads (
FLMs evaluate plans submitted to BOEM to determine whether there would be any potential adverse impact to a Class I or sensitive Class II area and to recommend controls, as appropriate, if there are potentially adverse impacts. In order to complement this process, BOEM's AQRP requires any proposed long-term facility whose emissions cause an exceedance of the SILs to meet the standards for the MACIs that correspond to the Class designation of the areas onshore of the proposed operations.
Once BOEM determines the MACIs or the SILs would not be exceeded, BOEM must make a further determination that the NAAQS would also not be exceeded in any attainment area.
There are two types of NAAQS, primary and secondary. Primary NAAQS are intended to protect public health, including the health of sensitive subpopulations with a requisite margin of safety, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare (
The NAAQS, codified at 40 CFR part 50, identify the maximum allowable concentrations, or “ceilings,” and forms, for each of the various CPs at any given location. Under its current regulations, BOEM will not approve a plan that it determines would cause the ambient air quality either at the shoreline or farther onshore to deteriorate significantly beyond the air quality specified by the applicable NAAQS for any given air pollutant, regardless of whether the change would comply with the other relevant SIL(s) or AAI(s) for that same pollutant.
Under current BOEM regulations, while the AQRP is focused on the extent
In order to comply with the applicable requirements of NEPA, BOEM evaluates the likely cumulative impacts of OCS development during its Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the associated Five-Year Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM conducts an additional analysis of such prospective impacts at the time it prepares a multi-sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a NEPA analysis on an individual lease sale. BOEM conducts an even more detailed air quality analysis at the time the lessee or operator submits the EP, or RUE or ROW application, lease-term pipeline application, and again when the lessee or operator submits a DPP or DOCD. At these two later stages, BOEM conducts the AQRP in order to ensure the lessee's or operator's implementation proposals comply with the applicable requirements of OCSLA and the corresponding BOEM regulations.
BOEM conducts analyses of the potential impact of OCS development on the conservation of the natural resources of the OCS and overlying waters (including the fish, marine mammals, plants, corals, etc.) to ensure the prevention of waste; to evaluate those circumstances that could result in environmental and other hazards; and to conserve and protect the associated mineral, economic, and environmental resources in and over the OCS, in accordance with OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334(a), 1340(c), and 1351. Current BOEM regulations also specify each Regional Supervisor should evaluate every plan and make a determination that the proposed activities will not cause serious harm or damage to the marine, coastal, or human environment (
BOEM's AQRP is intended to protect the air quality of the States and to achieve the following objectives with regard to OCS exploration and development: (1) To protect public health from adverse effects; (2) to protect public welfare, including the economies of the States, by preventing a deterioration in the air quality of the environment (
In addition to BOEM's AQRP, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has an enforcement program designed to ensure lessees and operators comply with BOEM's air quality regulations and that such lessees and operators do not emit air pollutants that exceed the terms of their approved plans or RUE or pipeline ROW applications. BOEM provides plan information to BSEE on a regular basis, and BSEE uses this information to evaluate applications for permits to drill. BSEE also monitors lessee or operator operations on an ongoing basis, as one component of its inspections process.
The current rule has AAQSB relevant to CO, SO
In addition to accounting for all of the criteria and major precursor pollutants, as required by OCSLA, the proposed rule would result in enhanced collection, evaluation, and consideration of data on such pollutants over a greater variety of time intervals (
Under the proposed regulations, certain provisions within BOEM's rules would be updated automatically whenever the USEPA makes corresponding changes in:
• The SILs, also known as significant impact levels or significance levels, with the associated averaging times, as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2);
• The AAIs (
• The primary or secondary NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR part 50;
• The identification of criteria and major precursor air pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.15(a);
• The list of approved air quality models, as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
• USEPA air quality modeling requirements and methodologies, as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
• Emissions factors, based on models defined by the USEPA or the FAA, to determine emissions levels for tier- and non-tier-compliant marine and non-road engines and aircraft;
• Reporting timeframes associated with the NEI; and
• Significant emissions rates (SERs) for criteria and major precursor pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.21(b)(23)(i).
Under the proposed rule, certain provisions in BOEM's rule would also be updated automatically whenever the USEPA changes 40 CFR 1043.100 to reflect emissions standards and other requirements applicable to marine engines under Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as the protocol is defined in 33 U.S.C. 1901), as implemented in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901-1915). This protocol is commonly referred to as “MARPOL.” The MARPOL standards are part of the federal coordinated strategy to address emissions from vessels adopted by the USEPA which consists of (1) the CAA engine standards and fuel limits for U.S. vessels contained in 40 CFR 80 and 40 CFR 1042; (2) the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea Emission Control Areas designed by amendment to the MARPOL protocol; and (3) the MARPOL engine emission and fuel sulphur limits that apply to all vessels regardless of flag (see 75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). BOEM proposes that foreign vessels be allowed to use the MARPOL standards as emission factors for the purposes of the program, if there are no preferred, more accurate alternatives, with certain adjustments.
• The attainment or designated non-attainment status of State lands potentially impacted by emissions from OCS activities, as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C; and
• The Class designation of federal, State or tribal lands or waters on or potentially impacted by emissions from OCS activities, as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
Historically, BOEM has considered two primary sources of emissions in connection with its regulation of OCS air emissions—stationary sources, and non-stationary sources, such as support vessels, over-the-ice vehicles and aircraft. The proposed rule would change the manner in which lessees and operators must consider and model emissions from support vessels and other non-stationary sources. The changes would mean that plans will more accurately reflect how emissions may affect the air quality of States, given improvements in modeling capabilities.
BOEM proposes relatively few changes to what constitutes the kinds of stationary sources of air emissions subject to review and/or regulation. In accordance with OCSLA, all offshore facilities constructed or operating on the OCS must be covered by an approved plan that BOEM has evaluated for compliance with relevant emissions standards. While the proposed rule would retain this basic principle, the proposed rule would expand the definition of facility to address the greater variety of facilities now being constructed. Accordingly, the proposed rule would replace any existing reference to a “drilling unit” with a reference to the broader term “facility” and would clarify that air quality and air emissions information and analysis must be provided with respect to any facility that is proposed to be located on the OCS. Further details concerning the definition of the term facility are provided in the section-by-section analysis of the new or updated definitions listed in section 550.302. The proposed rule would make clear that emissions from decommissioning activities would be included in a facility's projected emissions.
This proposed rule does not specify air quality review requirements associated with the decommissioning or removal of structures on the OCS. BOEM is soliciting information on the most appropriate method for establishing and reporting air quality requirements associated with decommissioning and structure removal activities in the context of the AQRP. This includes a request for information and comment on when and how BOEM should receive air quality emission data and information associated with decommissioning and structure removal and how an assessment of feasible ERM should be applied. One approach on which BOEM solicits comment would be whether it should provide for only the collection of emissions data associated with decommissioning activities for some period of time, followed by a second phase in which BOEM could utilize the data that was previously collected to craft an approach tailored to this unique type of activity.
In the proposed rule, BOEM would continue to require the collection and evaluation of emissions data related to offshore supply vessels (OSVs) and other support vessels and vehicles (collectively, mobile support craft (MSCs)) for two primary reasons. First, the data remain necessary to accurately model the impact of any given exploration or development project to determine whether the air emissions are likely to exceed the emissions thresholds, and, therefore, to determine whether the air emissions are potentially significant. Second, this proposed rule would allow BOEM to use the data to determine whether emissions associated with a project covered by a plan are at a level such that the planned operations could cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in a State.
BOEM's statutory responsibility to regulate “for compliance with the [NAAQS], to the extent that activities authorized under this subchapter significantly affect the air quality of any State,” authorizes BOEM to take into account sources of emissions directly related to OCS operations that have the potential to significantly affect a State's air quality.
The standards of applicability the conferees intended the Secretary to incorporate in such regulations is that when a determination is made that offshore operations may have or are having a significant effect on the air quality of an adjacent onshore area, and may prevent or are preventing the attainment or maintenance of the AAQSs of such area, regulations are to be promulgated to assure that offshore operations conducted pursuant to this act do not prevent the attainment or maintenance of those standards. The terms “may have” and “may prevent” refer to the Secretarial judgment regarding future consideration of exploration plans, or development and production plans, in which the potential for “significant effect” is analyzed prior to approval and thus commencement of the proposed activities.
See, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1474, at 85-86 (1978) (Conf. Rep.).
Historically, and with cooperation from industry, BOEM followed an approach similar to the USEPA's to account for vessel emissions in the GOM. BOEM's current regulations require that operators report in their plans those emissions from MSCs that occur within 25 miles of a OCS facility. Although the current regulations are not explicit on this point, BOEM's GOM practice has been to add these emissions to the emissions of the facility and compare the total against the exemption thresholds to determine whether modeling and controls are required.
However there are a number of reasons that attributing all MSC emissions within a 25-mile radius of the facility may not be the best approach. This method of attributing emissions does not provide the most accurate picture of the effects of BOEM's plan approval on the State's air quality. Historically, the vast majority of new OCS operations were located within 50 miles of the shoreline. Thus, the 25-mile facility radius adequately addressed the impact of vessel air emissions on the air quality of States. For facilities located within 25 miles of the shoreline, 100% of all MSC emissions would have been accounted for by this formula. For facilities located 50 miles from the shoreline, roughly 50% of the total MSC emissions would have been accounted for. For facilities located 100 miles from the shoreline, only 25% of the total MSC emissions would be accounted for and at 200 miles distance, only 12.5% of the emissions would be considered. Also, in terms of the potential impact to a State, the most important MSC emissions generally would be those occurring closest to the State. Therefore, although 25% of MSC emissions for a facility located 100 miles from shore may be accounted for under the 25-mile rule, the 75% of emissions that are not considered would likely have a greater impact. According to the formula used in BOEM's current exemption thresholds, 3,300 tons of emissions 100 miles from shore would have an equivalent effect to 100 tons of emissions of the same pollutant 3 miles from shore. Applying this formula, the 25% of emissions within 25 miles of a facility would account for less than 2% of the impact on State air quality, and the portion of emissions from MSCs that occur while the MSC is closer to the State's boundary would have a proportionally larger effect on the State's air.
Historically, facilities in the GOM accounted for the vast majority of the total emissions, with MSC emissions representing only a small share of total emissions. However, in the most recent inventory, BOEM determined that facilities only account for 45% of all OCS emissions associated with oil and gas exploration and production. Also, today, more facilities are being constructed at increasing distances from the shoreline. Today, some are located as far as 200 miles away from shore.
Given these shifts, BOEM believes it is no longer appropriate to utilize a blanket 25-mile radius, because that radius does not capture most of the attributed emissions that occur between a port and the facility. Thus, the importance of accurately taking MSC emissions into consideration has grown substantially. BOEM could not ensure that it has avoided permitting uses of the OCS that would adversely affect the State if its evaluation of OCS projects did not take into account the majority of the relevant emissions.
Additionally, current BOEM analysis treats all emissions from MSCs as if they originate at the facility itself. Improvements in dispersion modeling technology have made it easier to more accurately project impacts of emissions based on where these emissions actually occur. For this reason, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to aggregate emissions from non-stationary sources at one location for purposes of air quality analysis.
Increasingly, lessees and operators are using new types of support vessels, including vessels that operate continuously offshore without having to return to port. When considered along with those support vessels that are unique to the Arctic, either due to its extreme environmental conditions or to the need to make up for the lack of onshore support facilities, it is increasingly evident that the use and types of vessels are substantially different than in the past.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74), Congress mandated that BOEM regulate air quality impacts from activities on the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska along with activities on the OCS in the Central and Western GOM. BOEM must now also consider the potential effects caused by air pollution generated by operations unique to the Arctic region, such as ice breakers and other vessels or vehicles that would not normally be necessary or present in the GOM. The relative proportion of attributed emissions to total emissions (
Furthermore, those MSCs used in Alaska are of a type whereby they can more readily operate outside of a 25-mile radius of the facility. While supply vessels, crew boats and tug boats cannot easily avoid coming into close contact with the facility they support, this is not true of ice breakers or oil spill support vessels. Such vessels can be and often are located just beyond the 25-mile boundary, sometimes closer to shore than the facility itself. Because, in an Arctic context, the MSCs generate far more emissions than the facilities they support, not accounting for their emissions makes it impossible to appropriately avoid authorizing activity causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS.
BOEM is proposing a more accurate standard, namely that the emissions of MSCs should be accounted for while they are actually operating in support of
In addition to these differences, technological advances with respect to non-stationary source modeling allow more accurate modeling of emissions from non-stationary sources. Unlike the situation in the past, when there was no accurate means to evaluate the emissions of mobile sources in terms of the impact to stationary sources, such modeling can be readily and accurately done today. BOEM believes that it is important to employ the most advanced and scientifically accurate measurements and evaluation techniques of air pollution, in order to most effectively implement its mandate.
For all these reasons, BOEM has reevaluated its historical method of accounting for non-stationary source emissions (
BOEM is proposing to define the term “attributed emissions” to cover non-stationary source emissions associated with a plan, including, “for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant, the emissions from MSCs and aircraft, operating above the OCS or State submerged lands, that are attributed to a facility.”
As described in the discussion of proposed § 550.205(d), in section V below, where an MSC described in a plan also supports one or more facilities not described in a plan, the proposed rule would provide several alternatives for determining the emissions from a vessel or vehicle that should be attributed to the particular facility in the plan. A lessee or operator could always choose to attribute all of an MSC's emissions to a facility regardless of how many facilities it supports. The rule, however, would allow a lessee or operator to attribute only that relevant portion of a vessel's emissions to its facility or facilities. The proposed rule would provide a lessee or operator with a process to attribute only a portion of an MSC's emissions to its facility. This procedure is designed to provide the most detailed, accurate information available about the MSC's emissions. BOEM recognizes that any given lessee or operator may not know at the time of plan submittal, or RUE or pipeline ROW application, the extent to which it will rely on MSCs that also support facilities unrelated to those covered by the lessee's or operator's plan. For this reason, the procedure would allow lessees and operators alternative ways of making conservative estimates of the portion of an MSC's emissions that should be attributed to a facility. The intent of these alternatives is to simplify the process for determining the allocation of support vessel emissions in situations where it would otherwise be impracticable to do so.
BOEM's proposed approach would reduce the potential for over-counting emissions resulting from plan approval compared with BOEM's current practice. Under BOEM's current practice, one hundred percent of the emissions of an MSC are counted when located within 25 miles of a plan facility, regardless of whether that MSC also supports five, ten, or even 20 unrelated facilities within a 25-mile radius of the facility. Under the proposed rule, emissions would be allocated to the appropriate facility in all cases where it would be practicable to do so, in accordance with proposed § 550.205(d). Only in the rare situation where there would be no reasonable basis to make any more accurate allocation would the 25-mile radius analysis remain as a last resort option. Ultimately, BOEM believes there is no reason to hold an operator responsible for emissions based on an emitting MSC's proximity to a facility, but rather it should be required to manage its operations to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS which result from only those MSCs which actually support its operations. Air emissions of an MSC may often occur close to shore, and therefore would cause a greater impact onshore and/or at the SSB, than a similar amount of emissions from that same MSC which occur in the vicinity of the facility. BOEM is seeking comments on this proposed approach and will consider alternative methods that more accurately attribute emissions from mobile sources to the appropriate facility.
BOEM also proposes to change its approach to accounting for air pollutant emissions associated with other non-stationary sources. The proposed rule would continue to require lessees or operators to identify all vessels and vehicles supporting a facility and to report their relevant air emissions as part of each plan, as is the case with the current policy. However, BOEM is proposing to change how aircraft and onshore emissions would be addressed.
Although lessees or operators would continue to be required to identify the likely types and number of support aircraft they propose to use, no collection of emissions data for those aircraft would generally be required under the proposed rule, except in exceptional circumstances. BOEM is proposing this change because collecting information on emissions from aircraft that support OCS operations in all plans would be unduly burdensome since aircraft emissions are a small fraction of emissions in most plans and their inclusion would likely not cause a facility's projected emissions to exceed the EETs or any AAQSB in a State where it would otherwise not do so. Available data from plans submitted to BOEM and its predecessors indicate that the level of relevant emissions from aircraft is generally an extremely small percentage of the total emissions reported in each plan. Furthermore, there are a large number of aircraft supporting OCS facilities and these aircraft service more facilities and are used for a wider variety of purposes than MSCs, including for purposes other than
The proposed rule, however, would require a lessee or operator to submit aircraft emissions information to account for the situation in which a plan proposes exceptional or unusual aircraft operations. This provision would cover situations in which a lessee or operator plans abnormally high use of aircraft to support its operations, or the lessee or operator plans to use aircraft that emit exceptionally high amounts of pollutants. In those situations, the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to determine whether aircraft emissions would cause its projected emissions to exceed an emission exemption threshold or AAQSB. If a plan which is already required to conduct modeling results in incremental increases in concentration of a pollutant that are greater than 95 percent of the value of a SIL, the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to also model its aircraft emissions.
Likewise, under the proposed rule, lessees and operators would not normally be required to report information on emissions from onshore support facilities. Emissions from large sources onshore are in many cases already identified and regulated by the USEPA, or by the States in the context of their respective SIPs.
While this proposal takes the approach described here for aircraft and onshore emissions, BOEM is considering whether it should instead establish a requirement whereby plans that propose aircraft and onshore emissions above a certain threshold, expressed as either a percent of the total plan emissions or an absolute amount of emissions, would have to include emissions from aircraft and onshore support facilities. BOEM would welcome comments on this approach, and also any data or analysis relevant to the issue of whether, and to what extent, aircraft and onshore emissions should be considered in evaluating a facility's emissions profile.
Please provide comments on this approach and what threshold might be most appropriate.
Historically, BOEM applied “point source” modeling to plans for facilities and their MSCs. Point source modeling evaluates all emissions associated with any source as if they originated from a single location, regardless of whether that source is stationary (
With respect to non-stationary sources, however, point source modeling is much less accurate because the actual emissions generated by such a source are discharged over a broad area. BOEM's regulations currently do not address the appropriate types of models to use to account for emissions from non-stationary sources, although some operators already model non-stationary emissions sources as (1) area or line sources; (2) volume sources; or (3) so-called pseudo-points (
MSCs operating in support of facilities on the OCS typically discharge emissions continuously between the port and the facility. BOEM believes line and volume source modeling for non-stationary sources would accurately project the impact of emissions from such MSC on onshore air pollution levels at the SSB. The improved accuracy and information value from line and/or volume source modeling of pollutant dispersions would provide BOEM a more realistic projection of actual impacts on the air quality of a State.
With volume source modeling, it is also possible to more accurately model the effect of emissions discharged by non-stationary sources on fixed landscapes (
In developing this proposed air quality rule, BOEM revisited an issue it encountered while drafting its 1980 air quality regulations: Whether air quality impacts should be evaluated starting at the shoreline or at the SSB, which is typically three nautical miles offshore, but which may be as much as nine nautical miles offshore depending on the particular State. On the basis of BOEM's interpretation of its statutory authority, BOEM has concluded that it is more appropriate to measure at the SSB than at the shoreline.
Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA requires DOI to regulate “for compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401
BOEM has re-evaluated this position. BOEM believes the term “State” in section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA should be interpreted to include the entire area of a State's jurisdiction extending to its seaward boundary (either three or nine nautical miles seaward of its shoreline). (
The USEPA has advised BOEM that a variety of environmental and scientific studies have shown that changes in air quality have also caused impacts to human health off the coast in near-shore areas. For example, these include specific health impact studies for the NAAQS, as well as port air quality analyses that show the impacts of emissions from ships and diesel engines, diesel emissions studies (health effects and ports)),
(1) Kulluk:
(2) Discoverer:
Though the proposed rule would impose stricter requirements than exist under the current BOEM regulations, BOEM's requirements would still differ from those of the USEPA. In accordance with section 328 of the CAA, the USEPA requires, in areas where it has jurisdiction, that any facility located on the OCS within 25 miles of the State seaward boundary is subject to all the requirements of 40 CFR part 55. These include, but are not limited to, the federal requirements as set forth in 40 CFR part 55.13 (
BOEM welcomes comments and analysis on the potential impacts of emissions generated from OCS sources on the air quality over State submerged lands and/or the potential impact of such emissions on the environment above such lands, as well as any scientific, technical, or other information that can be provided to measure or evaluate the impact of OCS-originated air pollutants on the area over State submerged lands.
Although current BOEM regulations provide that measurements of any potential impacts of OCS emissions take place along the shoreline, they do not specify from which point along the shore the emissions should be evaluated when modeling is required. Because of this, it has generally been assumed the ambient concentrations should be evaluated at the point on the shoreline closest to the facility. This interpretation of the proper approach is reinforced by the formula used for the exemption threshold analysis, which requires operators to calculate the closest distance between the facility and the shoreline. BOEM has published instructions and a guidance document for BOEM forms BOEM-1038 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for EPs) and BOEM-1039 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs), stating the measurement point (for the purposes of calculating the distance parameter in the emission exemption threshold formulas) should generally be the closest point of land. See BOEM Web site, “Reporting Instructions,”
In evaluating meteorological data within the parts of the Chukchi Sea OCS bordering Alaska, however, BOEM recognizes prevailing wind patterns are often not from sea to shore (
Because of this, the proposed regulations specify the effects of emissions, for modeling purposes, would be evaluated at those locations in the State(s) where the concentration of any given pollutant is expected to be the highest. Additionally, the effects of emissions would be evaluated in the non-attainment area where the concentration of any given pollutant is expected to be the highest among non-attainment areas for that pollutant (if different from the most affected area). This location might be on land or over State submerged lands. That location in the model would likely be the same for many, but not necessarily all, pollutants. Those air pollutants, such as O
Monitoring is a general term for on-going collection and use of measurement data or other information for assessing performance against a standard or status with respect to a specific requirement. In general, there are two basic types of monitoring:
• Ambient air quality monitoring, which collects and uses measurement data (or other information) from onshore monitoring stations or remote sensing); and
• Emissions source monitoring, which involves collecting and using measurement data (or other information) at individual stationary sources of emissions (
Thus, ambient air quality monitoring is the systematic, long-term assessment of pollutant levels by measuring the quantity and types of certain pollutants in the surrounding, outdoor air, whereas emissions source monitoring is the process of monitoring particulate and gaseous emissions from a specific source.
Air quality monitoring is carried out to assess the extent of pollution, ensure compliance with national legislation, evaluate control options, and provide data for air quality modeling. There are a number of different methods to measure any given pollutant, varying in complexity, reliability, and detail of data. These range from simple passive sampling techniques to highly sophisticated remote sensing devices. In general, monitoring strategies should carefully examine the options to determine which methodology is most appropriate, taking into account the initial investment costs, operating costs, reliability of systems, and ease of operation.
Air quality monitoring stations are the most typical means for obtaining ambient air quality information. The locations for monitoring stations may depend on the purpose of the monitoring. Most monitoring networks are designed with human health objectives in mind, and monitoring stations are therefore established in population centers. Many governments (local, regional or national) give specific guidelines on where to monitor within these areas—next to busy roads, in city center locations, or at a location of particular concern (
Once data are collected from a monitoring system, they are then stored in data management systems and databases. Subsequently, the data must be retrieved and analyzed to see what they reveal about the effectiveness of regulatory standards, the accuracy of modeling, impacts on health endpoints, and as an overall way of assessing potential impacts. In the U.S. these ambient air quality monitoring data are collected and housed in the Air Quality System (AQS). The AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by the USEPA, State, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies from thousands of monitoring stations. AQS also contains meteorological data, descriptive information about each monitoring station (including its geographic location and its operator), and data quality assurance/quality control information.
BOEM has relied on the USEPA's AQS data to determine the relevant ambient air quality on which lessees and operators perform their analysis of the AAI's and the NAAQS in connection with their submission of plans and to comply with BOEM's air quality requirements in areas under BOEM's air quality jurisdiction. BOEM has proposed that it should evaluate the air quality of States to the State seaward boundary. There are, however, few monitoring stations in relevant locations on the coast and no monitoring stations in the ocean along the SSB. To improve the accuracy of the estimates of the background concentrations of the relevant pollutants, BOEM is investigating various alternatives for collecting, utilizing and disseminating this information, including technologies such as remote sensing and spectral analysis, and is proposing flexibility to adopt such approaches in the future. The proposed rule would allow BOEM the flexibility to consider adopting such approaches that meet the proposed standard for effectiveness. Otherwise, the relevant background concentrations would be obtained from the relevant USEPA regional office, as is the case today.
Consistent with the current rule, the proposed rule would define EETs as the maximum allowable rate of projected emissions, calculated for each air pollutant, above which facilities would be subject to the requirement to perform modeling. Functionally, these EETs would establish those levels of projected emissions below which BOEM has determined they would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or the AAIs. Under the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises a NAAQS, or any applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM would examine the appropriateness of its EETs,
The current EETs would continue in place under the proposed rule until the relevant air quality studies have been completed and new EETs, if necessary, are developed and implemented. At a future point in time, but no later than 2020, BOEM will propose new exemption thresholds for the GOM and Alaska OCS Regions by publishing a FR notice. Subsequently after reviewing comments on the notice, BOEM could finalize new exemption thresholds with another FR notice.
Consistent with the current rule, the proposed rule provides that, if the projected emissions associated with a proposed facility are exempt, then the lessee or operator would not be required to perform air quality modeling described in proposed § 550.304, or to apply any emission reduction measure(s) (ERM), as described in proposed §§ 550.305 through 550.307.
New EETs are not being proposed in this proposed rule because the scientific basis for determining the potential impacts on the States of OCS emissions have not yet been established. The proposed rule, however, would set a new policy governing how BOEM establishes emission exemption thresholds in the future. Specifically, the proposed rule would provide that BOEM would, sometime after the rule becomes effective, publish new proposed EETs in the FR and provide the opportunity for public comment. In the proposed rule, BOEM has included a range of EETs within which BOEM may establish updated EETs for each pollutant.
As long as the new thresholds fall within the exemption threshold ranges proposed in this rule, BOEM would not implement them through a separate rulemaking, though the new thresholds would not become final until after BOEM received public comment. If, however, the proposed thresholds were to fall outside these ranges, BOEM would implement them through a separate rulemaking. A range would be established for each criteria or precursor pollutant. The proposed rule would establish both maximum and minimum emissions formulas for each pollutant, above and below which, respectively, BOEM would not set new emissions thresholds without conducting a new rulemaking process. As a result of the new environmental exemption studies, which have previously been described, a new set of formulas will be developed to update the EET formulas currently in place. On an ongoing basis thereafter, BOEM would update the EETs to reflect changes in the NAAQS, SILs, and AAIs; advances in measurement and modeling technology; changes in pre-existing pollution levels in the potentially affected States; and various other factors. The current exemption threshold formulas take the distance of the facility from the State into account because dispersion modeling would indicate the impacts are likely to be lower as the distance involved becomes greater. The proposed formulas for these minimums represent emissions levels below which the ambient air impact at the nearest point in a State would not exceed any SIL, taking distances into account. However, there may be a more appropriate manner in which to establish the minimums. For that reason, BOEM requests comments on the EET formulas and the underlying analysis used in this rulemaking or whether absolute values may be more appropriate. Until such time as BOEM has determined new EETs and has published them in the FR (“the date of the Notice”), the distance component of the emissions exemption calculation would continue to be the distance of the facility from shore. After the date of the Notice, each distance formula would instead utilize the distance of the facility from the SSB.
After the date of the Notice, the lessee or operator would be required to apply the new set of formulas for the EETs in effect at that time (
The intent of those provisions that would allow BOEM to modify the EETs is to ensure that the exemption thresholds accurately reflect the amounts of potential emissions that could adversely affect a State. Because the NAAQS are subject to change as scientific knowledge improves and because modeling techniques and methods may improve over time, the emission exemption threshold formulas should also be subject to change. Under the proposed rule, BOEM would revise the EETs on an ongoing basis either as a result of a change in an applicable standard or because BOEM's ability to measure and evaluate the impact of existing EETs has improved.
Current regulations specify that BACT should be implemented as the first and primary emissions control mechanism any time that a proposed facility is estimated to exceeded a SIL. This BACT requirement was meant to ensure consistency with the USEPA regulations as they existed when the regulations were issued in 1980.
BOEM's rationale regarding this point has evolved to allow for greater flexibility, while still protecting the air quality of neighboring States. Under the proposed rule, if the projected emissions associated with a proposed OCS facility exceed an AAQSB, operational controls would be the first option to be considered. Operational controls, such as limiting the hours of operation or operating at a higher level of engine efficiency could be both more cost effective and more successful in reducing incremental emissions, particularly in those situations where the proposed exceedances are small. As an alternative, lessees and operators would have the option of replacing old or inefficient equipment with newer and less polluting equipment. This could involve, for example, replacing a diesel engine with a natural gas powered engine. If these options were not sufficient, other ERM, including BACT and emissions credits, would then be considered.
One change in this regard relates to emissions credits. Under the current rule, offsets can only be used once the relevant BACT has been deemed inadequate. Even then, the current rule provides no guidelines as to how offsets might apply in situations other than to offshore facilities. Other forms of emissions credits, such as emissions trading, acquiring of trading program
Under the proposed rule, emissions credits, which would include offsets, are defined as: “Emissions reductions from an emissions source(s) not associated with the plan that are intended to compensate for the excessive emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants, regardless of whether these emissions credits are acquired from an emissions source(s) located either offshore or onshore, including: (1) Emissions offsets generated by the lessee or operator directly; or (2) emissions offsets acquired from a third party; or (3) trading allowances or other alternative emission reduction method(s) or system(s) associated with a market-based trading mechanism, such as a mitigation bank, or through other competitive markets where these assets are exchanged.” Essentially this means that emissions credits consist of any form of emissions reduction, regardless of whether such reductions consist of physical or operational controls on non-plan facilities (
The proposed rule would therefore considerably increase the mechanism by which emissions reduction could be achieved. Under the proposed rule, in cases where operational controls would not be sufficient to achieve the required emissions reductions lessees and operators would be able to utilize emissions credits, as opposed to applying BACT to a facility in the proposed plan. The proposed rule would also provide that lessees or operators who submit plans that include emissions credits demonstrate that the operator has notified the relevant State and that emissions credits be verifiable.
The selection of emissions credits in lieu of BACT would often result in both a net cost savings and a net environmental benefit. The savings would result from the greater flexibility afforded lessees and operators to make the reductions either on their facility, on another facility (either on the OCS or in waters above State submerged lands), on some unrelated stationary emissions source onshore, or through acquiring the emissions credits from a third party. Because older, higher polluting facilities whose emissions would be easiest to reduce are most frequently located on or near the shoreline, in most cases the use of emissions credits would involve a reduction in the emissions from an onshore stationary source or from an older oil and gas facility located offshore in waters above State submerged lands.
Under the current regulations, offsets are only permitted if they would cause a reduction of emissions on the OCS with respect to the facilities covered by the proposed plan. Under the proposed rule, any reduction in emissions that is accomplished within the same USEPA air quality control region (AQCR)
As currently defined, the AQCR boundaries do not extend to include the OCS and, for this reason, it may sometimes be difficult to determine which AQCR would be most applicable. BOEM also recognizes that some AQCRs are very large, so it may not be certain that offsets in one part of the AQCR have a benefit to the area affected by offshore emissions. BOEM requests comments on how to best to define the relevant AQCR(s) and on whether there may be more appropriate alternative to defining the offset-generating areas or how to best refine the approach of applying AQCRs in this context.
The use of emissions credits in lieu of BACT would provide a net environmental benefit because the use of emissions credits would typically involve a reduction in emissions onshore or over State submerged lands, at that point where the impact to State air quality is greatest, rather than on the OCS, which might be far away from the point at which any impact might be felt. For example, if an OCS facility located 30 miles offshore were to be required to reduce its emissions of NO
Furthermore, because the proposed rule does not prohibit the joint acquisition of emissions credits, the proposed rule would allow emissions credits to be obtained and divided among multiple lessees or operators (presumably located near to one another in the vicinity of a State) in order to potentially spread the costs of complying with air quality requirements.
BOEM's current regulations require that any proposed plan that identifies projected emissions of air pollutants that would result in an exceedance of the SILs onshore is required to implement BACT (30 CFR 550.303(g) and 303(h)). Under existing BOEM regulations, “Best available control technology” or BACT means an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction for each air pollutant subject to regulation, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs. The BACT is required to be verified on a case-by-case basis by the Regional Supervisor and may include reductions achieved through the application of processes, systems, and techniques for the control of each air pollutant.
Under the proposed rule, the evaluation of the SILs would not automatically trigger the requirement for BACT. In fact, BACT would never be the only possible ERM. Under the proposed rule, emissions credits including offsets would always be available as an alternative. The proposed rule would generally limit the requirement to apply BACT and/or offsets (or, more generally, emissions credits) to situations where the SILs exceedance relates to a non-attainment area. For a long-term facility whose emissions affect only attainment areas, BACT and/or offsets would be
For long-term facilities whose emissions affect a non-attainment area, where an exceedance of the relevant SILs would trigger the requirement for more extensive controls, BOEM expects that lessees and operators would likely choose emissions credits in all but a few cases (likely limited to those rare situations where localized control equipment would be the only effective way to prevent the facility from adversely affecting the attainment status of an onshore area).
If the modeling results show impacts that are higher than the SILs, ERM would be required as specified in § 550.306, for a short-term facility, or as specified in § 550.307, for a long-term facility. Current BOEM regulations require that any operator subject to controls (because its emissions are projected to exceed the SILs as defined in BOEM's regulations) must conduct a BACT analysis, and that BOEM must evaluate the amount of emissions reductions that each available emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, as well as the energy, environmental, economic and other costs associated with each technology or technique. The current regulations do not, however, specify explicitly that each lessee or operator evaluate all the potentially effective forms of BACT and do not therefore require a consideration of all the feasible alternatives. This section describes the methodology in this proposed rule for determining what forms of ERM would be required for any given plan.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator would be required to identify all of the potentially feasible forms of ERM and rank them according to their potential effectiveness. Only those situations where a potentially more effective ERM is infeasible
The proposed rule would provide a two-stage procedure for analyzing and selecting ERM, when required, based on modeling results. First, the lessee or operator would identify all the alternative control technologies available and determine their technical feasibility. Second, the lessee or operator would rank and choose specific control technologies. Although these two stages are implicit in BOEM's current regulations, they are stated explicitly for the first time in this proposed rule.
The purpose of this approach would be to ensure that the types of ERM considered would be those that would have the greatest potential to reduce the amount of emissions. The first stage in the process would require lessees and operators to consider all technically feasible control technologies (and not submit a plan that fails to mention feasible options). No lessee or operator could propose only control technologies that would either be largely ineffective (but inexpensive to implement) or cost prohibitive (so they could be discarded) to avoid selecting a cost effective and technologically effective form of ERM. The second stage would require operators to demonstrate the selected ERM is the most effective control technology that could be implemented cost effectively. Under the proposed rule, the most effective technology would always be considered, so it would be implemented unless it was found not to be cost effective.
The effectiveness of any given form of ERM would be measured in terms of the total number of tons of a pollutant that would be reduced on an annual basis. The cost effectiveness would be the annual tonnage reduction estimate divided by the cost. Thus, cost effectiveness would represent the cost per ton of pollutant emissions averted through the application of ERM. Both the amount of emissions reduced and the cost effectiveness of any proposed or potential ERM can be evaluated for any given pollutant or based on the total reduction in all relevant pollutants, depending on which pollutants need to be reduced.
Determining cost effectiveness would require considering the benefits to be achieved from emissions reductions against the costs that would be incurred to achieve those benefits. Accordingly, cost effectiveness means the absolute effectiveness of the technology (in terms of tons of emissions avoided), and its emission control efficiency (ECE) (percentage reduction) compared to the total potential cost of the technology. All of the costs and benefits of any potential control would be considered in determining what constitutes a cost effective emission reduction measure and what would, therefore, constitute viable ERM.
Although not stated explicitly, the current regulations allow a lessee or operator to apply no controls whatsoever when its “proposed” BACT is claimed to be unfeasible. The proposed rule would make explicit that technically feasible controls would always be required but would allow much greater flexibility in how the relevant ERM are determined and evaluated. Once the required emission reduction measure(s) (ERM) are identified, a lessee or operator would be required to thoroughly describe the emissions reduction controls it proposes to apply. The rule would also provide specific provisions governing the sufficiency and effectiveness of these measures and require a lessee or operator to monitor its continual effectiveness over the duration of the plan under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
The proposed rule would also explicitly articulate requirements for ERM that are implicit in the current regulations. The proposed rule would retain the term BACT, though the definition would be rewritten for clarity. In maintaining a “performance-based” approach to the proposed rule, BOEM is not proposing specific types of BACT, technical standards, or ERM. BOEM is seeking comment on whether it should identify various forms of ERM that have been approved in other situations, whether by BOEM, the USEPA or another regulator, and whether BOEM should provide additional specificity on how to determine the most appropriate form of ERM and/or what cost effectiveness would be considered presumptively reasonable in making such a determination. All of these issues could be addressed in the context of establishing criteria for what may constitute “presumptive BACT” or presumptive ERM. BOEM invites comment on whether BOEM should adopt presumptive ERM and, if so, what processes it should use for adopting and updating the various forms of presumptive ERM that are suggested or approved.
Section III of USEPA publication entitled “PSD
There are situations where the increase in a given precursor pollutant will not contribute to an increase in the ambient air concentration of the CP for which it is a precursor. That situation is particularly important in the case of NO
The USEPA allows the issuance of a “NO
The proposed rule would require a lessee or operator to combine projected emissions from its multiple facilities under certain circumstances in order to evaluate whether the close placement of multiple facilities operating at the same time could jointly cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. This proposed requirement would only apply to facilities that are wholly or partially owned, controlled or operated by the same entity, and is designed to prevent a single entity from segmenting its operations into multiple plans to avoid exceeding EETs. Emissions from nearby facilities that are not wholly or partially owned, controlled or operated by the same entity would be reviewed in the context of the relevant NEPA analyses.
BOEM's current practice is to require, in specific circumstances, the consolidated analysis of facilities covered by multiple plans in accordance with the following provision of § 550.303(j): “If, during the review of a new, modified, or revised Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan, the Regional Supervisor determines or an affected State submits information to the Regional Supervisor which demonstrates, in the judgment of the Regional Supervisor, that projected emissions from an otherwise exempt facility will, either individually or in combination with other facilities in the area, significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area, then the Regional Supervisor shall require the lessee to submit additional information to determine whether emission control measures are necessary.” The current regulations do not specify under what circumstances the Regional Supervisor would make such a determination.
This proposed rule recognizes the fact that the emissions from two or more OCS facilities located in close proximity to one another may have an adverse impact on the air quality of a State even if the individual EETs, considered separately, would indicate that that facility should not cause an adverse impact to the air quality of a State. This would generally only be true in the situation where two or more facilities were operated contemporaneously, however. Closely-grouped facilities that emit pollutants at the same time can affect the air quality of a State differently than facilities that are spread across a larger area because the emissions would be more concentrated and would, correspondingly, cause a greater concentration of air pollution within a neighboring State. Accordingly, the proposed rule would require consolidation to prevent a lessee or operator from “segmenting” his operations by describing proximate activities in separate plans or RUE or pipeline ROW applications in order avoid modeling or applying controls.
The proposed rule would specify that a lessee or operator would be required to consolidate projected emissions from multiple facilities if: (1) The emissions from multiple facilities are generated by proximate activities (
The proposed rule would specify that, if all of the emissions to be combined relate to the lessee's or operator's wholly-owned facilities, the lessee or operator would be required to provide the data and analysis regarding the complex total emissions. However, where the lessee or operator only partially owns the facilities whose projected emissions are to be consolidated, the lessee or operator would need to gather data from the operator of any facility that it does not wholly own
Under the proposed rule, if any lessee or operator is required to consolidate projected emissions data from multiple facilities, then anywhere a requirement applies to projected emissions, the lessee or operator would instead be required to use complex total emissions (except with respect to the process by which projected emissions are determined for any given facility, as specified in § 550.205(d)).
BOEM is proposing mandatory record keeping of fuel usage and activity data for all emissions sources, and we are proposing that non-exempt facilities subject to emissions reductions controls or mitigation and facilities that are exceptionally large be required to monitor their actual emissions. BOEM expects that most of the monitoring that would be required to be implemented in connection with the proposed rule would be of the type known as a Predictive Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS).
PEMS is an air quality monitoring that provides continuous data recording and generates reports according to the applicable regulatory requirements. PEMS is used to meet 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, requirements for audit and performance standards on new stationary sources. It is also applied in many other contexts, including the PSD program (40 CFR 51.166 through 51.166), and the approval and promulgation of implementation plans (under 40 CFR 52.21). The USEPA generally regards PEMS as a secure and reliable means of collecting, storing, and reporting compliance data.
PEMS can be used on most combustion sources that fire gaseous or liquid fuels and for most compliance parameters such as NO
In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, the proposed regulations would authorize BOEM to collect additional information on activities or plans after they have been approved.
Under the current structure, BOEM approves all plans for facilities in advance of the construction and installation of such facilities on the OCS. With respect to air quality, the plans contain estimates of prospective pollutant emissions based on the information that is available about the most likely emissions for every emissions source that is proposed to be used. This process necessarily involves estimates because it utilizes emissions projections for equipment, much of which is not yet in use at the particular site. The same principle applies to proposed ERM. The ERM that are put into the plan are also prospective; the ERM would not be applied to the facilities, equipment or MSCs until after a plan has been approved. The effectiveness of any physical controls that have not yet been installed cannot be measured but only projected. Based on this approach, it would be difficult to determine what the actual emissions would be for one facility, on a stand-alone basis, let alone a range of support vessels, vehicles, aircraft and ancillary equipment. For this reason, namely, in order to provide greater confidence that the actual emissions levels are not exceeding the projected levels, BOEM has proposed a more reasonable approach to establish basic record-keeping and measurement criteria that could be applied after a plan has been implemented and the associated facilities are fully operational.
The proposed rule adds a requirement that all operators (1) keep fuel logs for all the relevant equipment and (2) maintain operating records (
In addition to requiring all facilities to keep records as described above, certain facilities would also be required to measure actual emissions at specified intervals. The proposed rule outlines four criteria that would be used to determine which facilities would be subject to this requirement. First, the proposed rule would require the measurement of air pollutant emissions for plans which are approved subject to BACT. Such plans would have to demonstrate their actual emissions were not significantly above the projected emissions. Second, the proposed rule would require that any facility or emissions source that is not certified or compliant with USEPA emissions requirements applicable to engines or equipment intended or certified for use in the U.S. should also be required to demonstrate that its levels of actual emissions nevertheless are consistent with the estimates provided in the plan. Because the equipment is not certified, it is impossible to know without actual measurement the extent to which emissions are similar to emissions from certified equipment. Accordingly, BOEM believes that a demonstration should be made that the actual emissions of such equipment complies with the emissions levels which BOEM approved as part of the plan review.
Third, there are some situations where the accuracy and reliability of estimates of projected emissions, based on emissions factors, are unreliable or would be subject to a great range of variation. BOEM proposes to require measurement and reporting of actual emissions for plans in which the projected emissions cannot be reliably determined or in situations where the potential error in the emissions factors could result in a significant underestimate of the projected emissions (particularly in situations where the underestimate is of such a magnitude that not addressing the error could have a significant impact upon a State's air quality). This requirement is intended to allow BOEM to require monitoring on facilities with high emissions or a high level of variability in the accuracy of emissions factors or estimates. Because projected emissions are based on an activity rate and an emissions factor and because emissions factors are somewhat uncertain, the difference between the projected
Finally, in some areas, particularly those where the background concentrations of a pollutant are high or where the USEPA has recently changed a standard, and where there is a greater likelihood of a nearby facility causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, monitoring of actual emissions may also be required. The modeling that was used to demonstrate that there is, presumptively, no such impact could only be valid if the assumptions regarding the actual background concentrations of pollutants are accurate. If a model of potential emissions were to rely on inaccurate background concentration estimates, its conclusions would also be suspect. For that reason, BOEM has proposed that these facilities in these areas may also be required to verify that their emissions correspond to those estimated in the plan.
In contrast with the current BOEM regulations, where air quality data provisions are set forth in many sections, including §§ 550.215, 550.218, 550.224, 550.225, 550.245, 550.249, 550.257, 550.258, and 550.284, the proposed rule would establish one set of data requirements related to air quality in a new § 550.205. In the current regulations, plan requirements applicable to EPs are dealt with in one part of the regulations, and plan requirements applicable to DPPs and DOCDs are dealt with in another part of the regulations. Because the air quality requirements applicable to EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs are largely the same, BOEM proposes to place all the plan requirements relevant to air quality in one consolidated section.
The majority of the proposed rule consists of two major parts: A new section on data requirements and collection, § 550.205; and an air quality analysis control and compliance subpart, 30 CFR part 550 subpart C. The content of the two primary air quality data sections from the current regulations, § 550.218 and 550.249, would be covered by proposed § 550.205, and those existing sections would be eliminated.
The proposed rule would replace the current subpart C, which includes air quality evaluation and analysis and requirements for the application of emissions reductions measures. This new proposed subpart would describe the process for post-approval review of plans and for addressing compliance with future changes to the AAQSB on the part of the USEPA. BOEM is proposing to change the title of subpart C from “Pollution Prevention and Control” to “Air Quality Analysis, Control, and Compliance,” to better reflect the scope and intent of this subpart.
To make the regulations more precise and to ensure they remain up-to-date, BOEM is proposing to add a number of new definitions and to clarify a number of existing definitions. The proposed rule would consolidate all the definitions and acronyms specific to air quality in a single section, replace or update various provisions, and clarify the regulations in those circumstances where the existing text could be considered unclear or potentially subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.
BOEM solicits comments on various alternatives that could be used to achieve the Bureau's objective of monitoring large emitters. The following are examples of alternatives that have been identified. In addition, there may also be other alternatives that should be considered.
One alternative would be for BOEM to require measurement of actual emissions on facilities with emissions above a specific threshold to be determined in the final rule. BOEM would like comments on what an appropriate threshold might be.
A second alternative would be for BOEM to establish general criteria that could be used to determine the potential error in the emissions estimates. Among the criteria being considered are: Production volume of the facility, size, type, and efficiency of engines proposed to be used, the age of equipment, the attainment or designated non-attainment status of the nearby areas within any State, the length of time the equipment will be operated, the proximity to other facilities, and/or the historic reliability and variability of emissions factors for the equipment being used. Under this alternative, BOEM would make a determination on a case-by-case basis whether any given facility would be required to report its actual emissions.
A third alternative would be to require actual emissions measures for any plan that proposes to use equipment with emissions factors that BOEM has determined to be particularly unreliable. Under this alternative BOEM would provide information to lessees and operations as to what specific types of equipment would be subject to this reporting requirement.
The fourth alternative would be to establish a monitoring and reporting formula whereby facilities whose projected emissions exceed a fixed percentage of the emission exemptions thresholds would be required to monitor and record their actual emissions. For example, BOEM could require that any facility with projected emissions for any CP that exceeds 85 percent of the threshold would have to report its actual emissions for all criteria and major precursor pollutants. This is due to the potential margin of error in the emissions factors. BOEM solicits comments on the appropriate percentage of the emissions exemptions thresholds for this reporting threshold. A fifth alternative would be any combination of the previous alternatives.
BOEM is also considering whether it should require measurement of actual emissions from activities in all plans, but limit the kinds of sources for which measurement is required, based on the uncertainty in the emissions factors estimates for specific pieces of equipment and the potential costs of measuring emissions from the associated equipment. The section-by-section description of proposed § 550.311 sets forth text for this proposal.
In addition to monitoring requirements, BOEM is also proposing provisions that clarify the way in which BOEM will ensure that previously approved plans comply with the statutory requirements. As noted previously, OCSLA requires “compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401
Because the NAAQS are updated periodically to reflect improved information, BOEM believes that it would be appropriate to re-evaluate plans or RUE applications approved many years ago for compliance with section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, even though the facility has not been modified in such a manner as to require the submission of a revised plan. For this reason, in addition to the new record-keeping and emissions measurement requirements, BOEM is also proposing that lessees and operators be subject to a requirement to resubmit their plans on a periodic basis for re-evaluation. The current practice, and one that would be continued under the proposed rule, is to project air emissions for ten years from the date of plan submission. Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator is operating under an approved plan, it would be required to resubmit a plan for a periodic air quality review ten years after BOEM's previous approval of the operator's last plan. This provision would be added in furtherance of the objective of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and which makes no provision for any exceptions with respect to previously approved plans. All of the applicable requirements of this subpart in effect on the date of resubmission would apply on the same basis to a resubmitted plan as for an initial plan or RUE application. BOEM requests comments on this provision, particularly with respect to the potential impact on lessees and operators.
Once the new EETs have been established, BOEM would conduct periodic reviews of plans that were approved prior to that time. This is to ensure the lessee or operator's emissions remain compliant with OCLSA and are in accordance with the provisions of the OCS leases that require compliance with subsequent revisions to the regulations. Plans would be resubmitted according to the schedule in proposed § 550.310(c), no more frequently than ten years after they were approved. Plans that were revised or modified would also be due for resubmittal ten years after their most recent revision or modification was approved.
A plan resubmitted pursuant to this proposed provision would be required to be updated to comply with the requirements of § 550.205 as they exist at the time of the plan resubmission and to include the most current data on emissions factors. It would be reevaluated against the EETs and formulas as they exist at the time of the plan resubmission. The resubmitted plan must be modified to include any data collected on actual emissions since the last time the plan was submitted or resubmitted. Under the proposal, if a plan would indicate an exceedance of any applicable emission exemption threshold, all of the other applicable requirements of this subpart would apply as for an initial plan.
For plans that were approved prior to the effective date of this rule, the lessee or operator would be required to resubmit the air quality component of its previously approved plan after the date in which BOEM has determined new EETs and published them in the FR. The resubmission would be conducted on a phased basis, beginning in 2020. For further details, see the section-by-section analysis description of proposed § 550.310(c)(2).
The proposed rule would include a new provision to support BOEM's effort to inventory emissions on the OCS. Currently, BOEM maintains this type of emissions inventory information on air pollutants in the GOM Region. BOEM collects the information through GOADS, as described most recently in BOEM NTL No. 2014-G01, and previous NTLs. The major pollutants for which BOEM has collected data in the GOADS include the following: CO, sulphur oxides (SO
The proposed rule would codify this current GOM practice, provide for the expansion of this activity to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, and facilitate the gathering of information in other OCS areas to the extent necessary to augment the NEI or for another purpose such as to obtain relevant NEPA data. The proposed provision would require all lessees, operators, and holders of rights-of-use and easements (RUEs) to collect, maintain, and submit information on an ongoing basis regarding air pollutant emissions from all relevant emissions sources. BOEM would use this information to maintain a comprehensive OCS emissions inventory of air pollutants.
The information would assist BOEM in meeting its requirements under OCSLA to ensure the offshore activities it authorizes do not significantly affect the air quality of a State. Also, the information submitted under this provision would allow BOEM to determine OCS-wide emissions for leased areas and use that data to inform NEPA analysis and coordinate with the USEPA and coastal States to determine ambient air quality levels and mitigations of adverse impacts. The inventory will continue to augment BOEM's NEPA review by providing an accurate inventory to determine ambient concentrations of air pollutants and by serving as a basis to compute emission trends and to perform necessary air quality impact assessments. Separately, the data provided by lessees, operators, and RUE holders are analyzed and supplemented by BOEM, and the results are provided to the submitters in order to assist them in complying with their reporting obligations to the USEPA. Under the proposed rule, BOEM would continue to make this information available to OCS lessees, lease operators, and RUE holders to assist with their mandatory reporting of certain GHGs to the USEPA. See 40 CFR 98.233.
OCSLA requires DOI to make a decision on whether to approve an EP within 30 days and a DPP within 60 days. Consequently, the air quality review process for the plan is limited in its ability to provide extensive analysis of complex plans. Although not mentioned explicitly in OCSLA, BOEM's regulations require a similar review timeframe for DOCDs. While there is an opportunity for public comment on plans, there is limited opportunity for public review of air pollution measures in EPs, DPPs, or DOCDs. BOEM requests comments on how more opportunity for public input could be provided, while observing legal constraints on plan review timeframes.
The AAIs established by the USEPA represent ambient concentrations of CPs in attainment areas that have been established to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality. Increases in ambient concentrations of CPs that exceed the AAIs present a risk of causing an attainment area to become a non-attainment area. BOEM proposes to evaluate increases in ambient air concentrations to ensure compliance with the AAIs.
The preamble to the current regulation
Accordingly, the proposed rule would contain an explicit requirement that facilities for which BACT is implemented consider other sources of emissions that contribute to consumption of the AAI when they compare the impacts of their controlled emissions against the AAIs.
Through this notice, BOEM is soliciting comments on alternative ways for how it might effectively ensure that the increments are not “consumed” in the relevant attainment areas or what steps it might take to protect the increments in an operational context without creating an undue burden on lessees or operators. One alternative for determining the extent to which the increments have been “consumed” would be to separately evaluate the cumulative effects of offshore development in the context of the NEPA analysis conducted for the Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program or in connection with the lease sales. Another alternative might be to conduct periodic cumulative impact assessments of the air quality in relevant attainment areas. Based on either the NEPA analysis or a separate cumulative impact assessment, BOEM might maintain a database of relevant AAIs that have previously been “consumed.” These data could be evaluated in the context of the plan review process, or separately in some other context.
The following are the changes proposed by this rulemaking in part 550:
The heading of § 550.101 would be revised from “Authority and Applicability” to read “Applicability.” This change would make the section title better reflect the current content of the section.
The proposed rule would modify paragraph (a) of this section to make clarifying amendments. In addition, paragraph (b), which contains the table entitled “Where To Find Information For Conducting Operations,” would be updated as follows with the following additions: The acronym for application of permit to drill (APD); a reference to the subsection on Development and Production Plans (DPP) to include Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCD); the acronym for geological and geophysical (G&G) permits; the acronym from oil spill financial responsibility, (OSFR); a subsection to cover Rights-of-Use and Easement; acronyms for Rights-of-Use and Easement (RUE) and pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROW); and a new subsection referencing the Air Quality proposed regulations in subpart C.
The definitions in § 550.105 are intended to apply to all of part 550. The definitions proposed to be added or revised in proposed § 550.302 are meant to apply only to § 550.205 of subpart B and all of subpart C.
In many cases, the definitions as used in part 550 differ from the meaning of the same term found in other agencies' regulations, in other contexts, or as used in common usage. Any word, phrase, or term that is not defined should be understood in the common and ordinary meaning of that word, phrase, or term. For example, the term nitrogen oxides is not defined, and it is not used in a manner that would require the term to be defined uniquely in this proposed rule, because BOEM uses it in its common and ordinary meaning. In contrast, the phrase “Best Available Control Technology,” and its corresponding acronym BACT, is used as defined in proposed § 550.302, and it would not have the same meaning as used in the USEPA regulation.
Definitions related to air quality terms are currently located in three places in part 550: §§ 550.105, 550.200, and 550.302. Under the proposed rule, definitions of terms that are related solely to air quality would be located in § 550.302 as part of subpart C. Other definitions related to both air quality and other parts of the regulations are left in § 550.105. Subparts A and B contain some requirements related to air quality, and proposed sections within these subparts would use terms that would be defined in subpart C. Under this organizational framework, the proposed rule would move some of the definitions from one section to another and some terms would also be updated.
The proposed rule would revise or add definitions of the following terms:
This definition would be revised to include the following: (1) Any criteria air pollutant for which the USEPA has established numerical criteria, referred to as the primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), in 40 CFR part 50 and as may be amended pursuant to section 109 of the CAA; (2) any major precursor air pollutant identified by the USEPA that contributes to the formation of a criteria air pollutant through an atmospheric or photochemical reaction, including, but not limited to, VOCs, NH
The current regulations define the term “source” in section 550.302 as, “an emission point. Several sources may be included within a single facility.” The proposed rule would replace the term “source” with “emissions source” and locate the newly defined term in section 550.105. The proposed rule would define “emissions source” as “a device or substance that emits air pollutant(s) in connection with any authorized activity described in your plan.” The proposed definition would also clarify that several emissions sources may exist on a single facility, aircraft, vessel, or vehicle. The proposed rule would further make clear anything that: (1) Produces or results in the release of one or more air pollutant(s), including the flashing, flaring, or venting of natural gas; (2) involves burning any oil or well test fluids; or (3) generates fugitive emissions, is an emissions source.
BOEM is proposing to use the term “emissions source” in place of the current term, “source,” since the term is used only in the air quality context (although referred to throughout part 550 of the regulations). The proposed definition of “emissions source” would be broader than the existing definition of “source.” It would also clarify that an
The proposed rule would add this term to mean the Secretary of the Department with authority over any federal Class I area or sensitive Class II area (or the Secretary's designee). This definition is adapted from USEPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, implementing the CAA provisions on protecting visibility in Class I areas.
For the purpose of this proposed rule, a Federally-recognized Indian tribe refers to a Federally-recognized Indian tribe that has either a Treatment as State (TAS) status recognized by the USEPA or an approved Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP).
Under the current § 550.105, “flaring” is defined as “the burning of natural gas as it is released into the atmosphere.” The proposed rule would revise this definition to read, “. . . the burning of natural gas or other hydrocarbons and the release of the associated emissions into the atmosphere.” The proposed definition would also provide that, because lessees and operators can use flaring to reduce the emissions of hydrocarbon vapors, it could potentially also be considered as an air pollutant emission reduction measure. The proposed definition would further make clear flares can be a mechanism used to control emissions from storage tanks, loading operations, glycol dehydration units, vent collection systems, and amine units. In addition, the proposed definition would note flares usually operate continuously but some are used only for process upsets, which occur during the exploration or development process when large amounts of flammable gases are released suddenly and unexpectedly. Finally, the proposed definition would provide the term “flaring” is equivalent to combustion flaring (
BOEM is proposing to revise the definition of flaring and distinguish it from venting as a result of a response to Report 11-34 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in “FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASES: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases.”
The proposed rule would revise the definition of the term “minerals” slightly to align with OCSLA section 2(q), 43 U.S.C. 1331(q). There would be no substantive changes to the definition for minerals, which continues to include oil, gas, sulphur, geopressured-geothermal and associated resources, and all other minerals that are authorized to be produced from public lands.
The proposed rule would add this term to the definitions section to mean “any offshore supply vessel (OSV) as defined by the USCG in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 2101, and any ship, tanker, tug or tow boat, pipeline barge, anchor handling vessel, facility installation vessel, refueling or ice management vessel, oil-spill response vessel, or any other offshore vessel, remotely operated vehicle (ROV), or any offshore vehicle used by, or in the support of, the offshore operations described in a plan.”
Consistent with the approach currently used by BOEM, for the purpose of evaluating air emissions, an MSC is considered a facility while temporarily attached to the seabed or connected to another facility.
The term “offshore supply vessel” is defined in the USCG regulations. The term “support vessel” is used but not defined in the current BOEM regulations.
Current § 550.200 defines “offshore vehicle” as “a vehicle that is capable of being driven on ice.” The proposed definition would clarify that an offshore vehicle is a type of MSC that is capable of being driven on ice and would add the phrase “and which provides support services or personnel to your facility or facilities.”
RUE is not currently defined in 30 CFR part 550. The proposed rule would define RUE to mean seabed use authorizations that BOEM may grant at an OCS site, other than an OCS lease, pursuant to sections §§ 550.160 through 550.166 of this part.
State is not currently defined in the regulations. The proposed rule would add this definition in order to clarify that the word “State” includes its submerged lands and extends to the federal/State boundary. Any reference to the word “State” in this proposed rule, unless otherwise specified, is intended to include the area offshore a State up to the federal/State boundary.
Venting is currently defined in 30 CFR 250.105. The proposed rule would modify that definition to read “the release of gas into the atmosphere, including though a stack without igniting it, whereby relief flows of natural gas or other hydrocarbons are directed to an unignited flare or which is otherwise discharged directly to the atmosphere. This includes gas that is released underwater and bubbles to the atmosphere.”
The proposed rule changes the title from “May I ever use alternate procedures or equipment?” and would add new paragraph (d) to existing § 550.141, stating, “In order to protect public health, you may be required or allowed to temporarily suspend the use of equipment that emits air pollutants, or to implement operational control(s) on the use of such equipment by the Regional Supervisor, when an adjacent
Local air quality authorities in States adjacent to the OCS periodically declare air emissions episodes or air quality emergencies when the concentration of a pollutant is especially high. BSEE and its predecessors have historically either required or allowed the suspension of use and testing of standby equipment during emergency health episodes declared by local authorities adjacent to the Pacific OCS (NTL 2000 P-01). Such suspensions have, for example, allowed Pacific OCS operators the ability to curtail stationary source emissions according to the measures contained in Episode Avoidance Plans or Emergency Action Plans, which the operators typically prepare at the request of either the USEPA or the State. The proposed provision would apply more generally to any equipment authorized under part 550 and that emits air pollutants. It would also apply anywhere on the OCS where operations could contribute to an air quality emergency.
A new provision has been added to accommodate situations in which published documents that are referred to in the regulations of this part have been updated by the original publisher. This provision would allow the use of the updated publications under certain circumstances, as specified in the proposed rule text.
The proposed rule would redesignate current paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) as paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) and add a new paragraph (f). The new paragraph would specify that facilities constructed or maintained on RUEs must meet the air quality requirements of § 550.205 of subpart B of this part and that subpart C would also apply to that RUE application. The rule clarifies that any reference to a lessee or operator in those sections would apply equally to any applicant for a right-of-use and easement.
The new provision of this section is intended to apply to those situations where an organization is proposing to install a new facility on a RUE and that facility is not included in an exploration or development plan. In the event that an existing RUE was approved as part of an exploration or production plan, no new requirements would be imposed. Similarly, any application for a new RUE that is included within the scope of a proposed exploration or development plan would not be affected by the requirements of this paragraph.
BOEM requests comments on the most appropriate method for establishing and reporting air quality requirements associated with the removal of any facility installed pursuant to a RUE in the context of the AQRP.
The proposed rule would add new § 550.187. The new section would require a lessee, an operator, or a holder of a RUE to collect, maintain, retain for a period of no less than 10 years, and submit to the appropriate regional office on an ongoing basis according to a schedule established by BOEM, information regarding all air pollutant emissions from all emissions sources associated with its operations. The primary means by which this requirement would be implemented is by requiring the lessees and operators to maintain records of the type and amount of fuel consumed (
The current BOEM practice is to require the submission of this information every three years, and BOEM intends to maintain this practice for the foreseeable future. The three-year timeframe is consistent with USEPA regulations regarding the timeframes for submitting this information. However, given that the USEPA may change its regulations and given that, in some cases, current USEPA regulations require more frequent reporting from some sources, the proposed regulations cross-reference USEPA regulations with respect to the timing of the information submittal. That way, the rule would propose to automatically reflect any changes made by the USEPA with respect to the NEI timing requirements. Accordingly, the proposed rule would specify that the reporting timeframes will be determined by the requirements of 40 CFR 51.30(a), as it may be amended.
The proposed rule would require that the submitted information include air emissions or the activity data necessary to calculate the emissions of stationary emissions sources, including all facilities, and all non-stationary sources, including MSC(s) and any other non-stationary emissions source(s) of air pollutants above the OCS or above State submerged lands that operate in support of an OCS facility, as determined by the Regional Supervisor. GOM has historically obtained the MSC data from independent sources and intends to continue this process for the foreseeable future. BOEM would likely only change this practice if the data collection became impractical.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator may request that the owner of such non-stationary emissions source(s) provide the information to BOEM or a BOEM-designated agent, but the lessee or operator would still be responsible for submitting the required information if the owner does not submit it.
Currently, the GOM Region prepares its emissions inventory by allowing lessees and operators to directly input data either on fuel use or on equipment usage and operating time. BOEM then uses this data to calculate the resulting emissions. This proposed rule would allow for the continuation of that practice in the GOM Region, and the expansion of that practice to other OCS regions. Accordingly, the proposed rule requires the submission of (1) facility and equipment usage, including hours of operation at each percent of capacity for each emissions source; and/or (2) fuel logs containing monthly and annual fuel consumption data showing the quantity, type, and sulphur content of fuel used for each emissions source. The proposed rule would require the information provided under this proposed section should be at a sufficient level of detail so as to facilitate BOEM's compilation of a comprehensive OCS emissions inventory of air pollutants. BOEM solicits comments on various alternative methods for ensuring the accurate reporting of emissions and the appropriate methods that might be used to ensure the accuracy of the data and information it collects.
Consistent with the approach taken by the USEPA in the development of the NEI, the proposed rule specifies that lessees and operators would be required to classify the emissions according to
Finally, the proposed rule would allow the Regional Director to waive or allow a delay in compliance with the requirements of this section on a region-wide basis. The reason for this waiver provision is to allow regions to avoid duplicating the effort already undertaken by the USEPA in this regard, particularly in areas where BOEM does not have air quality jurisdiction and does not, therefore, have any unique or separate data or IC requirements.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee, an operator, or a holder of a RUE would be required to submit the required information upon request or on an ongoing basis as determined by BOEM starting in 2017 or in the next reporting period if the rule is not effective by 2017 and continuing according to the timeframe established by the USEPA in its regulations governing the NEI to the appropriate regional OCS office. Leases and RUEs acquired after 2017 would be subject to the reporting requirement at the end of the next reporting period. The proposed rule would also require submission of this information more frequently if the lessee, operator, or holder of a RUE has an emissions source that generates facility emissions that have a PTE
As with the current GOADS in the GOM OCS region, the information obtained under this proposed provision is necessary to allow BOEM to determine more accurately air emissions from the activities it has authorized on the OCS and fulfill its statutory obligations under OCSLA section 5(a)(8). BOEM also uses that data to inform NEPA reviews and analysis and coordinate with the USEPA and coastal States. The inventory would provide data to augment BOEM's NEPA review by providing an accurate basis from which to compute emission trends and to perform necessary air quality impact assessments. In addition, the emissions data derived from information provided under this program would continue to be made available from BOEM to OCS lessees, operators, and RUE holders to assist with their mandatory reporting of GHGs to the USEPA. BOEM would also continue to use the inventory to meet information requests from the general public.
BOEM currently collects emissions data related to GHGs on a regular basis in the GOM OCS Region as part of the GOADS program. BOEM recognizes the impacts of GHG emissions on the air and water overlying the OCS, primarily associated with ocean acidification, and the States, in connection with climate change, and the importance and sensitivity of this issue. For this reason, BOEM is researching the implications of GHG emissions generated by OCS facilities and MSCs and evaluating various alternatives for potentially limiting these GHG emissions.
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference certain material into part 550 with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The proposed rule would provide for the process BOEM may use to amend its regulations to incorporate different versions of these documents.
For all material incorporated by reference, the applicable document would be the specific edition or specific edition and supplement or addendum cited in this section. Lessees and operators would be allowed to comply with a later edition of a specific document incorporated by reference, provided they show that complying with the later edition provides a degree of scientific or technical accuracy, environmental protection, or performance equal to or better than would be achieved by compliance with the listed edition; and they obtain the prior written approval for alternative compliance from the authorized BOEM official.
The proposed rule would explain that the effect of incorporation by reference of a document into the regulations in this part is that the incorporated document is a requirement. The proposed rule states that when a section in this part incorporates all of a document, the lessee or operator would be responsible for complying with the provisions of that entire document, except to the extent that the section which incorporates the document by reference provides otherwise. Further it states that when a section in this part incorporates part of a document, the lessee or operator would be responsible for complying with that part of the document as specified in that section.
BOEM may issue the a future rule(s) amending the documents incorporated by reference effective without opportunity for public comment when BOEM determines the revisions to a document represent new industry standard technology and do not impose undue costs on the affected parties; and BOEM meets the requirements for making a rule immediately effective under 5 U.S.C. 553.
The specific documents proposed to be incorporated by reference include: From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., MS6101A, Washington, DC 20460.
(1) AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, January 1995, incorporated by reference at proposed § 550.205(b)(2). AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, has been published since 1972 as the primary compilation of the USEPA's emission factor information. It contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. The Fifth Edition of AP-42 was published in January 1995. Since then the USEPA has published supplements and updates to the fifteen chapters available in Volume I, Stationary Point and Area Sources. The latest emissions factors are available on their Web site at:
(2) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-
(3) User's Guide for the Final NONROAD2005, EPA420-R-05-013, December 2005. This publication is applicable to the NONROAD2008 model, incorporated by reference at proposed § 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(B). The NONROAD model is intended for estimation of air pollution inventories by professional mobile source modelers, such as state air quality officials and consultants. The User Guide is available from the USEPA at:
(4) FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval System) Version 5.0: Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 454/R-95-012, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, August 1995, incorporated by reference at § 550.187(c)(4). This document provides emissions factors and Source Classification Codes (SCCs) from the USEPA's Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) system, version 5.0, for use in the estimation, storage and retrieval of point source air pollutant emissions. Calculation of emission estimates is discussed as well as the SCC system of associating air pollution estimates with identifiable emitting process types or unit applications. This document is available from the USEPA at:
From the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-100), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591:
(1) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) User's Guide, Version 2B, prepared for the FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Washington, DC prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, July 2015 (as amended) incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). AEDT is a software system that models aircraft performance in space and time to estimate fuel consumption, emissions, noise, and air quality consequences. AEDT is a comprehensive tool that provides information to FAA stakeholders on each of these specific environmental impacts. AEDT facilitates environmental review activities, such as those required under NEPA, by consolidating the modeling of these environmental impacts in a single tool. AEDT is designed to model individual studies ranging in scope from a single flight at an airport to scenarios at the regional, national, and global levels. AEDT leverages geographic information system (GIS) and relational database technology to achieve this scalability and offers rich opportunities for exploring and presenting results. Versions of AEDT are actively used by the U.S. government for domestic aviation system planning as well as domestic and international aviation environmental policy analysis. The User Guide is available from the FAA at:
(2) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), Version 2B, AEDT Standard Input File (ASIF) Reference Guide, prepared for the FAA of Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Washington, DC prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, May 2015 (as amended) incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). This Reference Guide provides a description of the AEDT Standard Input File (ASIF) file format. It is intended for analysts and programmers who wish to create or modify an ASIF to import data into an AEDT study. The Reference Guide is available from the FAA at:
From the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
(1) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, and NO
This, and the other IMO publications, may also be ordered directly from the IMO at:
(2) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“2008 Annex VI”), incorporated by reference at proposed § 550.205(b)(2)(v). This adds various amendments to the annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It is available from a USEPA Web site at:
(3) NO
The following are the changes proposed by this rulemaking in part 550:
The proposed rule would move the definition of this term into § 550.105 because it is used more often outside the air quality context and is referred to throughout the regulations in part 550.
In the current regulations, plan requirements related to air quality are widely dispersed. Air quality requirements are discussed throughout part 550, particularly in §§ 550.207, 550.212, 550.218, 550.224, 550.225, 550.227, 550.242, 550.249, 550.257, 550.258 and 550.261. In order to provide a consistent, comprehensive listing of all of the data requirements related to air quality, these existing air quality regulations would be consolidated in one new section, “§ 550.205 What air emissions information must be submitted with my plan (EP, DPP, DOCD, or an application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline)?” Most references to air quality requirements in the other sections of part 550 would be deleted and replaced with a cross-reference to the single new § 550.205. In addition, the proposed rule would specify that this section would apply to RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease term pipeline applications.
The proposed rule would make clear that all lessees or operators must list and describe every emissions source on or associated with any facility or facilities and MSC(s) described in a plan. In contrast to the current regulations, the proposed rule describes in detail what should be considered an emissions source and what should or should not be included in that category. The proposed rule adds specificity to the requirements to ensure plans and RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease term pipeline applications are prepared consistently and evaluated according to a standard set of criteria. This would include each emissions source used during the construction, installation (including well protection structure installation), and operation of any exploration, testing, drilling (including well test flaring), development, or production equipment or facility or facilities (including every platform or manmade island included in their plan). The proposed rule would specify lessees or operators must account for the air pollutant emissions sources associated with all drilling operations, including workovers and recompletions, sidetracking, and pipeline construction, and reported emissions sources must include those associated with any oil or gas produced on a lease that is used during the course of lease operations (
The proposed rule would require lessees or operators to specify the equipment type and number, manufacturer, make and model, location, purpose (
The proposed rule would contain additional provisions for engines on facilities and MSCs. For all engines on each facility, including non-road engines, marine propulsion engines (in the case of MODUs when attached to the seabed), or marine auxiliary engines (
For engines on MSCs, including marine propulsion and marine auxiliary engines, the proposed rule would require lessees or operators provide information regarding the engine displacement in liters/cylinder, and maximum speed in revolutions per minute (rpm). If the specific rpm information is not available, the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to indicate whether the rpm would be less than 130 rpm, equal to or greater than 130 rpm but less than 2,000 rpm, or equal to or greater than 2,000 rpm, based on best available information.
For offshore vehicles and MSCs, the proposed section would provide that when a lessee or operator does not know which specific engines will be used or the information about them cannot be verified, it may estimate maximum potential emissions based on the maximum potential emissions of the type of MSC typically used in the planned operations.
Finally, for any emissions source that does not fall into one of these categories, the proposed rule would require lessees or operators to provide all information needed to calculate and verify the associated emissions, such as volumes vented, volumes flared, size of tank, number of components, etc.
The purpose of this section is to provide information regarding how a lessee or operator would determine the level of air emissions for each emissions source described in its plan. The proposed rule would provide a considerable amount of detail regarding what emissions factors should be used. Emissions factors are the values that allow lessees or operators to calculate how much of a pollutant will be emitted based on the operation of the source. The proposed rule would retain the current requirement that, for each emissions source, for every criteria and major precursor air pollutant, the lessee or operator must identify the most appropriate emissions factor(s) for calculating its projected emissions. The proposed rule would specify the acceptable methods to be used for determining the appropriate emissions factors. In general, a lessee or operator would be allowed to use actual emissions amounts derived from emission testing done for a specific emissions source in lieu of one of the approaches to estimate emission factors set out below. When determining the emissions factors through testing, the lessee or operator must consider test points and fuel. In general, unless the unique circumstances of the proposed plan make it clearly impractical to do so, test points should be devised based on actual operations as opposed to using the test points and engine loads contained in one of the various marine or non-road duty cycles. It cannot be assumed that emissions per hour or emissions per kW or per hp hour from large main engines on drill ships and platforms are highest during full load or
The proposed rule would further specify that the lessee or operator must ensure that the fuel used in the testing to generate the emission factors reflect the type of fuel that will be used by the engine in actual operation. The sulphur content is especially important with respect to measuring PM and SO
The proposed rule would specify that in the event that the lessee or operator were to elect not to measure the actual emissions for any given emissions source, it would need to select an emissions factor from the list of sources provided in the proposed rule. These are described below, in the order of preference.
First, the proposed rule would provide that the lessee or operator use the emissions factor(s) that are vendor-guaranteed or provided by the manufacturer of the specific emissions source, if available. If the lessee or operator were to use vendor-guaranteed or manufacturer data, it would need to demonstrate (1) that the fuel used by the manufacturer to generate the emission factors reflects the type of fuel that will be used by the engine in actual operation and (2) that the actual engine has not been modified outside the configuration used to generate the emission factors; thus, the emission factors used in the plan must represent the actual pattern of use for that equipment in operations. The proposed rule would specify that where a manufacturer has not provided an emissions factor for the emissions source the lessee or operator proposes to use, the lessee or operator may use a manufacturer's emissions factor for a similar source only if the lessee or operator could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor that the emissions generated by the lessee or operator's emissions source are the same as or lower than that for which a manufacturer's emissions factor is available.
Second, the proposed rule would state that emissions factors generated from source tests required by USEPA Outer Continental Shelf permits would be allowed as BOEM emission estimates for a specific rig since these emissions factors are based on prior emissions tests. These emissions tests are required across the range of actual load operations for engines on Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU). The proposed rule would further specify that if emissions factors were not generated through testing for a particular engine, emissions factors generated from a recent and similar permitted engine may be used.
Third, if emission factors, based on models or an emission model guidance document developed by the USEPA or FAA is available and appropriate to the emissions source, the lessee or operator may use the relevant emission factors from that model or guidance document. The proposed rule would provide a list of emission models that may be used to obtain emission factors for certain types of emissions sources. In particular, two referenced documents from the USEPA provide in-use emission factors for a variety of engines including “Category 3” main propulsion engines on vessels and engines used in equipment on vessels, covering both engines certified to USEPA emission standards and engines certified by other nations and international organizations.
Fourth, the lessee or operator would use emission factors from published studies conducted by a reputable source, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board, a university, or research agency, to the extent they may yield reliable emission factors or formula to calculate emissions factors for certain types of engines and equipment other than for the large main engines on drilling ships and drill platforms and for locomotive-sized engines powering cranes. These studies may be helpful to generate emission factors for marine coating operations, flares, emissions from drilling muds, etc. If an emission study is used, the study must cover representative engines, fuels, and duty cycles.
Fifth, in certain situations, the MARPOL Annex VI engine emission standards may be used as proxies for emission factors. This option would be available only for an engine installed on a non-U.S. flagged vessel that is not part of an engine family that is covered by a USEPA certificate of conformity but that is MARPOL certified. In this case, the lessee or operator must indicate the vessel flag as well as engine size used to determine the standards to use as the proxy emission factor for that engine. If this approach is used, the plan would also be required to account for any differences in fuel sulphur limits.
BOEM seeks comment on: (1) Whether this fifth alternative would be appropriate or is needed, particularly given that the emission factors used in USEPA's marine and nonroad emission models apply regardless of flag (
Sixth, under the proposed rule, if none of the methods provided in the first five options above are applicable, for a natural gas-powered engine of any
Seventh, if none of the above options are applicable,
If a lessee or operator elects to apply an emissions factor based on a standard, as allowed under the 5th and 6th alternatives, it must take appropriate account of the deterioration in performance based on the age of the equipment and the potential variation of the actual emissions from the standard to account for the maximum potential emissions that the emissions source may emit. Given that equipment tends to operate less efficiently over time, the lessee or operator should make an appropriate upward adjustment in the emissions estimates for older equipment (
The proposed rule would also require that any time a lessee or operator revises a plan, including as a part of its resubmissions every ten years, it must consider the age of the equipment, adjust for any change in operating efficiency, and provide the associated emissions factors in its revised or resubmitted plan, as applicable. Also, under the proposed rule the Regional Supervisor may require a lessee or operator to use a different emissions factor for any emissions source or air pollutant if the Regional Supervisor has reason to believe the selected emissions factor is inaccurate to a material degree or new information on emissions factors becomes available. The proposed rule would also provide the Regional Supervisor may require stack testing or another form of validation to verify the accuracy of an emissions factor.
Various U.S. manufacturers of non-road and marine diesel engines produce both domestic and export-only versions of each piece of equipment. The domestic version is manufactured to comply with USEPA emissions requirements whereas the export-only version may or may not comply with USEPA requirements. Domestic versions may, in some cases, be exported. Manufacturers in other countries also produce, or may in the future produce, both engines that are certified by the USEPA as legal for sale in the U.S. and engines that are not. The USEPA provides emissions factors for such equipment that is certified to be legal for use in the U.S., and these emission factors apply to an originally-configured U.S.-certified engine regardless of its marketing path. It does not test or evaluate the emissions of U.S.-manufactured equipment intended only for export or foreign-manufactured equipment not intended for sale in the U.S. For this reason, under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator proposes to utilize an engine or equipment that is manufactured in the U.S. or any other country, but which is not certified by the USEPA for use in the U.S., the lessee or operator may not use a USEPA emissions factor intended to apply to the domestic version of such engine or equipment of the same vintage. Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator proposes to utilize an engine or equipment on a U.S.-flagged vessel that is not USEPA-certified for use in the U.S., then that lessee or operator must test the actual emissions of the proposed engine or equipment and submit data on its actual emissions. If the lessee or operator claims to use a USEPA certified engine or equipment, it must submit documentation of that engine or equipment's certification.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator's projected emissions include emissions for a U.S. flagged vessel, then it must submit documentation of the USEPA-issued Certificate of Conformity for each mobile source engine.
This paragraph is intended to provide a consistent set of criteria to determine what should be included in each plan with respect to facilities and their corresponding emissions.
This paragraph would require facility emissions to be reported for each criteria and major precursor air pollutant in three separate ways. First, paragraph (c)(1) would require the lessee or operator to calculate and report the projected annual emissions for each facility in its plan, itemized by all of the emissions of each emissions source on or physically connected to each facility. Such calculations should be done for each year that the plan is proposed to engage in operating activities, for a period of ten years. Emissions reported under this subparagraph would include those associated with any emissions source involved in the construction, installation, operation, or decommissioning of the facility, based on the maximum rated capacity of each emission source associated with the facility and using the methods and procedures specified under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Second, paragraph (c)(2), would require the lessee or operator to calculate and report the maximum 12-month rolling sum
The proposed rule would specify the lessee or operator must calculate its projected emissions from each emission source, based on the maximum rated capacity of each engine it proposes to use, or the capacity that generates the highest rate of emissions. Emissions information would be required for emissions sources individually and for the entire facility or facilities. BOEM expects it would implement this proposed requirement by continuing its current practice whereby lessees and operators provide information on their emissions in a table that they submit with their plan.
BOEM intends this requirement to be broad, and accordingly, the proposed rule also defines “emissions sources” and “facilities” broadly. (See discussion of definitions of those terms at §§ 550.105 and 550.302). The requirement to report facility emissions exists in the current regulations, but the proposed rule would refine the requirement. The result of these broad definitions in the context of this proposed section would be that all sources of emissions connected to a facility should be accounted for in a plan. Examples of emissions sources on platforms that a lessee or operator would be required to report under this proposed section include, but are not limited to, boilers/heaters/burners, diesel engines, drilling rigs attached to the seabed, combustion flares, cold vents, fugitives, glycol dehydrators, losses from flashing, natural gas engines, natural gas turbines, pneumatic pumps, pressure/level controllers, amine units, loading losses, tanks, dual fuel turbines, and sources involved in mud degassing or storage tanks. Examples of sources that would also be accounted for under this proposed section that normally are not on a platform include, but are not limited to, drilling rigs, and any other equipment that is temporarily or permanently connected to any planned facility. This would include any support vessel (crew, supply, tugs), pipeline lay barges, pipeline bury barges, derrick barges (installation of structure), and well testing equipment, while connected or moored to the facility.
The USEPA concept of PTE, which it defines at 40 CFR 51.301, is similar to the BOEM concept of facility emissions, in that both PTE and facility emissions refer to the maximum aggregate capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. In both cases, this concept includes all emissions sources attached to a facility but excludes the attributed emissions of unattached non-stationary sources.
BOEM is considering whether to use the term PTE instead of facility emissions, and BOEM invites comment on this question.
Proposed § 550.205(d) specifies how emissions from MSCs described in a plan would be attributed to a facility described in that plan. The proposed section provides the procedures by which operators would account for emissions from these MSCs while they are supporting the operations in the plan. Under the proposed rule, lessees and operators would be required to calculate both the total emissions that every MSC in its plan generates and then to calculate the portion of that total that should be attributed to their facility.
First, for each facility described in a plan, a lessee or operator would be required to identify the MSCs that would be used to support that facility. The lessee or operator, to the extent practicable, would also be required to identify the other facilities each MSC would support.
Second, for each such MSC, the lessee or operator would calculate its emissions per trip, from when the MSC leaves its home port until it returns (
The proposed rule includes the options described above because a lessee or operator may not know, at the time of plan submittal, which facilities an MSC will support. The intent is to provide these alternatives for allocating support vessel emissions in situations where it would otherwise be impracticable to do so. The options in the proposed rule are intended to account for the variety of practices that
With respect to proposed § 550.205(d)(7), although that requirement is only one of the assumptions that are to be used in calculating the MSC emissions, the provision is intended to clarify it would not be appropriate to calculate the emissions only for one source, in the event an MSC had multiple sources of relevant emissions. The rule is intended to clarify the maximum rated capacity requirement applies to each source on every MSC, in any situation where an MSC has multiple emissions sources.
Further, the proposed rule would provide that if BOEM questions the lessee or operator's determination of the attributed emissions, the Regional Supervisor may require additional documentation to support their findings and may direct them to make changes, as appropriate.
Finally, just as BOEM is considering using the term PTE in place of the term facility emissions, BOEM is also considering using USEPA's term secondary emissions (as defined in 40 CFR 51.301) in place of attributed emissions. BOEM welcomes comment on this question.
This paragraph is intended to provide a detailed, consistent set of criteria to determine what should be included in each plan with respect to projected emissions of facilities and MSCs.
Proposed § 550.205(e) would require a lessee or operator to calculate the maximum 12 month rolling sum of projected emissions of each criteria and major precursor air pollutant for each of its facilities. This would represent the sum of the facility emissions for the 12-month rolling maximum period reported under (c)(2) of this section and attributed emissions reported under (d)(6) of this section for the same period. Pursuant to the criteria set forth in proposed § 550.303(d), the lessee or operator would also be required to determine whether the projected air emissions from each facility would need to be consolidated with those of other facilities.
If any of a lessee's or operator's proposed facilities would be located in such a manner (as defined in § 505.303) as to potentially constitute proximate activities with a pre-existing facility, or a facility that was previously approved but not yet constructed, the proposed rule would require any such facility to be identified in the plan. If the lessee or operator would be required to consolidate emissions from multiple facilities, then it would need to provide projected emissions information for each facility as well as the complex total emissions for all of consolidated activities.
In addition, the proposed rule would also require every lessee or operator to calculate and report the projected annual emissions for its facilities for each year in which it intends to operate, as well as the maximum peak hourly emissions for each facility and the corresponding attributed emissions.
The purpose of this paragraph is to describe in general terms the information that must be included in a plan regarding the types and purpose of various emission reduction measures that are proposed in a plan and what reductions the lessee or operator expects to achieve from these proposed measures.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator may elect to propose ERM in its plan to ensure that its projected emissions are under the EETs described in proposed § 550.303. Whether an operator elects to propose ERM or whether the proposed rule would require it, this section would require that such proposed measures be reported in the plan. This element of the proposed rule is consistent with current GOM Region practice. It would specify that the lessee or operator must provide a description of all proposed ERM, including the affected emissions source(s); the emissions reduction control technologies, procedures, and/or operational limits; the emission control efficiencies; the projected quantity of reductions to be achieved; and, any monitoring or monitoring system the submitter proposes to use to measure or evaluate the associated emissions. The rule would further clarify the lessee or operator must be able to demonstrate that all of the ERM described in the plan meet the applicable substantive requirements in proposed § 550.309.
BOEM expects lessees or operators are likely to consider operational controls to reduce emissions for many sources, for example limiting the hours of operation, reducing engine power, etc., in order to bring their projected emissions within the EETs. This proposed section would require the application of such operational controls to be documented in the plan, which would require review by the Regional Supervisor, and approval only when the ERMs are demonstrated to maintain and not compromise the safety of operations. Other sections of the proposed rule, such as proposed §§ 550.309 and 550.311, would subject each proposed emission reduction measure to monitoring, reporting, and verification.
Geological sequestration of pollutants under the seabed is another potential emission reduction measure that has not yet been considered. BOEM would welcome feedback on the extent to which stakeholders consider this to be a potentially viable and effective control mechanism, either in conjunction with or as an alternative to other measures.
This paragraph is intended to provide a detailed, consistent set of information and criteria to determine what should be included in each plan submitted to BOEM with respect to the proposed modeling of air emissions associated with a plan's projected operations.
If a lessee or operator conducts modeling in support of its plan, then the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to provide: A table(s) of the appropriate and relevant maximum projected air pollutant concentrations over any area(s) of any State(s) and Class I area(s) including the most affected attainment area(s) and the most affected non-attainment area(s), as applicable; the maximum projected concentrations resulting from the projected emissions for each of the facilities, by criteria air pollutant and major precursor air pollutant, for the corresponding averaging time(s) (
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator would be required to model projected emissions, and the lessee or operator has previously submitted a modeling report and/or modeling results to the Regional Supervisor, then the lessee or operator may provide a reference to such report and/or results, rather than resubmit a modeling report and/or modeling results, provided the projected emissions are the same or
Because the intent of the proposed rule is to evaluate the maximum potential effect that could occur with respect to the implementation of any given plan, the proposed rule would clarify a lessee or operator must utilize data for NO
Because the USEPA has replaced “total suspended particulates” with two separate kinds of pollutants, a lessee or operator would be required to provide data and information on both PM
However, the proposed rule specifies a lessee or operator must separately identify all PM
Finally, the proposed rule clarifies that all reporting of PM
To properly estimate the potential emissions of SO
The proposed rule would specify that reporting of H
Aside from the proposed § 550.205, BOEM is also proposing to modify §§ 550.215 and 550.245 regarding H
This rule implements BOEM's statutory authority under OCSLA section 5(a)(8) to regulate OCS air pollutant emissions from oil and gas operations in order to prevent adverse, localized air quality effects to adjacent States; since there are no significant localized air quality effects on the States associated with the emissions of methane from OCS facilities, BOEM is not proposing to regulate methane emissions in this context.
Under the proposed rule, the analysis or reporting of methane emissions would not be required unless specifically directed to the contrary. Consistent with current BOEM policy, any reference in these proposed regulations to major precursor air pollutants would exclude methane, because the USEPA does not include methane in the definition of VOCs and does not require a methane analysis of ground level ozone formation for offshore facilities; both because methane has not historically been considered a significant precursor air pollutant with respect to distances and transport times relevant to BOEM regulation of offshore activities; and because the USEPA has not elected to formally classify methane as a precursor pollutant for O
Over the past 35 years, extensive scientific evidence has increasingly demonstrated the importance of controlling O
The proposed rule would not immediately require analysis or reporting of O
Ammonia (NH
Lead (Pb) is a CP for which NAAQS have been established. For this reason, consistent with the OCSLA mandate, like NH
Because of BOEM's obligation under OCSLA to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, BOEM is proposing that all emissions of NAAQS pollutants should normally be reported. If the lessee or operator intends to use a source known to emit a potentially significant amount of Pb or NH
To determine the appropriate EET for each facility in a plan, the proposed rule would retain the requirement that the lessee or operator provide the distance in statute miles, from the shoreline, until such time as the new thresholds are established in 2020. Because the proposed rule intends to retain the current exemption methodology for a period of time and then replace that methodology,
Unlike the current regulations, which do not specify any documentation or data retention requirements, the proposed rule outlines the data and recordkeeping requirements BOEM proposes to require to facilitate BOEM's evaluation and review of each plan and the corresponding operational activities that result from each plan. This information would be used to verify compliance with BOEM regulatory requirements and to ensure that compliance with such requirements continues on an ongoing basis.
The proposed rule would require lessees or operators to collect, create, and maintain records or any data or information establishing, substantiating, and verifying the basis for all information, data, and resources used to calculate their projected emissions under proposed section 550.205. The proposed rule would require documentation of the emissions factors used and retention of any appropriate certifications, citations, methods, and procedures used to obtain or develop emission factors. The proposed rule would require collection and maintenance of all documentation pertaining to the modeling analysis, if applicable, including all references and copies of any referenced materials, as well as any data or information related to any ERM lessees or operators propose or implement. Under the proposed rule, all such information would need to be provided to BOEM, though the Regional Supervisor would be able to waive this requirement for good cause or if BOEM is able to obtain the necessary information from an independent source.
The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to provide a description of how they will comply with proposed section 550.303 when the projected emissions generated by the proposed plan activities exceed the respective EETs. The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to make this determination using the formulas in proposed paragraph 550.303(c). If the lessee or operator would be subject to the requirement to monitor and report its actual emissions in accordance with section 550.311, then the description must address how it proposes to monitor its emissions.
The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to submit data and information in a format and using the forms specified by BOEM. They would be required to submit information in an electronically-readable spreadsheet, such as a Microsoft Excel file on a compact disc, unless otherwise directed by the Regional Supervisor. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the evaluation of data by automated processes and systems. Under the current arrangement, data are submitted to BOEM in approved Excel spreadsheets. Although the proposed rule does not specify a specific format for electronic forms, it is likely the current spreadsheets will continue to be used for the foreseeable future.
The USEPA is currently working on an E-Enterprise solution for emissions data collection, whereby facilities (or companies) would report emissions data through a central place for distribution to USEPA, the States, and others. Since BOEM is proposing direct facility reporting as well, BOEM may elect to partner on this E-Enterprise solution for supporting BOEM's needs alongside those of the USEPA. This approach may be more efficient both for the regulated entities as well as for USEPA and BOEM to use and share the data. BOEM welcomes comment on this alternative and whether there may be any impediments or complications should BOEM wish to move in this direction.
If lessees and operators elect to transmit the information to BOEM electronically, such as by email, then they would be required to use a delivery medium or transmission method authorized by BOEM. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure any data or information provided to BOEM is provided in a secure and safe manner and such information is not submitted in a way (
Proposed § 550.205(m) would set out the circumstances under which a lessee or operator would be required to include information about emissions from aircraft and from those onshore support facilities for which the lessee or operator does not have an USEPA or State agency air quality permit (
In order for a plan to be deemed submitted, all of the required air quality data and information would be required to be submitted to BOEM in accordance with the requirements of this part. BOEM would not initiate its review of the air quality component of any plan until all of the necessary information and documentation is complete. To facilitate this, the proposed rule would specify that a plan would not be deemed submitted in accordance with the requirements of § 550.231 or 550.266 of this part until:
(1) All of the requirements of this section have been completed;
(2) The lessee, or operator, has completed the AAI analysis as specified in § 550.307(b) of this part, if it is required; and
(3) The lessee, or operator, has completed any other analysis required by subpart C of this part.
The current regulation at § 550.211(c) includes a provision that requires a description of the “fuels, oil and lubricants that will be stored on the facility.” The regulations state the word “facility” is defined in § 550.105. However, the section to which the current regulations refer no longer exists in BOEM's regulations. That provision was originally in the regulations administered by BOEM's predecessor before it was divided into BOEM and BSEE, and was subsequently moved into the BSEE regulations at § 250.105.
The original definition of the term “facility,” to which the references in §§ 550.211 and 550.241 refer, was: “a vessel, a structure, or an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or production operations.” Because this definition of facility no longer exists, BOEM is proposing to add this definition back into §§ 550.211 and 550.241 where its use remains applicable, with minor modifications for clarity. No substantive change to § 550.211 or 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the term facility would mean any installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or device that is temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or other operations.
This section describes the information that must be included in an EP. The change to the proposed rule for this section would update the cross-reference in § 550.212(f) from §§ 550.218 to 550.205, since the air quality requirements of § 550.218 are proposed to be relocated there.
Under the proposed rule, if the H
As explained above in the discussion of § 550.205, the proposed rule would amend this section and section 245 by adding a paragraph in each to specify flaring of any gasses containing a potentially significant amount of H
Sections 550.218 and 550.249 in the current regulations set forth the air quality reporting requirements of subpart B for exploration plans and development plans, respectively. All of the substantive requirements from these two sections would be consolidated into the new proposed section 550.205 and modified as discussed above. Accordingly, §§ 550.218 and 550.249 would become reserved.
Current regulations require plans to include a description of the vessels, offshore vehicles, and aircraft lessees and operators would use to support their exploration activities (§ 550.224(a)) or their development and production activities (§ 550.257(a)). The proposed rule would reword paragraph (a) of the proposed sections for clarity and to incorporate the term MSC, proposed for definition in this rule, but the meaning and intent of these paragraphs would not be changed. The proposed rule would retain the current requirement to include in the description an estimate of the storage capacity of the fuel tanks and the frequency of visits to the facilities in connection with any proposed activities.
Paragraph (b) of both the current paragraphs (§§ 550.224(b) and 550.257(b)) requires plans to include information regarding air emissions from vessels, vehicles, and aircraft described in the plan. The proposed rule would replace this paragraph with a cross-reference to proposed § 550.205. That proposed section, described above, would provide details about what emissions information for MSCs must be included in a plan. However, that proposed section would not generally require information on aircraft
The current paragraph (b) of both §§ 550.225 and 550.258 requires lessees and operators to provide in their plans a description of the source, composition, frequency, and duration of the air emissions likely to be generated by the relevant onshore support facilities. The proposed rule would not substantively change this requirement, but the proposed rule would revise it for clarity. The proposed rule would delete the parenthetical text in the current paragraphs—“attributable to your proposed exploration activities” and “attributable to your proposed development and production activities”—in order to avoid confusion with the use of the term “attributed emissions” in proposed § 550.205.
The proposed rule would limit the current requirement for onshore emissions sources in order to reduce unnecessary reporting and focus reporting requirements on areas with the greatest potential impact. BOEM currently requires reporting of onshore support facility emissions as may be necessary for the Regional Supervisor to determine whether emissions from these sources may contribute to exceeding an EET or an AAQSB, as described in the preamble section on proposed § 550.205(m). This requirement in the current regulations is based on the premise that there may be some circumstances where the amount of air pollution generated by onshore support facilities, taken in conjunction with the offshore emissions associated with OCS operations, could have a potentially significant impact to the air quality of the States. However, BOEM believes that the requirement can be made more appropriately tailored to limit unnecessary reporting, while still incorporating select onshore emissions information in appropriate circumstances. As described more fully in the preamble discussion of proposed § 550.205(m), the proposed rule would collect information on onshore support emissions if two specific criteria are both met: (1) If a plan which is already required to conduct modeling results in incremental increases in concentration of a pollutant that are greater than 95 percent of the value of a SIL (this is the same criteria that applies to the inclusion of aircraft); and (2) if the relevant onshore support facilities are not already permitted by the USEPA or a relevant State authority. The goal of this proposed provision is to incorporate significant data that may contribute to OCS permitted activity affecting the air quality of the states but to avoid collecting unnecessary information. BOEM solicits comments on this proposal, both with respect to whether gathering data on onshore support facilities is necessary and/or appropriate and what criteria should be used to determine the circumstances under which data about onshore support facility emissions should be collected.
BOEM uses the information that would be required in this paragraph for the analysis of cumulative impacts it performs under NEPA. The proposed rule would also provide that the information regarding onshore support facilities would only be required by BOEM if it is not available from another agency. BOEM can obtain some of the information for proposed and existing onshore support facilities for use in its NEPA or other environmental analyses through the USEPA or other air quality agencies.
BOEM solicits comments on what types of onshore facilities should be identified and reported with respect to their air emissions and how best to evaluate their emissions in the context of the AQRP.
The change proposed here is analogous to the change proposed at § 550.211. The current regulations at § 550.241(c) and (d) include provisions that require a description of drilling units and production facilities in a DPP or DOCD. This description includes “fuels, oil and lubricants that will be stored on the facility” or “the estimated maximum quantity of fuels and oil that will be stored on the facility,” respectively. The current regulations state the word “facility” is defined in § 550.105(3). However, the section to which the current regulation refers no longer exists in BOEM's regulations. That provision was originally in BOEM's predecessor's regulations before it was divided into BOEM and BSEE and was subsequently moved into the BSEE regulations at § 250.105.
The original definition of the term facility, to which the reference in § 550.241 refers, was: “a vessel, a structure, or an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or production operations.” Because this definition of facility no longer exists, BOEM is proposing to add this definition back into § 550.211(c) and in § 550.241, with minor modifications for clarity. No substantive change to § 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the term facility would mean any installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or device that is temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or other operations.
This section describes the information that would be required to be included in a DPP or DOCD. The change to the proposed rule for this section would update the cross-reference in § 550.212(g) from §§ 550.249 to 550.205, since the air quality requirements of § 550.249 are proposed to be relocated there.
See the discussion for § 550.215(d)(2).
See the discussion for § 550.215(e).
See the discussion for § 550.218.
See the discussion for § 550.224.
See the discussion for § 550.225.
The proposed rule would modify the title of this proposed section from “How must I conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP, or DOCD?” to “How must I conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP, DOCD or RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline application?” In addition, the proposed rule would modify paragraph (a) of the current regulations, which specifies that a lessee or operator must conduct all of its activities in accordance with an approved EP, DPP, or DOCD and any approval conditions. This provision would be modified to clarify that a lessee or operator may not install or use any facility, equipment, vessel, vehicle, or other emissions source not described in the approved EP, DPP, DOCD, or application for RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline and that a lessee or operator may not install or use a substitute for any emissions source described in an EP, DPP, DOCD, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline without prior BOEM approval.
The proposed rule would modify the title of the section from “How will BOEM require revisions to the approved EP, DPP, or DOCD” to “How will BOEM require revisions to the approved EP, DPP, DOCD or application for a RUE?”
Paragraph (a) of the current section specifies the Regional Supervisor will periodically review the activities conducted under an approved EP, DPP, or DOCD and the frequency and extent of this review is based upon changes to “available information and onshore or offshore conditions.” The proposal would modify this paragraph to clarify that the frequency and extent of the review may be based on any changes in applicable law or regulation as well. Existing § 550.284(b) allows the Regional Supervisor to require modifications to plans based on such a review. The proposed rule would not change this paragraph. As discussed below, proposed § 550.310(c) would complement the proposed change to § 550.284(a) by making explicit that the Regional Supervisor may require a lessee or operator to submit a revised plan when an applicable AAQSB changes. BOEM does not anticipate that it would invoke this provision except in extraordinary circumstances and, even under those extraordinary circumstances, it would rarely, if ever, require the resubmission of a plan under this provision more frequently than every ten years.
Subpart C is being replaced in its entirety with a new subpart C dedicated to air pollution prevention and control.
This section would specify that the proposed subpart applies to those areas of the OCS where DOI has authority to regulate air emissions pursuant to section 5(a)(8) of the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8), as amended, and jurisdiction pursuant to section 328(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7627(b), as amended. This section explains the proposed subpart would apply to all plans related to facilities on the relevant areas of the OCS, regardless of the type of plan (EP, DPP, or DOCD or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline). The section would also state that the subpart covers existing facilities in the relevant areas.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would update the acronym list used to identify those acronyms that are relevant to the proposed rule. In addition, the proposed rule would clarify that the definitions proposed to be added or revised in proposed § 550.302 are meant to apply only to § 550.205 of subpart B and all of subpart C.
The following three terms in the current definitions § 550.302 would be removed from the list of definitions in proposed § 550.302: “source,” “temporary facility,” and “volatile organic compound.” The proposed rule would move the term “source,” renamed “emissions source,” from § 550.302 into proposed § 550.105, because it would be used in portions of part 550 outside of subpart C. The term “temporary facility” would be replaced with a new term “short-term facility” (although the meaning and purpose of the term would be similar). The proposed rule would not define the term “volatile organic compound,” since other CPs and precursor pollutants would also not be defined in the regulations and because BOEM applies the common meaning of this term, as used by the USEPA and other federal agencies.
Paragraph (b) would list the definitions used in subpart C, as follows.
AQCR would be newly defined to mean “an interstate area or major intrastate area, which the USEPA deems appropriate for assessing the regional attainment and maintenance of the primary or secondary national ambient air quality standards described in 42 U.S.C. 7409, as identified under 40 CFR part 81, subparts A and B, Designation of Air Quality Control Regions.”
AAIs would be newly defined to mean “the national standards for Ambient Air Increments set out in the table in 40 CFR 52.21(c), as amended.” These are national ambient air benchmarks that represent the maximum increase in pollutant concentrations allowed for an onshore area of a State designated by the USEPA as a Class I, Class II, or Class III area. Depending on the level of the AAIs, various ERM may be required by BOEM under subpart C. In the current BOEM regulations, the AAIs are referred to as the MACIs, as set out in the table in the current regulation at 30 CFR 550.302.
AAQSB would be newly defined to refer collectively to all of the standards and benchmarks referenced in this proposed subpart. These would include the SILs, in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7401
The current regulations define this term in § 550.302, and the proposed rule would revise the definition. The proposed rule would modify the definition of attainment area to mean “for any given criteria air pollutant, a geographic area, which is not designated by the USEPA as being a designated non-attainment area, as codified at 40 CFR part 81 subpart C.” Thus, any area not specifically listed by the USEPA as a designated non-attainment area would
This new term would be defined to mean “for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant the emissions from MSCs, operating above the OCS or State submerged lands, that are attributed to a facility pursuant to the methodology set forth in § 550.205(d), for the period over which the corresponding facility emissions are measured.” BOEM intends for this proposed definition to encompass the emissions that are generated from non-stationary sources that support a plan-related facility and must be evaluated in connection with the air quality component of the plan review. The specific requirements for calculating attributed emissions are set out in proposed § 550.205(d).
Given that BOEM is proposing to provide various alternative methods to calculate attributed emissions, it may be possible these alternatives could yield slightly different overall results and the option chosen may not result in the highest potential calculation of attributed emissions that might be derived. Providing for these alternative methods reflects the reality that all relevant or necessary data may not be available to a lessee or operator at the time its plan is prepared and submitted to BOEM. Regardless of the ultimate method used to allocate MSC emissions and derive attributed emissions, however, no lessee or operator will be allowed to emit air pollutants in an amount that exceeds what was approved in its plan and a lessee or operator generating emissions in excess of its plan approval could be subject to sanctions, including potential shut-in for a violation. In addition, under this proposed rule, there are specific monitoring and record-keeping provisions that would be added to ensure ongoing compliance with the proposed regulations. For this reason, BOEM anticipates that lessees or operators will be conservative in emissions allocations.
This new term would be defined to mean “the ambient air concentration of any given criteria air pollutant that arises both from local natural processes and from the transport into the airshed of natural or anthropogenic pollutants originating locally or from another location, either as measured from an USEPA-approved air monitoring system or as determined on some other appropriate scientifically justified basis, as approved by BOEM.” The background concentration of a pollutant represents the concentration of any given pollutant that is present prior to the establishment of operations related to a proposed facility.
Evaluating compliance with the NAAQS requires the consideration of two factors, (1) the background concentration of any given pollutant at the point of measurement, and (2) the contribution to the concentration that would be generated as a result of the facility being proposed. The incremental amount of the pollutant that is contributed by the operations associated with a plan is added to the background concentration of that pollutant in order to determine the amount of pollution that would exist as a result of the implementation of the proposed plan. The sum of the background concentration for any given pollutant and the incremental amount of the pollutant resulting from the implementation of the proposed plan is referred to as the design concentration of that pollutant. That design concentration represents the value that is compared to the NAAQS in order to determine whether or not the plan, if implemented as proposed, would cause an exceedance.
The term baseline concentration would be defined as the ambient background concentration of any given air pollutant which exists or existed at the time of the first application for a USEPA PSD permit in an area subject to sec. 169 of the CAA, based on air quality data available to the USEPA or a State air pollution control agency and on the monitoring data provided in the permit application. The proposed definition would also state that the baseline concentration is distinguished from the background concentration in that the background concentration changes continually over time to reflect the current ambient air concentration for any given air pollutant, whereas the baseline concentration remains fixed until such time as a new AAI is established for an attainment area.
This term would be revised from the definition that exists in the current regulation. The proposed rule would define BACT to mean “a physical or mechanical system or device that reduces emissions of air pollutants subject to regulation to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account (1) the amount of emissions reductions necessary to meet specific regulatory provisions; (2) energy, environmental, and economic impacts; and (3) costs.” This proposed definition and usage of the term would differ from that of the USEPA, because the USEPA's use of BACT refers to changes made in connection with the USEPA's permit process under the CAA, and BOEM does not issue air quality permits, nor does it make determinations of BACT pursuant to the CAA. Rather, BOEM requires (and is proposing to continue requiring) BACT in its review and approval of plans for which modeling has demonstrated that projected emissions may cause or contribute to an exceedance of an applicable AAQSB or a violation of the NAAQS.
In addition, BOEM and the USEPA differ in their requirements for BACT, primarily due to the difference in their respective regulatory frameworks. BOEM reviews the BACT alternatives as part of its AQRP, under both the current regulation and the proposed rule prospectively, determining in advance of the facility installation what form of BACT is appropriate. The USEPA also evaluates BACT prospectively, but the CAA also specifies, among other requirements, that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard
With reference to “the maximum extent practicable,” under certain circumstances, VOCs must be fully reduced to a rate at or below the EETs (including through the use of BACT) whether or not such a reduction would be considered practicable, unless emissions credits can be applied (see § 550.303(f)). In other words, under some circumstances a plan could not be approved because the level of VOC emissions would be too high, regardless of whether some “practical” method were available and if available was proposed to be applied to mitigate or reduce the emissions. In that rare instance, the only acceptable means to obtain approval of the plan would be for the lessee or operator to obtain emissions credits to offset the effects of the excessive VOC emissions.
The current regulations use this term but do not define it. Because it is used more broadly in the proposed rule, BOEM proposes to define it in the regulations. The proposed rule would define this term to mean “an area designated by the USEPA, a State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, where visibility and air emissions are protected by a Federal Land Manager, and protected to standards more stringent than the NAAQS pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7472(a) or 7474, as amended;
Like the term “Class I area,” the current regulations use “Class II areas” but do not define the term. The proposed rule would define Class II area to mean “an attainment area designated by the USEPA, a State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, that is protected less stringently than a Class I area.” A Sensitive Class II area classification indicates a place the Clean Air Act would allow a moderate change in the air quality, but where stringent air quality constraints are nevertheless desired. This classification is less stringent than for a Class I area, which describes a place where minimal air quality degradation would be allowed, and more stringent than that of a Class III area, which indicates a place where substantial industrial or other growth would be allowed. Sensitive Class II areas (see definition of this term, below) represent a subset or sub-classification of Class II areas that are defined by federal land management agencies as federal lands where the protection of air resources has been prioritized, as specified in acts, regulations, planning documents, or by policy.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “the sum of the facility emissions that would result from all of the facilities that have been aggregated for the purposes of evaluating their potential consolidated impact on air quality, pursuant to the methodology set forth in § 550.303(d), and the sum of all corresponding attributed emissions for those facilities.” For the purposes of calculating complex total emissions, such emissions could include the emissions from pipeline vessels, bury barges, and lay barges during those periods of time while they are temporarily connected to the seabed on the OCS as long as these vessels meet the other requirements for complex total emissions consolidation. The proposed requirement to consolidate air emissions from multiple facilities in certain circumstances is described in more detail at the discussion of proposed § 550.303(d).
Criteria air pollutants are those pollutants for which the USEPA sets NAAQS. The proposed rule would add this new term (also referred to as criteria pollutant) (CP) to the proposed definitions section and would be defined to mean “any one of the principal pollutants for which the USEPA has established and maintains a NAAQS under 40 CFR part 50 and in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7409, as amended, for the protection of public health and welfare.” The proposed rule clarifies that the USEPA has established primary standards for the protection of public health, including sensitive populations, and it has established secondary standards for the protection of public welfare from adverse effect, including those related to effects on vegetation, ecosystems, and visibility. The proposed rule would clarify criteria air pollutants do not include VOCs or any other precursor air pollutant not already regulated under the NAAQS. Precursor pollutants are defined under the definition of precursor air pollutant or precursor pollutant as explained later in this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would define CP so it has the identical meaning as used by the USEPA. In those situations where BOEM intends for the proposed rule to refer only to CPs rather than all air pollutants, it has drafted the proposed rule so it specifically uses the term “criteria pollutant.”
The proposed rule would define design concentration to mean “the pollutant concentration at a given location projected, through computer-simulated air dispersion or photochemical modeling, as described under 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 7.2.1.1 to result from your projected emissions, combined with the background concentration for the same pollutant, averaging time, and statistical form at the most appropriate receptor location.” Each NAAQS has both an averaging time and a statistical form. The statistical form tells how the concentration level would be violated. For instance, the “statistical form” of the annual NO
The design concentration of any given CP is compared against the NAAQS in order to determine whether or not the activities in a proposed plan, together with the background concentrations, would exceed any NAAQS at any point landward of the SSB. The appropriate background concentration is measured
This new term would be defined to mean “the mathematical computer simulation of air emissions being transported from a source through the atmosphere under given meteorological conditions. Emissions from sources, expressed as the rate of air pollutants emitted over time (
The dispersion model must take various factors into account, including the amount of air emissions generated by the proposed facility and the relevant meteorological conditions that would apply at the proposed facility site, the nearby coast, and over submerged State lands. The proposed rule would clarify that when a file containing meteorological and emissions data are evaluated, the computer model is used to project the concentrations of the pollutants at a receptor location.
Under the proposed subpart C of this part (“Air Quality Analysis, Control, and Compliance”), in the event that proposed operations exceed EETs, results of dispersion and photochemical modeling would be used to project the potential for a source to have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of a State onshore or at the SSB, and to discern whether the control of an individual emission source would have the desired effect of reducing the emissions' impact for compliance with the AAQSB.
This new term would be defined to mean the effectiveness of ERM for any given emissions source and air pollutant. The greater the emission control efficiency (ECE), the greater the relative effectiveness of the underlying controls. ECE measures effectiveness on a relative basis (
The proposed rule would supplement the use of the term “emissions offsets” with the broader term “emissions credits.” Emissions credits include emissions offsets as a subset. Emissions credits represent emissions reductions from emission sources that have nothing to do with the proposed plan or any facility or MSC associated with the plan.
The definition of this term would be revised to mean “emissions reductions from an emissions source(s) not associated with the plan that are intended to compensate for the excessive emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants, regardless of whether these emissions credits are acquired from an emissions source(s) located either offshore or onshore, including: (1) Emissions offsets generated by the lessee or operator directly; or (2) emissions offsets acquired from a third party; or (3) trading allowances or other alternative emission reduction method(s) or system(s) associated with a market-based trading mechanism, such as a mitigation bank, or through other market oriented or competitive markets where these assets are exchanged.” Emissions credits are intended to compensate for excessive emissions associated with any given plan. The new term “emissions credits” is intended to have broader application than the existing defined term “emissions offsets.” The proposed definition is intended to account for any reduction in emissions from an emission source not associated with the plan, whereas the existing definition only includes reductions from facilities. The proposed defined term is used in subpart C to reflect a proposed change whereby an emissions reductions of an equivalent amount would be allowed in lieu of BACT or other emissions reductions measures, regardless of whether such reductions are achieved on sources owned by the lessee or operator or a third-party or regardless of whether the reduction is obtained through the use of a market-based trading mechanism, such as a mitigation bank. USEPA operates a number of multi-State market-based emissions trading programs. Because these programs have broad geographic coverage, purchase of allowances from one of these programs would not be certain to reduce emissions from sources in any particular AQCR. The intent of the proposed requirement is that the purchase of emissions credits result in actual emissions reductions in the affected State. Consequently, such multi-State trading programs might not be an appropriate source of emission credits under the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would define this term to mean “the maximum allowable rate of projected emissions, calculated for each air pollutant, expressed as short tons per year, above which facilities would be subject to the requirement to perform modeling.” The emission exemption threshold formulas are in proposed § 550.303.
The proposed rule would define this term to mean a value that relates the quantity of a specific air pollutant released into the atmosphere with the operation of a particular emissions source. The proposed rule would clarify emissions factors are usually expressed as the mass of pollutant generated from each unit (
The proposed rule would define emission reduction measure(s) (ERM) to mean any emissions credit(s), operational control(s), equipment replacement(s), or BACT, applied on either a temporary or permanent basis, to reduce the amount of criteria or precursor air pollutant emissions that would occur in the absence of the application of such measures.
The current regulations define this term as “an OCS facility described in an Exploration Plan or a Development and Production Plan submitted or approved before June 2, 1980.” The proposed rule would define this term to mean “an operational OCS facility described in an approved plan.” The existing definition is much narrower than the proposed
The proposed rule would revise the definition that exists in the current regulation. The proposed rule would define the term “facility” used in proposed § 550.205 and proposed subpart C to mean “any installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment, or device that is temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including but not limited to a dynamically positioned ship, gravity-based structure, manmade island, or bottom-sitting structure, whether used for the exploration, development, production, or transportation of oil, gas, or sulphur.” The proposed rule would specify all installations, structures, vessels, vehicles, equipment, or devices directly associated with the construction, installation, and implementation of a facility would be considered part of a facility while located at the same site, attached, or interconnected by one or more bridges or walkways, or while dependent on, or affecting the processes of, the facility, including any ROV while attached to the facility. The proposed rule would also specify that one facility may include multiple drill rigs, drilling units, vessels, platforms, installations, devices, and pieces of equipment. Also, under the proposed rule, MODUs, even while operating in the “tender assist” mode (
The current regulation defines facility, as used in subpart C, as: “[A]ny installation or device permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed which is used for exploration, development, and production activities for oil, gas, or sulphur and which emits or has the potential to emit any air pollutant from one or more sources. All equipment directly associated with the installation or device shall be considered part of a single facility if the equipment is dependent on, or affects the processes of, the installation or device. During production, multiple installations or devices will be considered to be a single facility if the installations or devices are directly related to the production of oil, gas, or sulphur at a single site. Any vessel used to transfer production from an offshore facility shall be considered part of the facility while physically attached to it.”
The proposed definition would be similar to the current definition in at least two ways. First, an onshore facility or onshore support facility would not constitute a “facility” under the proposed definition. Second, under the proposed rule one facility might include multiple drill rigs, drilling units, vessels, platforms, installations, devices, and pieces of equipment.
The proposed rule would generally reorganize the substance of the current definition and provide examples and more explanatory text. In addition, there are several notable substantive changes proposed. First, the proposed rule would revise the definition by eliminating the requirement that a facility “emit or have the potential to emit any air pollutant from one or more sources.” This limitation could have been read to imply that, for example, since sub-sea tiebacks and other subsea devices do not themselves emit air pollutants, vessels engaged in installing them were not facilities even though they were connected to the seabed of the OCS. Removing this limitation would make clear that any vessel which is temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed such as a well-stimulation vessel or a pipeline laying vessel connected via a subsea tieback, would be considered a facility for the purposes of evaluating air emissions. Such a vessel would be considered an MSC when not attached to the seabed. The current definition was developed when wells were drilled individually and generally connected separately to distinct production platforms. Now, many wells can be drilled and connected to a single production facility from significant distances, because subsea tiebacks are becoming increasingly viable, both technically and economically. Similarly, under the proposed rule, the same principle would apply to any structure or vessel that is connected to a pipeline or which is laying a pipeline.
Second, whereas the existing definition specifies facilities are “used for exploration, development, and production activities,” the proposed rule would add “transportation” to this list. This change is intended to make the definition track the language in OCSLA Section 4(a), which includes installations and devices used for the purposes of transporting oil and gas. This change would also reflect the fact the definition now explicitly covers pipelines, which, though they do not themselves normally emit air pollutants, are the means by which vessels that do emit air pollutants are connected to the OCS.
The third change would specify more clearly any equipment directly associated with a facility is considered part of that facility if it is dependent on, or affects the processes of, that facility. The existing definition contains the provision: “During production, multiple installations or devices will be considered to be a single facility if the installations or devices are directly related to the production of oil, gas, or sulphur at a single site.” The proposed definition would remove the references to production. Instead it would provide: “All installations, structures, vessels, vehicles, equipment or devices directly associated with the construction, installation, and implementation of a facility are part of a facility while located at the same site, attached, or interconnected by one or more bridges or walkways, or while dependent on, or affecting the processes of, the facility.” As a consequence of these changes, mobile sources of emissions would generally be considered part of the facility only while attached to a facility, and not part of the facility otherwise. However, while these mobile sources, such as ice breakers and other support vessels, would not usually be considered part of a facility, and therefore not regulated by BOEM as a facility, their emissions would be accounted for and reported as attributed emissions and would be evaluated to determine whether a proposed plan would cause a potential impact to a State's air quality and could, therefore, trigger a requirement to apply controls in accordance with the requirements of subparts B and C of this part.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean, “for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant, the
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean the emissions of an air pollutant from an emissions source that do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.
The proposed rule would define this term to mean “to decrease emissions of VOCs to a rate that will not exceed the emission exemption threshold calculated under subpart C § 550.303(c), or to decrease emissions of criteria air pollutants to a rate that will cause ambient impacts that do not exceed the Significant Impact Levels set out in the table in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), as amended.”
The proposed rule would define this term to mean a facility that remains at the same general location for three years or longer. Under the current regulations, there is a definition for temporary facility, but no corresponding one for long-term facility. Thus, although the definition is new, the concept underlying the use of this term has been in existence for many years.
There are two notable aspects of the proposed definition. First, the definition would specify a facility located on the same lease block or within one nautical mile of its original location is still considered to be in the same location for purposes of the air quality evaluation. Second, once a facility becomes attached to the sea floor and is used for drilling, production, or transportation, it would be considered to be “in use.” The fact it might not be used for the entire year does not mean BOEM should not consider it to be located at a site for the year. For example, under the proposed rule, a facility that is located at a site for three months, then removed and later put back into service at the same location the next year would be considered in use at that location for two years. Likewise, under the proposed rule, a facility that drills on the same block for three months in each of ten years would be considered a long term facility because it is operating at the same location for more than three years; it would not be a short term facility by virtue of the fact it is only physically located in the block for a total of thirty non-contiguous months.
If a facility must move from the location where it first attached to the seabed due to adverse weather or other conditions over which the lessee or operator had no control, the proposed § 550.313(b) would allow the Regional Director to extend the time for which a facility could avoid being classified as a long-term facility by the number of months during which a lessee or operator is unable to operate at that location.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean any precursor pollutant for which the States are required to report actual emissions to the USEPA, as defined in 40 CFR 51.15(a).
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “either: (1) An engine with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 liters installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000 that is subject to Regulation 13.7 of MARPOL Annex VI; or, (2) an engine with a power output of more than 130 kW built on or after January 1, 2000 that is subject to Regulations 13.1 through 13.6 of MARPOL Annex VI.
According to USEPA, a MARPOL engine operated aboard a U.S. vessel must have a U.S.-issued Enhanced International Air Pollution Prevention for each engine, as well as the relevant Certificate of Compliance from the USEPA.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “the maximum power an engine is capable of generating, expressed in kW, and if necessary, as converted from mechanical horsepower (hpm, where 1 hpm of power equals 745.699872 W or 0.745699872 kW) or from the International Table values of British thermal units (BtuIT, where 1 BtuIT/hour of power equals 0.29307107 Watts or 0.00029307107 kW).”
For the purposes of determining whether a proposed facility should be exempt from modeling, the current regulation requires the reporting of projected emissions based on “the maximum rated capacity of the equipment on the proposed drilling unit under its physical and operational design” 30 CFR 550.218(a)(3). Under the proposed rule, this requirement would apply to all engines, not just the drilling unit, because the emission inventory will also include attributed emissions sources (§ 550.205(c) and (d)). The proposed rule, at § 550.205(d)(2)(ii), is aimed at estimating maximum emissions that could occur given the engines that will be used, under any operating constraint proposed by the source. This will involve determining the type of engine operation that produces the highest emissions per hour of operation, which for some pollutants will not be operation at maximum rated capacity. However, even in such a case, information on the maximum rated capacity will be useful for converting “percent of rated capacity” into actual engine loads and therefore emissions, and for generally documenting the types and sizes of engines that will be operating as part of the planned activities.
The proposed definition of maximum rated capacity would specify that that maximum rated capacity must be expressed in kW, or converted from hpm, or British thermal units per hour from the International Tables (BtuIT), since that is the most standard measure for power. In contrast, the term horsepower (hp) has many values, including mechanical hp, electric hp, international hp, metric hp, boiler hp, or water hp. Because there is no standard unit for hp—the range of equivalency is 735.5 watts to 750 watts; BOEM is proposing to use kW instead.
Using kW would facilitate converting measurements and would ensure the use of one consistent standard, International System of Units (SI), in kilowatts. Also, using kW would eliminate the reporting or misreporting of hp based on the many types of hp that can be used for various purposes
The proposed rule would define this term to mean “the ambient air standards established by the USEPA, as mandated by the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7409), set out in 40 CFR part 50, for the criteria air pollutants considered harmful to public health or welfare when concentrations are elevated over time.” The proposed definition would explain that the NAAQS consist of two categories, both of which are included within the defined term: Primary standards that set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly; and secondary standards that set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, prevention of harm to animals, including marine mammals, fish and other wildlife, and avoidance of damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
The proposed rule would revise the definition that exists in the current regulation to mean, for any given criteria air pollutant, a geographic area, which the Administrator of the USEPA has determined exceeds a primary or secondary NAAQS, as codified at 40 CFR part 81 subpart C. A designated “non-attainment area” is defined in the current rule as, “for any given criteria air pollutant, an area which is shown by monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling (or other methods determined by the Administrator of [US]EPA to be reliable) to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality standard established by [US]EPA.” This revision is necessary because the existing definition does not clarify that any given area may be designated as an attainment area for one criteria air pollutant and yet be a designated non-attainment area for another criteria air pollutant.
The proposed rule would define this term to mean a process, method, or technique, other than a physical or mechanical control or equipment replacement, that reduces the emissions of criteria or precursor pollutants (
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “an airborne contaminant consisting of particulate matter that is regulated as a criteria air pollutant under the ambient air standards.” The proposed rule would explain that PM
The proposed rule would add this term to the definitions section to mean “any initial, revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental Exploration Plan (EP), or DPP, DOCD, or application for a Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE), a Pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline.” The term “plan” is used throughout proposed § 550.205 and proposed subpart C, and this definition would make explicit it is intended to refer to all plans, regardless of whether a plan is for exploration or development or whether it is an initial plan or a revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental plan. For simplicity, where the term plan is used in proposed § 550.205 or proposed subpart C, the specific requirement would be equally applicable to all types of plans.
The definition of “potential to emit” is derived from the USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.301. In this proposed rule, the term is used in a manner similar to that of the term “facility emissions.” Both terms are meant to describe the measure of the maximum potential rather than the actual emissions of a stationary source. In this proposed rule, the term facility emissions is generally used to refer to the emissions of sources regulated under BOEM's AQRP, whereas PTE is used to refer to the emissions of sources not regulated by BOEM.
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Attributed emissions
The proposed rule would add this new term to mean “a compound that chemically reacts with other atmospheric gases to form a criteria air pollutant.” The proposed definition notes some precursor air pollutants are also defined as criteria air pollutants. The proposed definition would also explain precursor air pollutants include VOCs, NO
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant, the sum of one facility's emissions and its corresponding attributed emissions over the specified time period, with the controlled or uncontrolled nature of the pollutants specified by the context.” Projected emissions include the attributed emissions from offshore vessels and offshore vehicles that support a facility. The individual pollutants included among the projected emissions may be reported on an annual basis or as peak-hour projected emissions, and may be either uncontrolled or controlled and may or may not require the use of BACT, emissions credits, or other ERM from any source(s) as described in § 550.205(e) and (f).
The proposed rule would define this term to mean “activities that involve or affect any of the following: The same
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “a Class II area defined by an FLM agency as being federal land where protection of air resources has been prioritized, as specified in acts, regulations, planning documents, or policy.” Agencies with land management responsibility commonly refer to federal land areas that are not Class I areas but are environmentally sensitive as sensitive class II areas. Although the USEPA has not defined different air quality standards or benchmarks for sensitive Class II areas, Federal Land Managers give special attention and subject sensitive Class II area to a more extensive air quality review than would normally be accorded to a typical Class II area. In the context of this rule, an important example of a sensitive Class II area would be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
This new proposed term would replace the term “temporary facility” in current § 550.302. The proposed rule would use this new term with a similar but expanded meaning. The proposed definition has been expanded so now any facility that is not a long-term facility or is not connected to such a facility would be considered a short-term facility.
If a facility must move from the location where it first attached to the seabed due to adverse weather or other conditions over which the lessee or operator had no control, the proposed § 550.313 would allow the Regional Director to extend the time for which a facility could be classified as a short-term facility by the number of months during which a lessee or operator is unable to operate at that location.
BOEM recognizes that the USEPA classifies a short-term facility as being a facility that is located at the same location for no more than two years and solicits comments on the implications of retaining or potentially changing this longstanding practice.
The proposed rule would define these terms to mean “an ambient air benchmark that applies to the ambient air impact of the emissions of a criteria air pollutant, as set out in the table in 40 CFR. 51.165(b)(2).” The terms “significant impact level” and “significance level” mean the same thing and are interchangeable.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “a technology or methodology that: (1) Has been demonstrated and operated successfully on the same type of emissions source as the one under review; or (2) is available and applicable to the type of emissions source under review.”
BOEM solicits comments on whether the technical feasibility should have to be demonstrated for the particular source identified in the plan or whether the feasibility could be demonstrated through use of similar but different sources.
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean “for any criteria or precursor air pollutant, the total emissions generated by an MSC that operates in support of your and any other facilities, for the 12-month period over which the corresponding facility emissions are measured.” Proposed § 550.205(d) would set forth an example for calculating total support emissions.
BOEM establishes emission exemption thresholds (EETs). BOEM would define EETs as the maximum allowable rate of projected emissions, calculated for each air pollutant, above which facilities would be subject to the requirement to perform modeling. These EETs would establish those levels of consolidated emissions below which BOEM has determined would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
The proposed rule would provide that, if projected emissions or complex total emissions are exempt, then the lessee or operator would not be required to perform air quality modeling in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 550.304 of this subpart and to apply any controls, as described in proposed §§ 550.305 through 550.307.
These paragraphs would establish the requirement that a lessee or operator must compare its projected emissions or its complex total emissions with the applicable EETs. More detailed requirements for calculating and reporting projected emissions, facility emissions, and attributed emissions are set forth in proposed § 550.205 and explained in the preamble discussion regarding that provision.
Under the proposed rule, BOEM would determine whether the lessee or operator's projected emissions or complex total emissions have the potential to significantly affect the air quality of any State, in accordance with the EETs calculated under this proposed paragraph. This paragraph would provide that BOEM will, sometime after the rule is finalized, publish updated EETs in the
The proposed rule would establish the process BOEM would follow to provide notice of proposed EETs in the FR, and an opportunity to comment on them, any time it subsequently issues new EETs or revises existing ones. BOEM anticipates that it would establish new EETs based on the EET studies currently underway and would publish these in the FR after the completion of the studies (estimated in 2020). BOEM would then require that all future plans be evaluated in terms of their effects on the air quality of neighboring States by considering the impacts landward of the SSB (including
Section 550.303(c)(2) of the proposed rule provides criteria that BOEM would use to determine the formulas that BOEM would publish in the FR. These include: The absolute level of projected emissions; the distance of the proposed facility or facilities from any State or from critical natural resources, animals, and habitats; the existing ambient air pollution in potentially affected States; the trend in the ambient air pollution in those States; the associated attainment status of such areas and the associated effects to public health and welfare; any USEPA AAQSB applied by this proposed rule; the types, frequency and duration of any air pollutant emissions and their formation and/or dispersion characteristics; the characteristics of the facility or facilities and MSCs, including the type and nature of the emissions sources, and the height of the associated emission points or stacks; the prevailing meteorological characteristics in any given area, including air stability, relevant wind speeds and directions; the amount of emissions from existing facilities and vessels in the vicinity of the proposed facility; and other necessary and appropriate conditions. Several of these criteria (used to determine the EETs) are localized and may differ according to area even within one OCS region (
The proposed rule also would establish a range within which these new EET formulas will apply. Above this range, lessees and operators would always be required to perform air quality modeling, in accordance with the requirements of § 550.304 of this subpart, or to apply controls, as described in §§ 550.305 through 550.307, and below this range lessees and operators would not be required to do so. Within this range, lessees and operators would be exempt from these requirements only if their projected or complex total emissions were below the EETs defined by the formulas BOEM will publish in the FR.
Proposed § 550.303(c)(3)(ii) would set the upper boundary of this range. The proposed subparagraph would set the upper bounds of this range with the current EET formulas (currently codified at 30 CFR 550.303(d)). However, the distance variable in the formulas would be measured from the closest point on the SSB.
At the present time, BOEM does not have EETs for Pb, PM
BOEM recognizes there may be a more appropriate distance-adjusted maximum emission exemption threshold for these pollutants and solicits comments from stakeholders on what they should be. Any comments should include an analysis of the reasoning used to support an alternative threshold, keeping in mind that the key goal is to ensure that offshore projected emissions of Pb, PM
Proposed § 550.303(c)(3)(i) would set the lower boundary of this range. The proposed formulas for these minimums represent emissions levels below which the ambient air impact at the nearest point in a State would not exceed any annual SIL. To derive these equations BOEM used a Gaussian dispersion equation, setting the concentration variable of the equation equal to a SIL and solving for the corresponding emissions rate. An example of the theoretical model underlying this analysis is provided for illustration purposes below:
In deriving these equations BOEM used conservative assumptions regarding the wind speed, stack height and air stability. For a full description of the method used to derive these equations see the Appendix: BOEM Analysis of Minimum Emission Exemption Thresholds available in the rulemaking docket at
If you have questions concerning the analysis done regarding the formulas or analysis related to the minimum emission exemption thresholds, you may contact Virginia Raps of the BOEM Alaska OCS Regional Office, by mail at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801
The following chart illustrates the proposed emission exemption thresholds for NO
Section 550.303(c)(3)(i) lists the formulas for the proposed new minimum emission exemption thresholds for those CPs for which the USEPA has established SILs. Paragraph 303(c)(ii) would include a minimum emission exemption threshold for Pb. To establish a minimum emissions exemption level for Pb, the proposed rule would adopt the USEPA significant emissions rate for Pb, as described in USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). This amount is currently set at 0.6 short tons of emissions per year. BOEM is proposing this addition in order to ensure consistency with USEPA regulations and to ensure all OCS facilities comply with the requirements of OCSLA. BOEM is not proposing to establish a distance-based formula for Pb because the USEPA has not established SILs for Pb which would enable BOEM to apply the above methodology. Instead, BOEM is proposing to utilize the USEPA's significant emissions rate for Pb as an emissions threshold.
As an alternative to the proposed distance-based formula, BOEM is also considering an option in which it would establish new minimum EETs based on the PSD emissions limits in the USEPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). Those USEPA tables are intended primarily to determine whether a facility will generate potentially significant incremental increases in pollutant concentrations in the area surrounding the proposed
BOEM solicits comments on this and other possible alternative approaches to establishing new maximum EETs (above which all plans would be subject to modeling) and minimum EETs (below which BOEM would not establish any new EETs).
Finally, because the NAAQS are subject to change as scientific knowledge improves and because technical and modeling capabilities may improve over time, the proposed rule provides that BOEM, at its discretion, would revise the emission exemption thresholds on an ongoing basis either as a result of a change in an applicable standard or because BOEM's ability to measure and evaluate the impact of existing emission exemption thresholds has improved or for some other reason. Thus, under the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises the NAAQS, or any applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM would examine the appropriateness of its emission exemption thresholds, and, BOEM, at its discretion, could periodically revise its exemption formula(s) or its exemption threshold amount(s) for the corresponding air pollutant(s), as appropriate.
The purpose of this section is to determine whether two or more facilities wholly or partially owned, controlled or operated by the same entity that are located in relatively close proximity may collectively cause or contribute to a violation of any relevant air quality standard or benchmark, even if they would not do so when considered on a separate basis.
The proposed rule would require projected emissions from multiple facilities under common ownership to be combined for analysis and reported as complex total emissions under certain circumstances. BOEM's current practice is to require, in specific circumstances, the consolidated analysis of facilities covered by multiple plans in accordance with the following provision of § 550.303(j): “If, during the review of a new, modified, or revised Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan, the Regional Supervisor determines or an affected State submits information to the Regional Supervisor which demonstrates, in the judgment of the Regional Supervisor, that projected emissions from an otherwise exempt facility will, either individually or in combination with other facilities in the area, significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area, then the Regional Supervisor shall require the lessee to submit additional information to determine whether emission control measures are necessary.” The current regulations do not specify under what circumstances the Regional Supervisor would make such a determination.
This proposed paragraph recognizes the fact that emissions from two or more OCS facilities located in close proximity to one another may have an impact on the air quality of a State, when operated contemporaneously, even in those situations where the emissions from any one of those facilities, when compared against the emission exemption thresholds, would indicate that that facility should not cause an adverse impact to the air quality of a State. Closely-grouped facilities that emit pollutants at the same time can affect the air quality of a State differently than facilities that are spread across a larger area. The proposed rule would require a lessee or operator to add together its projected emissions with the emissions from other facilities whether or not they are described in lessee or operator's plan and whether they currently exist or are proposed.
The proposed paragraph would specify the conditions under which a lessee or operator would be required to consolidate the projected emissions from multiple facilities. Under the proposed rule, projected emissions from multiple facilities would be required to be consolidated if: (1) The emissions from multiple facilities are generated by proximate activities (
If any two or more facilities meet all of the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this proposed section the lessee or operator would be required to calculate the sum of the projected emissions from those facilities (including its respective attributed emissions), as the complex total emissions for its plan.
If there are two or more facilities that would normally be submitted in one plan, and which are intended to be part of one unit or project, those facilities should be evaluated together. This requirement is intended to discourage submission of multiple plans for the purpose of remaining under the exemption thresholds. This requirement would be applied only to facilities that are wholly or partially owned, controlled or operated by the same party. This limitation is intended to further ensure that the associated air quality analysis would be applied consistently across projects, regardless of whether a lessee's or operator's project is submitted for approval in one plan or whether it submits several plans separately.
According to BOEM regulations (in § 550.105), a lessee is defined as being “a person who has entered into a lease with the United States to explore for, develop, and produce the leased minerals. The term lessee also includes the BOEM-approved assignee of the lease, and the BOEM-approved sublessee of operating rights in the lease.” The definition of “you” includes a “lessee, the owner or holder of operating rights, a designated operator or agent of the lessee(s), a pipeline ROW holder, or a State lessee granted a right of use and easement.” Thus, the requirement for common ownership of a facility would extend to the lessee or their assignee as well as to those that share other lease interests, including joint ownership in a common unit, joint operating rights interests, as well as companies that use the same designated operator or unit operator for those facilities located in the same general vicinity of the proposed new facility.
In order to determine common ownership, BOEM will rely on the criteria defined by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) for evaluating whether or not two companies should be considered affiliates, as defined in the regulations at 30 CFR 1206.101 and 30 CFR 1206.151. BOEM solicits comments from lessees
Facilities whose projected emissions would have been consolidated but for the exemption related to ownership and control would still be evaluated for their consolidated effects to the States outside of the AQRP. BOEM will conduct independent studies regarding the consolidated effects of multiple facilities on the air quality of the neighboring States and will also evaluate the potential for future cumulative impacts in conjunction with the associated NEPA review of the Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, the associated lease sales and the lease sale EISs.
The proposed paragraph would also specify that if all of the emissions to be combined relate to the lessee's or operator's wholly-owned facilities, then the lessee or operator would be required to provide the data and analysis regarding the complex total emissions. However, where the lessee or operator does not fully own all of the facilities whose projected emissions are to be consolidated, the lessee or operator would need to gather data either from the operator of any facilities that it does not wholly own or which it does not operate, or from the publically available database of plans approved by BOEM, and would need to provide all the data and analysis it gathered. BOEM would make a determination whether the lessee or operator has appropriately considered the relevant data in its analysis of the complex total emissions. If all of the emissions to be combined relate to the lessee or operator's wholly-owned facilities, that lessee or operator must provide all the data and analysis of the complex total emissions.
Under the proposed rule, if any lessee or operator were required to consolidate projected emissions data from multiple facilities, then anywhere a proposed requirement is written to apply to projected emissions that proposed requirement would instead apply to complex total emissions, except with respect to the process by which projected emissions are determined for any given facility (as specified in § 550.205(c), (d), and (e)).
The purpose of these two paragraphs is to determine whether the facility or facilities covered by a proposed plan should be required to do modeling to determine whether, or to what extent, its operations might adversely affect the air quality of a State. If a plan is proposed that would result in operations such that none of the EETs would be exceeded, then the plan would not be required to include air quality modeling. This is because BOEM would already have determined that the potential effects resulting from the implementation of that plan would not have the potential to cause any such adverse effect.
Under the proposed § 550.303(e), if none of a plan's projected emissions or complex total emissions for any precursor or CP that exceeds the applicable emission exemption threshold, then its projected emissions would be considered
Under the proposed § 550.303(f), if a lessee's or operator's projected emissions or complex total emissions of the precursor or criteria air pollutant exceed the applicable emission exemption threshold, then further review would be required and potentially also controls. Under the proposed rule, the requirements associated with an exceedance would depend on which pollutant or pollutants exceed the threshold(s). If emissions of VOCs, which have no SILs, exceed a threshold, then controls would be required pursuant to proposed § 550.306 or 550.307, depending on whether the facility is short-term or long-term. If emissions of a criteria air pollutant exceed a threshold, then modeling would be required under proposed section 550.304. The current rule accounts for both of these two scenarios, just as the proposed rule would.
The proposed rule would add provisions specifying circumstances in which additional photochemical modeling would be required. One of these proposed provisions would require photochemical modeling of O
The proposed rule would set requirements specifying when lessees and operators must submit revisions to their plans based on changes to how the plan will be implemented. The first proposed paragraph, (g)(1), would provide that, if a lessee or operator changes its plan implementation, such that its projected emissions would occur in years other than those that were previously approved, it would be required to submit a new plan and obtain approval before it implements the proposed changes. This requirement would relate to when operations occur, not the level of emissions associated with those operations.
This proposed provision would formalize an existing practice whereby a lessee or operator is required to submit a new plan if the actual emissions associated with its operations will likely occur in years other than those proposed and approved in the original plan. Depending on the timing of the prospective emissions, the air impacts of those emissions would vary due to other activities in the area and to seasonal effects. For future years, the NAAQS or air quality benchmarks may change. In addition, the complex total emissions analysis may need to be redone or reevaluated.
The second proposed paragraph, (g)(2), would provide that, if a lessee or operator anticipates any increase in the maximum air pollutant emissions above that projected for any time period described in the previously approved plan, the lessee or operator would be required to submit a new plan, pursuant to 30 CFR 550.283(a)(4). That existing section provides that an operator must submit a revised plan if it proposes to increase the emissions of an air pollutant to an amount that exceeds the amount specified in the approved plan. The proposed provision would relate to the peak emissions that would be generated by the facility, including its attributed emissions, for any time period (annual, 12-month rolling sum or maximum hourly) during its OCS operations.
The third proposed paragraph, (g)(3), would provide that, if a lessee or operator proposes to make a change to operations on its existing facility or facilities, but not to the equipment used in such operations, such that its approved projected annual emissions in any given year are higher than those previously approved for the particular year, but lower than the maximum air pollutant emissions for any year, the lessee or operator would not need to
The fourth proposed paragraph, (g)(4), would require that a lessee or operator submit a new plan any time it proposes to change any equipment on its existing facility or facilities such that the proposed change would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions from that specific equipment for any air pollutant, regardless of the impact on the total emissions of the facility as a whole.
The fifth proposed paragraph, (g)(5), would specify if a plan was approved for a short-term facility and it was determined later that the facility would be used in such a manner that it would properly be classified as a long-term facility, then a new plan must be submitted for review and approval by BOEM.
BOEM currently consults with appropriate FLMs when it has reason to believe a lessee's or operator's proposed OCS activities could potentially cause a significant effect on air quality in a Class I area. Under the current practice, BOEM occasionally asks lessees and operators to submit additional information to show their proposed activities would not significantly affect the air quality of such areas.
The proposed rule would expressly provide that BOEM may consult with one or more relevant FLMs if it believes emissions from proposed activities could potentially have a significant effect on Class I areas or sensitive Class II areas onshore or above State submerged lands. It would further provide that BOEM would consider the views of the FLMs in determining whether the proposed plan complies with the provisions of proposed subpart C. Based on this consultation, BOEM might require additional information and analysis, either prior to or as a condition of approving the plan. Finally, it would state that, if the FLM does not raise any concerns regarding the plan in a timely manner, BOEM would assume the FLM has no objections to the plan.
Under current practice and the proposed rule, the FLMs would independently evaluate the potential impacts of air pollutant emissions from OCS activities because of their expertise, modeling and evaluation skills. They have the unique ability to evaluate and determine the likely impacts of OCS activities on Class I and sensitive Class II areas.
Paragraph 550.304(a) of the proposed rule describes BOEM's proposed dispersion modeling requirements, which would apply in the event the lessee or operator's projected emissions or complex total emission exceed the limits defined in § 550.303(c). Dispersion modeling shows how a pollutant that is emitted could affect the concentrations of that pollutant onshore or above State submerged lands. BOEM has determined air pollutant emissions could potentially affect a State only under those circumstances where the total annual projected emissions or the complex total emissions of any given pollutant exceed a relevant exemption threshold. For this reason, a lessee or operator must perform modeling to estimate the projected increase in the ambient concentration of a pollutant onshore only if its proposed plan proposes projected emissions that exceed an emission exemption threshold for one or more criteria air pollutants.
The proposed rule would clarify that if a lessee or operator's projected emissions, or complex total emissions, of any given criteria or precursor pollutant exceeds an emission exemption threshold, then the lessee or operator would be required to model the potential impact of those emissions and those of any other pollutant for which the exceeding pollutant is a precursor, in order to determine the potential impact to the State. However, the rule would not require that a lessee or operator perform modeling with respect to those pollutants whose emissions are not projected to exceed any relevant EET. This approach is similar to that taken by the USEPA and is done for the same reason, namely to ensure that emissions are modeled in situations where a potential impact may occur. The USEPA method relies on the use of its SERs to make this determination, rather than requiring modeling, however.
This approach relies on the presumption that there would be one EET applicable at any given location for each precursor or CP. As an alternative, BOEM could establish multiple EETs for any given pollutant in those situations, such as for NOX, where the same pollutant is both a CP and a precursor for another CP. In this latter case, BOEM would not require modeling of any pollutant except in the case that that pollutant exceeded a relevant EET.
The proposed rule would provide that a lessee or operator must use one or more of the following air dispersion models: An air dispersion model listed in appendix A to appendix W to 40 CFR part 51; an air dispersion model listed in the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup Guidance; or another model approved by the BOEM Chief Environmental Officer. The lessee or operator would also be required to follow the modeling procedures recommended in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, as amended, to the extent possible. A lessee or operator would be required to provide BOEM with a copy of its dispersion modeling protocol and the associated data and assumptions used to do its analysis before it conducts such modeling.
The proposed rule would require both dispersion and photochemical modeling, under a limited number of circumstances. For air photochemical modeling, the proposed paragraph (b) would also require lessees and operators use a model approved by the BOEM CEO and follow the modeling guideline provided in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, as amended, to the extent possible. BOEM does not anticipate implementing a requirement for lessees and operators to conduct single source photochemical modeling for plan facilities until such time as it has determined that this modeling would be reasonable and practical for such lessees and operators, taking into consideration both the technical feasibility and the costs.
The proposed rule in § 550.304(b) describes BOEM's proposed photochemical modeling requirements.
The USEPA is currently evaluating the feasibility of establishing and requiring single source photochemical modeling, something that was technically challenging and generally cost prohibitive in the past. BOEM is reviewing the USEPA's work in this area. Once BOEM has determined that the appropriate models are available, photochemical modeling may be done cost effectively, and the relevant background concentration data are available, BOEM will consider approving model(s) for use under this proposed section. Modeling protocols and the regional exemption studies supporting the EETs will likely allow BOEM to approve a photochemical model in the year 2020.
In order to make a determination as to the appropriate circumstances under which single source photochemical models should be required, BOEM must also establish appropriate EETs as the screening mechanism. BOEM may develop EETs specific to O
Section 550.304(c) of the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to base its modeling on its maximum projected emissions, as reported under § 550.205(e), or on the complex total emissions in those situations where that reporting is otherwise required.
Section 550.304(d) of the proposed rule would require, that for any modeling performed, lessees and operators must apply the best available and most recent meteorological dataset(s), either as directed in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, or by using an alternate dataset(s) approved by the Regional Supervisor. In addition, the proposed rule would require lessees and operators to create a modeling report documenting all emissions sources, inputs, parameters, assumptions, procedures, methods, and results including input and output files, and data upon which their analyses under subpart C would be based, and to provide BOEM with copies of all data and access to any programs used in their modeling.
The proposed rule would specify in § 550.304(e) that, for each criteria air pollutant resulting from your projected emissions (or complex total emissions where applicable), the lessee and operator must estimate the peak incremental concentrations projected in any attainment area(s) and, separately, in any non-attainment area(s), in any State, including State submerged lands and onshore. BOEM is proposing this new requirement because the highest air pollutant concentration on the onshore area of a State may or may not occur at the onshore area that is closest to the facility described in the plan. Depending on the meteorology of the OCS region, the maximum concentration will likely occur at that point on the shoreline or above State submerged lands where the emissions are directed by the prevailing winds. The distinction between the peak attainment and peak non-attainment areas is important because the evaluation and ERM criteria are different for impacts to these two kinds of areas.
Section 550.304(e) would require, to the extent practicable, estimates of the ambient air concentrations of any criteria air pollutant consider not only the dispersion of each criteria air pollutant itself, but also the formation of any criteria air pollutant that may result from the dispersion or presence of any relevant precursor air pollutant(s). The proposed rule would state specifically which precursors would be required to be included in the analysis of PM
The proposed rule would also state that BOEM may provide information through Notices to Lessees to assist lessees and operators in evaluating existing ambient air concentrations, or changes in such concentrations over time, if BOEM determines that there is an effective means of estimating ambient air quality. Under the proposal, if BOEM has determined that there is an effective means of estimating ambient air quality and BOEM has established appropriate background concentration data for any given pollutant, at any given location and point in time, a lessee or operator would be required to use the relevant data provided by BOEM. Alternatively, in the event that BOEM has not determined appropriate background concentration data for any given pollutant, for any given location, and point in time, a lessee or operator would be required to use the relevant data from the USEPA for the closest appropriate location, as specified by the Regional Supervisor.
Section 550.304(f) would require that, for the purpose of calculating the relevant attributed emissions, lessees and operators conduct modeling of attributed emissions from those locations where those emissions are most likely to occur, utilizing the most appropriate line, area, volume, or pseudo point source model that would most accurately estimate the actual emissions that will result from MSCs, or other support operations. Under the current practice, in contrast, modeling is performed on the assumption that all
The proposed rule in § 550.304(g) would require the lessee or operator to create a modeling report documenting all emissions sources, inputs, parameters, assumptions, procedures, methods, and results, including input and output files, and underlying data upon which its analysis under this subpart is based. The rule would require the lessee or operator provide BOEM with copies of the modeling report, copies of all relevant data and the lessee or operator provide access to any programs used to perform their modeling.
The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to compare the results of the modeling conducted under proposed § 550.304 with the USEPA's Significant Impact Levels (SILs). If the modeling results are higher than the SILs, ERM would be required as specified in § 550.306, for a short-term facility, or as specified in § 550.307, for a long-term facility. Under current BOEM regulations, if modeling indicates an exceedance of the SILs, which the current regulations refer to as Significance Levels, this triggers the requirement to apply BACT. The table of Significance Levels in current § 550.303(e) was based on the table of the USEPA's SILs as they existed in 1980. The USEPA's tables, however, have been updated since then.
The USEPA's regulation on SILs, at 40 CFR 51.165(b), states that an emissions source “will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation of a national ambient air quality standard” when such a source would cause an exceedance of the SILs. Accordingly, BOEM is proposing to use the SILs to set the level of projected air pollution increase at a measurement point either onshore or above State submerged lands, that, if exceeded, ERM may be evaluated and controls may be required. BOEM is proposing to cross-reference the USEPA's table of SILs so, if there is an update or addition that results in a change to the USEPA table, that change would automatically become incorporated into BOEM's regulatory standards.
Since PM
In contrast to the other criteria air pollutants, the USEPA's current regulations do not set a SIL or AAI for O
Under the proposed rule, BOEM would eliminate the standard for TSPs, which measures the ambient concentration of particulates having a diameter of less than 100 micrometers. Instead, BOEM would formally adopt by cross-reference the two new standards that the USEPA created in place of the TSP standard: PM
The existing SILs for other criteria air pollutants in BOEM's current regulations would not change as a result of this revision in BOEM's regulations, because they are currently set at the same levels as those set by the USEPA. The proposed rule would, however, incorporate the addition of new SILs established by the USEPA, since the adoption of BOEM's original air quality rule. Going forward, there is the possibility that the USEPA will further change the SILs, or add new SILs, in which case BOEM's decision to cross-reference the USEPA's regulation would automatically cause the BOEM significance threshold rates to change, as well.
There are some circumstances where the USEPA has not established a SIL for a given CP or in which it has established only an interim SIL that it or the relevant State air quality regulatory authority may also use in evaluating the impacts of a proposed facility. In some circumstances, the USEPA may have established one or more SILs in its regulations and an additional interim SIL(s), typically for some other averaging time(s), outside of its regulations. In other cases, the USEPA may have repealed a SIL without establishing a new one. Thus, there may be situations where a lessee or operator may propose a plan that exceeds the relevant EETs, then perform modeling only to find there may not be a relevant SIL to compare against its incremental emissions or a situation where it may be unclear which SIL(s) to use. In similar situations where the USEPA or the State would issue an air quality permit, the USEPA or the relevant State permitting authority has issued permitting guidance to supplement its regulations. The proposed rule does not contain a provision on this topic and BOEM solicits comments on how best to address this issue.
BOEM also requests comment on what BOEM should do about NAAQS that do not have corresponding SILs in the USEPA regulations; comments on the following two alternative approaches are particularly welcome. One alternative would be for BOEM to
Proposed § 550.306 would set forth the requirements for ERM for both criteria and major precursor pollutants on a short-term facility when modeling shows the facility will cause emissions to exceed the SILs, or when modeling will indicate a violation of the NAAQS for O
Under BOEM's existing regulations in § 550.303(h), “[t]he lessee shall apply BACT to reduce projected emissions of any air pollutant from a temporary facility which significantly affects the air quality of an onshore area of a State.” The current regulations also explicitly exempt temporary facilities from the requirements for controls set out in current regulations in § 550.303(g), which require additional analysis on top of the application of BACT for non-temporary facilities. In contrast, the proposed rule would require lessees and operators to apply only operational controls and/or equipment replacements, but not BACT in those situations where a SIL or VOC EET is exceeded. The proposed rule, like the current regulations, would not require additional AAI analysis after the application of ERM for a short-term facility.
Under the proposed rule, an ERM analysis would start by identifying all available non-BACT control measures that would be relevant to the emissions of the pollutant(s) for which ERM would be required. The lessee or operator would then determine which of these are technically feasible. BOEM is proposing to define “technically feasible” in proposed § 550.302. The proposed rule would also add a requirement that a “demonstration of technical infeasibility must be clearly documented and must show, based on physical, chemical or engineering principles, that technical difficulties would preclude the successful use of the applicable emission control technology or methodology.” The lessee or operator would rank the technically feasible control measures by their ability to reduce actual emissions, based on the overall emission control efficiency (
If no technically feasible operational controls or equipment replacements could be implemented cost effectively and the projected emissions affect only attainment areas, then no ERM would be required for the pollutant exceeding a standard other than those that the lessee or operator proposed in its plan. If no technically feasible operational controls or equipment replacements could be implemented cost effectively, and the projected emissions would affect a non-attainment area, then the Regional Supervisor could require the implementation of other ERM, including BACT, as a condition of approving the lessee's or operator's plan. Such ERM could be required on either a permanent or temporary basis, depending on the circumstances and location of the proposed facilities. If this ERM includes any proposed BACT, then the lessee or operator would be required to provide a description of the associated energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other costs.
The nature of any ERM could vary widely depending on the issue being addressed and the location of the relevant operations. Examples of such measures could be: Running specific equipment at optimal efficiency for certain periods of time, only operating certain equipment on specific days or for some number of days in a month or week or at specific times of day, etc. They could vary based on the existing background levels of pollution, the climatic conditions and the type of plan proposed. Operational controls could involve using specific types of fuel or specific types of combustion technology or limiting the use of certain equipment to a specific purpose or circumstance. They could also involve keeping certain equipment at a specified distance from other equipment or facilities, etc.
The purpose of implementing such controls would be to keep the volume of air pollutants produced in connection with the operations conducted under a plan within a range such that none of the AAQSB would be violated, either on a temporary or ongoing basis, thereby ensuring such operations comply with BOEM air quality requirements.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed section would specify what must be included in a lessee's or operator's plan describing the results of the ERM analysis. This would consist of: An evaluation of the ERM selected, quantifying and verifying the emissions reductions measures and associated costs; a description of how the selected operational controls or replacement equipment meets the criteria in § 550.309 for ERM; and a calculation of the revised projected emissions (or complex total emissions, where applicable), taking into account the selected operational controls or replacement of equipment.
The proposed rule would specify that, if an operator has committed to apply appropriate operational controls or replacement of equipment, in the case of a plan affecting only an attainment area, or committed to apply appropriate ERM, with respect to a plan affecting a non-attainment area, BOEM could approve the plan, provided all other applicable requirements have been met. However, if BOEM were to have a reason to believe a lessee's or operator's projected emissions may cause the NAAQS to be exceeded, the Regional Supervisor could require additional data, analysis, or modeling to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS or might require additional ERM so that the NAAQS are not exceeded.
Unlike short-term facilities, long-term facilities are generally intended to remain in operation for many years. Correspondingly, they, in conjunction with their MSCs, generally emit considerable amounts of air pollutants on an ongoing basis. Because of this, long-term facilities warrant more stringent air quality compliance requirements. This proposed section
Proposed § 550.307 would set forth the requirements for ERM on a long-term facility when modeling shows the facility will cause emissions exceeding the AAIs or SILs (or when it would cause a violation of the NAAQS for O
One alternative would be that a facility that does not cause an exceedance of a SIL at any location in a State would not be considered to be one that impacts an affected area of the State. Conversely, any location at which a facility's projected emissions could cause an exceedance of a SIL would constitute an affected area of a State for the purpose of this rule. The difficulty with this approach, however, lies in the fact that there may be many locations at which a SIL is exceeded and the boundary of this exceedance may be difficult or impractical to determine—particularly in the context of the non-attainment areas.
Another alternative would be to require that any modeling be done with receptors just inside the outer boundary of a non-attainment area or at the attainment/non-attainment area boundary nearest to, or directly downwind of, the proposed facility. If modeling indicates that that no AAQSB would be exceeded at that point, then no non-attainment area would be considered affected by the proposed facility.
There may be other approaches to handling the determination of affected areas. BOEM would welcome suggestions or alternatives for how best to address this issue.
The proposed rule at § 550.307(a), like the current regulation, separates requirements for controls of VOCs from requirements for controls for other air pollutants. If the projected emissions of VOCs exceed an emission exemption threshold, then the lessee or operator would be required to apply controls. The controls required would depend upon the attainment status of the areas of the State(s) potentially affected by the emissions. If the projected emissions affect, or have the potential to affect, only attainment areas for O
Paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed section would provide for an exception to the requirement to reduce VOC emissions when they affect a State coastal area where an increase in VOCs would not lead to the formation of increased O
For emissions of criteria air pollutants, the controls that would be required for long-term facilities also depend on the attainment status of the area affected by the projected emissions. If all areas affected by the projected emissions are designated attainment areas, then the lessee or operator would be required under § 550.307(b)(1) to evaluate all the potentially applicable ERM, excluding BACT, and propose sufficient ERM to reduce the ambient impact of the projected emissions and to conduct refined modeling to show the effects of the ERM, using the process described in proposed § 550.306(a)(1) through (4) for a short-term facility. Once the appropriate ERM have been determined, the lessee or operator should re-conduct modeling to evaluate the effect of applying ERM to reduce emissions and to determine whether or not the operator or lessee's reduced emissions would cause an exceedance of the AAIs. Lessees and operators would be required to combine the ambient air effects of their emissions with the emissions from other onshore and offshore sources which contribute to the consumption of the maximum allowable increases above the baseline concentrations for each air pollutant and baseline area, as established in 40 CFR 52.21. In conducting this additional modeling, operators would be required to use the ambient air concentration data, as specified in proposed § 550.304(e)(2). If this modeling shows that ERM is not sufficient to reduce the projected concentration increases below the AAIs applicable to the potentially affected State, then the lessee or operator would be required to apply additional ERM and perform additional modeling until such efforts confirm that no AAIs would be exceeded. As discussed above, this was the intent expressed in the preamble to the BOEM's current rule. This proposed rule would make this intent clear in the regulatory text itself.
Once this additional modeling shows the ERM is sufficient to reduce the projected concentrations below the AAIs applicable to the potentially affected State, then the lessee or operator would be required to compare the resulting design concentration of each criteria air pollutant with the NAAQS. If any of the NAAQS are shown to be exceeded, the lessee or operator would be required to apply additional ERM and perform additional modeling until it determines none of the NAAQS would be violated.
As discussed earlier, the current regulations use the MACIs in place of the AAIs for determining whether long-term facilities have sufficiently reduced their impacts on attainment areas. The MACIs were based on the AAIs at the time the current rule was promulgated. While BOEM is now proposing to cross-reference the AAIs, it is also considering whether other standards would be better. Particularly, BOEM is considering whether it would be better
Under the proposed rule at paragraph 550.307(b)(2), if projected emissions affect any area designated as a non-attainment area, then the lessee or operator would be required to evaluate all the potentially applicable ERM, including BACT, and propose sufficient ERM to reduce the ambient impact of its emissions of all criteria air pollutants below the applicable SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). The proposed rule would then require a lessee or operator to conduct modeling using the revised projected emissions and compare the results with the SILs. If photochemical modeling would be required under § 550.304, then the lessee or operator would be required to also perform photochemical modeling and add the results of that modeling to the results of the additional dispersion models. If the modeling results exceed any SIL for any criteria air pollutant for any averaging time, then the lessee or operator would be required to apply additional ERM until additional modeling demonstrates all projected emissions have been fully reduced below the SILs for all criteria air pollutants for every applicable averaging time.
The proposed rule at § 550.307(c) would also provide that, for any averaging time other than an annual period, a facility's projected emissions may cause an ambient impact that exceeds an applicable AAI one time during any rolling 12-month period for any given criteria air pollutant at any one location and still be considered to have fully reduced emissions. This provision is retained from the language in existing regulation § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B), which states: “For any period other than the annual period, the applicable maximum allowable increase may be exceeded during one such period per year at any one onshore location;” however, slight changes have been made in the wording for clarity.
Additionally, this proposed paragraph would provide that if an operator or lessee's projected emissions of NO
This proposed paragraph would also provide an exception if the implementation of a plan under these regulations would compromise the safety of the operation of the facility, and such implementation of any AAQSB cannot be otherwise addressed.
The proposed rule at § 550.307(d) would contain a provision, consistent with the current BOEM regulations at § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) (“No concentration of an air pollutant shall exceed the concentration permitted under the national secondary ambient air quality standard or the concentration permitted under the national primary air quality standard, whichever concentration is lowest for the air pollutant for the period of exposure”), stating no concentration of an air pollutant could exceed the concentration permitted under any primary or secondary NAAQS, whichever concentration is lowest for the air pollutant for the period of exposure. The proposed rule would state that NAAQS may not be exceeded, even for a short-term facility.
The proposed rule would clarify that a lessee or operator may propose to use emissions credits to achieve the equivalent reduction of emissions for any criteria air pollutant as an alternative to any other ERM, regardless of the attainment status of the State area affected by its facility's potential emissions.
The purpose of this proposed provision is to provide a safeguard to the plan approval process, such that any approval of a facility made according to these regulations does not cause a violation of an applicable air quality control standard. Because all of BOEM's plan reviews are done on a prospective basis, it is possible the impacts of the implementation of such a plan could cause an adverse effect on a State that was not anticipated. This provision in the proposed rule provides a mechanism for State and local government entities, and certain Federally-recognized Indian tribes, that might be adversely affected by the approval of a plan or a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline application to raise objections on the basis of data or information that may not have been available to BOEM at the time a plan was originally approved. The current rule contains a similar provision that applies only to States.
The current regulations, under § 550.303(j), provide “[i]f . . . the Regional Supervisor determines or an affected State submits information . . . which demonstrates . . . that projected emissions from an otherwise exempt facility will, either individually or in combination with other facilities in the area, significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area, then the Regional Supervisor shall require the lessee to submit additional information to determine whether emission control measures are necessary.”
The proposed rule at § 550.308(a) would expand upon this provision by specifying the Regional Supervisor could require the lessee or operator to apply additional ERM on either a temporary or permanent basis, depending on the circumstances, if he/she determines the projected emissions, or, where applicable, complex total emissions, may cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, based on (1) information submitted by a State, or a local government, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe; (2) information resulting from a cumulative impacts analysis conducted for a NEPA analysis; (3) a compliance review of a proposed plan under subpart B, § 550.232(b) for an EP, or § 550.267(c) for a DPP or DOCD; or (4) the declaration by an adjacent State, or the USEPA, of an air quality emergency for a location that may be affected by air emissions generated by operations.
The proposed rule would provide in § 550.308(b) any lessee or operator affected by the requirements of this section would be given notice of the Regional Supervisor's determination under paragraph (a) of this proposed section, as well as an opportunity to present additional information and analysis for review by the Regional Supervisor. Under the proposed rule, if the lessee or operator presents the Regional Supervisor with additional information and analysis, the Regional
The proposed rule would provide explicit requirements to ensure the sufficiency, effectiveness, and control efficiency for a lessee's or operator's ERM. It also would specify how a lessee or operator could use emissions offsets.
Under the proposed rule at § 550.309(a), a lessee's or operator's proposed ERM would need to be sufficient to achieve actual emissions reductions corresponding to those reported in the plan for the duration of the plan's operations under all reasonably foreseeable conditions. Under the proposed rule, the Regional Supervisor would review a lessee's or operator's proposed ERM on a case by case basis and make a determination whether such measures met the applicable criteria.
Under § 550.309(b), the lessee or operator would need to continually ensure the effectiveness of its ERM for the duration of the plan's operations under the proposed rule. If emissions reductions measures become disabled or unavailable, the lessee or operator must immediately notify the Regional Supervisor and replace such ERM with others of equal or superior effectiveness within 30 days of discovering the disability or unavailability, unless the Regional Supervisor approves an extension not to exceed 90 days.
The proposed rule at § 550.309(c) would specify that the analysis of the proposed ERM would need to reflect actual ECE. The proposed rule would require a lessee or operator to substantiate any ECEs it projects and provide sufficient evidence to justify its projected ECEs to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor. The rule would further specify at § 550.309(c)(1) that, should the substantiating data indicate a range of efficiencies, the lessee or operator would be required to utilize the more conservative estimates (
Further, under § 550.309(d), if ERM would be required in an approved plan, then the proposed rule would authorize the Regional Supervisor to require lessees and operators to provide information needed to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed ERM. The proposed rule states that a lessee or operator with a plan that is approved subject to the application of BACT must ensure that the emissions associated with each emissions source for which BACT is required complies with the emissions verification requirements of § 550.311 of this subpart. The rule further states that the Regional Supervisor may also require the installation of emissions measurement meters if the Regional Supervisor determines that such meters are necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement (
The purpose of acquiring an emissions credit is to cause a reduction in the emissions of a given pollutant from a business or activity unrelated to the plan, so that the total concentration of a given pollutant within a given area will not increase (as a result of the operations associated with a plan) beyond a permissible level.
The proposed rule at § 550.309(d) would set forth requirements for emissions credits. First, the lessee or operator would be required to acquire emissions offsets from emissions source(s), either offshore or onshore, that affect the air quality of the same AQCR). Second, for a CP, the emissions credits that the lessee or operator proposes would need to provide a net air quality benefit for the same pollutant; for a precursor pollutant, any emissions credits that a lessee or operator proposes would need to provide a net air quality benefit for that CP for which the pollutant is a precursor. Third, the lessee or operator would need to demonstrate to the Regional Supervisor that the emissions credit it proposes binds it and any other parties who agree to lower their emissions. Fourth, the lessee or operator would need to also demonstrate that any emissions reductions will last for the entire period of operations covered in its plan. The Regional Supervisor might periodically require the lessee or operator to certify that the emissions reductions are still in place. Fifth, any emissions credits would need to reduce emissions below rates otherwise required by law. Sixth, in addition to BOEM, the lessee or operator would be required to notify the appropriate State air quality control jurisdiction of its proposal to acquire emissions credits, modify the permit for the underlying onshore facility to reflect the proposed reduction in emissions and, if necessary, its need to revise the State Implementation Plan to include the information regarding the emissions credits the lessee or operator has acquired. Seventh, emissions credits would be allowed in those circumstances where BOEM could readily verify the historical emissions from the facility to be used for the emissions credit, and the emissions reduction associated with the acquired emissions credit. Eighth, the approval of an emissions credit would not be granted unless the reductions in emissions associated with the credit are verifiable by an appropriate State, tribe or federal agency (primarily through the modification of the air emissions permits for the relevant onshore facility). Finally, the proposed rule would specify that nothing in these regulations is intended to restrict emissions credits from being obtained and divided among multiple lessees or operators.
If an OCS lessee or operator proposes to use emissions credits as an emission reduction measure (ERM), in lieu of BACT, operational controls or the replacement of equipment used on the OCS, then that lessee or operator would be responsible for ensuring that the reductions are permanent and verifiable.
Rather, BOEM believes that this process would largely be beneficial to the States, in that the reduction in air emissions of onshore facilities, beyond those that would otherwise be legally required, could cause a net air quality benefit to the States and localities affected. Such a change could also allow a greater level of economic development, and a greater number of approvals for additional stationary sources onshore than might otherwise be the case (in the absence of the emissions credit). For these reasons, BOEM believes that the potential use of emissions credits by lessees or operators would be neither onerous nor unreasonable.
The proposed rule would allow emissions credits to be obtained and divided among multiple lessees or operators (presumably located near to one another in the vicinity of the State) in order to spread the costs of complying with air quality requirements over a broad area, or for any other reason.
The manner in which the proposed rule would have the potential to affect the relationship between the federal and State governments has to do with a situation in which an OCS lessee or operator proposes to use emissions credits as an emission reduction measure (ERM), in lieu of BACT. In the event that a lessee or operator elected to reduce the pollutant emissions of an onshore facility to offset corresponding emissions for a new facility proposed on the OCS, that lessee or operator would be required to notify the relevant State air quality regulatory body and arrange for the modification of the permit for the underlying onshore facility to reflect the proposed reduction in emissions. The State could then update the permitted level of emissions which would ensure compliance with the reduced emissions requirements on an ongoing basis. The State may also need to update its SIP, as appropriate, and modify its reporting to the USEPA. Lessees have not typically utilized emissions credits as a pollution mitigation measure in the past. BOEM solicits comments on the practicality and potential costs associated with the implementation of these proposals at the State level, as well as comments on how these proposals could most effectively be implemented in coordination with the States.
Under proposed § 550.309(f), unless otherwise specified, the lessee or operator could employ any operational control, equipment replacement(s), BACT, or emissions credit, on either a temporary or permanent basis, to reduce the amount of emissions that would occur in the absence of such measures. The proposed paragraph would also provide that any proposed ERM would become a condition of its plan upon approval and could be required on either a permanent or temporary basis, depending on the circumstances and location of the proposed facilities.
In addition, the rule would clarify that any lessee or operator proposing a plan that includes equipment replacement would be subject to compliance with all other applicable federal regulations, including those of the USCG.
The proposed rule at § 550.310(a) specifies that BOEM would review air pollutant emissions data in a plan according to the AAQSB that are in effect on the date the plan is deemed submitted. Because BOEM's regulations would cross-reference the USEPA's standards, BOEM would make the appropriate changes to its review of plans if the USEPA revised such standards.
The proposed rule at § 550.310(b) would specify that all activities described in initial, revised, modified, and supplemental plans would be required to comply with the AAQSB in effect on the date the plan is deemed submitted.
The proposed rule, however, would provide exceptions in two situations. First, under § 550.310(b)(1), if a plan were deemed submitted shortly after the effective date of a new or revised AAQSB, and the lessee or operator believed the immediate application of the new or revised AAQSB would be impracticable or would otherwise impose an unreasonable hardship on its proposed operations, then the lessee or operator would be able to request a deferral from the requirement to comply with the new or revised standard. The Regional Director, with the concurrence of the Director, would review the request and would have the discretion to grant a temporary deferral, not to exceed two years, from compliance with the new or revised AAQSB based upon a finding of impracticability or undue hardship. Second, under § 550.310(b)(2), for any proposed plan, upon a finding that noncompliance with a new or revised AAQSB would not significantly affect the air quality of any State onshore or over State submerged lands, the Director would be able to grant a departure from compliance with the revised AAQSB. The Director would have the discretion to condition the departure upon any requirement(s) deemed necessary to avoid causing or contributing to a violation of the pre-existing NAAQS. This exception would account for situations in which the USEPA could revise or add an ambient air quality standard or benchmark that would not be relevant to OCS operations or that would go beyond BOEM's mandate to prevent significant effects on the air quality of a State, would be impracticable, or would otherwise impose an unreasonable hardship.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator is operating under an approved plan, it would be required to resubmit a plan for a periodic air quality review no more frequently than ten years after BOEM's previous approval of the plan. This provision would be added in furtherance of the objective of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and which makes no exceptions with respect to previously approved plans. All of the applicable requirements of this subpart in effect on the date of resubmission would apply on the same basis to a resubmitted plan as for an initial plan. BOEM requests comments on this provision, particularly with respect to the potential impact on lessees and operators.
In order to ensure that the lessee or operator's emissions remain compliant with OCSLA's air quality mandate,
When a plan is resubmitted under this provision that plan would be required to include estimates for the annual projected emissions for the subsequent ten years or for however long the facility would be expected to remain in operation, whichever is shorter. With respect to the emissions calculations for any given emissions source, the resubmitted plan would be required to account for the most recent available data on the actual emissions of that emission source. Under the proposal, if a plan would indicate an exceedance of any applicable emission exemption threshold, all applicable requirements of this subpart would apply as for an initial plan.
For plans that were approved prior to the effective date of this rule, the lessee or operator would be required to submit a new plan for a new air quality review of its existing facilities according to a schedule in a table listed in the proposed rule. This table would require that the oldest plans be submitted first for re-review and that the most recently approved plans would be re-submitted last, according to the same ten-year review cycle. In each case, each plan would be due the same month as the month in which the plan was originally approved.
After the year 2023, plans would be re-reviewed every ten years; and the plan resubmission would be required in the month of the tenth anniversary of the initial plan approval, or the month of the tenth anniversary of the approval of a revised, modified, resubmitted or supplemental plan, whichever is later.
If a lessee or operator proposes to make a change to the equipment on its existing facility or facilities in a year or years when its plan already anticipated operations, and its proposed change would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions from that equipment for any air pollutant, the lessee or operator would be required to submit a revised plan, not simply a plan that describes the specific change being proposed.
The proposed rule would provide that if a lessee or operator fails to submit a revised plan as required under this section, then the previous approval of its plan would be revoked. In this circumstance the lessee or operator could also be subject to civil penalties or other appropriate sanctions, including the requirement to cease operations.
The purpose of this section is to describe under what circumstances a lessee or operator would be required to demonstrate its actual emissions have been and are in compliance with its previously approved plan(s).
Paragraph (a) of this proposed section would provide that facilities described in plans that were approved by BOEM under the listed conditions would be required to measure actual emissions: (1) If a plan is approved subject to the implementation of BACT or emissions credits; (2) if any emissions source on your facility uses any engine or equipment that is neither certified by the USEPA for domestic use in the U.S. nor MARPOL-compliant; (3) if the Regional Supervisor determines that lessees or operator's projected emissions, complex total emissions, for any criteria or precursor air pollutant, calculated on either an annual basis or on the basis of a 12 month rolling sum, may significantly underestimate the actual emissions, based on either historical data or ambient air monitoring; or, (4) if BOEM determines that your facility is causing or contributing to an exceedance of the NAAQS in any State.
For lessees and operators who would be required to measure and report actual emissions, proposed subsection (b) would state several basic requirements for measurement and reporting of actual emissions. Lessees and operators that are required to measure and report emissions would be required to include enough of the emissions sources to ensure that the actual emissions associated with facilities and MSCs operating under an approved plan are consistent with the projected emission limits approved for that plan. In other words, they would be required to demonstrate that a sufficient number of their large emissions sources are at or below the projected emissions for that equipment so that the emissions associated with the remaining emissions sources would not be sufficient to cause an exceedance of the projected emissions limits approved in the plan.
Under the proposed rule, each lessee or operator would be required to consider every source that was included in its approved plan in addition to any source that would be classified as part of the projected emissions if the plan were resubmitted under the current regulations. Since the objective is to ensure that the actual emissions associated with facilities and MSCs operating under an approved plan do not significantly exceed the emissions projected for that plan, BOEM proposes to provide (as an option) a list of the kinds of emissions sources that lessees and operators could monitor to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. On facilities, engine reporting and monitoring would include and apply to: Onboard facility engines; power generation engines; Hydraulic Power Units (HPU); deck cranes; cementing units; and other engines with a maximum power rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW). On facilities, this list would exclude: propulsion engines, boilers and incinerators, emergency generators, and lifeboat engines. For MSCs, the emissions sources subject to measurement and reporting could include: Propulsion engines; power generation engines; marine auxiliary engines; and engines with a maximum power rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW). On MSCs, this list would exclude boilers and incinerators, emergency generators, all engines onboard science vessels, offshore supply vessels, or lifeboats.
Further, measurement of actual emissions would be required to reflect actual operations on the OCS and not exclusively on the basis of ECEs, fuel
BOEM solicits comments as to how it should best implement the requirements of this section with respect to those facilities that would be required to report their actual emissions. BOEM invites comments on this issue with respect to how best to achieve the objective of obtaining actual data on potentially large pollution emitters while not adversely impacting those small-volume emitters whose emissions do not have any realistic potential to adversely affect the air quality of any State.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require the lessee or operator to notify BOEM, if any of its actual emissions exceed its projected emissions at any time after the plan has been approved and to provide BOEM with the appropriate data regarding the exceedance.
If a lessee or operator proposes to make a change to the equipment on its existing facility or facilities in a year or years when its plan already anticipated operations, and its proposed change would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions from that equipment for any air pollutant, the lessee or operator would be required to submit a revised plan, not simply a plan that describes the specific change being proposed.
As with the reporting done pursuant to § 550.205(d) of the proposed section would specify that a lessee or operator must submit data and information in a format, and using the forms, specified by BOEM. The lessee or operator must submit information in an electronically-readable format, unless otherwise directed by the Regional Supervisor. If it transmits the information to BOEM electronically, then it must use a delivery medium or transmission method authorized by BOEM.
While the current regulation requires monitoring and reporting of emissions, it does not specify what monitoring is required. The proposed rule at § 550.311 would provide more specificity on how the monitoring and reporting must be carried out. BOEM believes a more comprehensive approach to emissions measurement and monitoring could improve the quality and type of information for estimating impacts on affected States. BOEM requests comments and suggestions with respect to the best approach to post-approval record-keeping, monitoring and reporting, including potential alternative approaches.
The proposed rule would include requirements necessary to validate the emissions estimates that are described in a plan. The proposed rule would specify at § 550.312(a) if stack testing was used as a method to develop emissions factors under proposed § 550.205 or was used to develop any other information submitted pursuant to that section, then a lessee or operator would be required to conduct the stack testing every three years and to report the results. BOEM seeks comment on whether it should require or recommend that the stack testing data be collected with the USEPA's electronic reporting tool and submitted via CDX (Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface-), so that the USEPA can update the AP 42/WebFIRE emissions factors and so BOEM can compile the relevant data and supply it to other lessees and operators for their use in the future.
Proposed § 550.312(b) would describe the recordkeeping requirements that would be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the plan in all cases, whether or not ERM are required and whether or not the conditions in proposed § 550.311(a) were satisfied. Under the proposed rule, lessees or operators would be required to retain information on monthly fuel consumption, for each emissions source, including attributed emissions sources, showing the quantity, type, and sulphur content of fuel used; collect facility and equipment usage information, including hours of operation at each percent of capacity for each emissions source. Venting, flaring, flashing and any other release of any air pollutant emissions that would not otherwise be accounted for by fuel consumption would be required to be reported for any emissions source that generates criteria air pollutants or precursor air pollutants in connection with OCS activities.
The proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to retain this information for a period of no less than 10 years. Reporting of fuel logs, facility and equipment activity and usage information, and fuel sulphur content must be provided to BOEM on a schedule established by the Regional Director. This provision is intended to ensure ongoing air quality compliance, after a plan is approved. It would both maintain consistency with the USEPA's approach to regulating OCS operations and retain the requirements of BOEM's current regulations at 30 CFR 550.303(k) and 550.304(g).
If BOEM elects to obtain the relevant data for a lessee's or operator's attributed emissions from an independent third party, then the Regional Supervisor may waive the requirement to submit fuel logs or collect facility and equipment usage information for MSCs.
BOEM solicits comment on whether there are other ways of collecting information or monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with approved plans. Additionally, BOEM requests comment on alternative approaches to ensure compliance with an approved plan. BOEM also requests specific comment on whether there are ways to minimize the data collection and reporting burden associated with fuel logs while also ensuring the ongoing compliance with an approved plan. For example, there may be circumstances under which some facilities and/or MSCs would generate such low levels of emissions that there would be no practical possibility that the operations of those facilities and/or MSCs, cumulatively or separately, could exceed any relevant EET(s). Under those circumstances, the requirement to maintain fuel logs and/or activity data records may not be necessary or could be modified. BOEM solicits comment on what those circumstances may be and how BOEM might craft an exception or modification to the record-keeping requirements for small facilities and/or MSCs, so as to minimize the cost burden on lessees and operators—consistent with BOEM's need to ensure the integrity of its air quality regulatory program.
The proposed rule would also specify that record-keeping and reporting must be consistent with the USEPA's requirements for Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for New Source Performance Standards. These are available in the following document: Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for New Source Performance Standards, 80 FR 15099, RIN 2060-AP63, March 20, 2015.
The current § 550.303(l) provides the Regional Supervisor may require, for a period of time and in a manner approved or prescribed, a lessee to collect and submit meteorological data from any of its facilities. The proposed rule in § 550.312(c) would include a provision with similar language. However, the proposed rule would add a provision allowing a lessee or operator to instead collect and report meteorological data derived from any other mutually agreed upon location with the approval of the Regional Supervisor.
The proposed rule in § 550.312(d) would add a provision to make clear the Regional Supervisor might require other information needed to support any finding or determination under subpart C.
The proposed rule would clarify that another federal agency could impose additional reporting, monitoring, or other requirements beyond those proposed by BOEM. None of the provisions of this paragraph would prevent the imposition of additional monitoring or reporting requirements on the part of BSEE or any other federal agency.
The proposed rule would provide that under certain circumstances BOEM might impose additional requirements on existing facilities operating under approved plans. In addition to the new requirement that all plans be subject to a ten-year re-review process, the proposed rule would provide that BOEM might impose other requirements on facilities operating under an already approved plan if an applicable AAQSB changes or if BOEM determines the operations are:
• Causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, either individually or in combination with any other offshore operations (this provision would also account for plans approved with either a NO
• Emitting unauthorized air pollutants;
• Creating conditions posing an unreasonable risk to public health or welfare; or
• Violating any applicable federal, State or tribal law related to air quality.
Also if a plan approved as a short-term facility later becomes a long-term facility, the proposed rule would require a lessee or operator to submit an initial plan under the standards applicable to long-term facilities. The proposed rule would allow the Regional Director to grant a temporary exception to this requirement if the short-term facility became a long-term facility as a result of adverse weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the lessee's or operator's control that delayed operations in the lease area. The exception would not be allowed to exceed the number of months the lessee or operator had been unable to operate.
The purpose of this proposed section is to outline the ongoing requirements, which are intended to ensure the lessee or operator will not allow its facility or facilities to generate emissions in excess of those approved in the plan.
This section would update and modify the requirements in current § 550.304(a). That paragraph describes a process by which a State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe having either a TAS status or a USEPA-approved TIP, can request more information about emissions data or the review of an existing plan. The proposed rule would provide that a State or Indian tribe could request that the Regional Supervisor to supply it with the air pollution data regarding an existing facility's projected emissions, if such data were needed either for the updating of the State's or Indian tribe's emissions inventory or because a State or Indian tribe believed an existing facility's projected emissions might cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. The proposed rule would further provide that lessees or operators might be required to submit air pollutant emissions data to the entity submitting such a request.
Further, under the proposed rule, the entity submitting a request would be permitted to submit information to BOEM that it believed indicated that projected emissions from an existing facility could cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. In such a case, the lessee or operator responsible for the facility would be given the opportunity to present information to the Regional Supervisor that demonstrates its facility's projected emissions would not cause such an effect. The Regional Supervisor would evaluate the new information submitted and would determine whether the lessee or operator's actual emissions, including their attributed emissions, would have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. The Regional Supervisor would base this determination on an evaluation of the emissions data, the available meteorological data, and the distance of the facility from the State or Reservation. If the Regional Supervisor were to determine an existing facility's projected emissions had the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, then the lessee or operator would be required to submit additional data as requested by the Regional Supervisor. This provision is intended to complement the provision described in § 550.205(m), which outlines those exceptional circumstances under which additional data or information may be required.
The following change is proposed in part 550, subpart J:
Applications for rights-of-way are currently sent to and reviewed by BSEE. The proposed rule would not change that process except to add a requirement that any application for approval of a new pipeline ROW would also be subject to BOEM's air quality requirements. The proposed rule would specify that when a person applies for a right-of-way (ROW) in any part of the OCS under the air quality regulatory jurisdiction of the Department, its application would be required to include the information required by § 550.205 of this part and demonstrate that the ROW complies with subpart C of this part. The proposed rule would also specify that any requirement in either § 550.205 or subpart C that refers to plans should be interpreted to apply equally to rights-of-way and that any requirement that refers to lessees should be interpreted to apply equally to ROW holders or grantees.
There are a few exceptions proposed to these requirements that are based on the unique nature of pipeline ROWs: The provisions in subpart C that refer to the consolidation of multiple facilities and, the periodic resubmittal of plans under proposed § 550.310(c) would not apply to ROW holders or grantees.
In addition, the proposed rule specifies that no additional requirements would apply to a proposed or existing RUE that is already included within the scope of an existing or proposed exploration or development plan. The proposed rule would also specify that BOEM will notify BSEE of its determination that the organization or individual has provided the information required by § 550.205 and met the requirements of subpart C of this part. If necessary, BOEM would notify BSEE of additional conditions necessary to ensure that the activities will comply with subpart C of this part.
The Department has and continues to make a substantial effort to review its proposals with relevant stakeholders, both within and outside the federal government. It has conferred, and intends to continue to further confer, with the BSEE, the BLM, the FWS, the NPS, the USEPA, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other relevant federal agencies prior to formulating the final rule. BOEM also intends to review this proposed rule with affected States.
DOI strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self- governance and Tribal sovereignty. This proposed rule will be subject to an extensive public comment period and the views of all potentially affected industry and interested environmental groups will be solicited and carefully considered. The Department will consider and evaluate the comments of all potentially affected and interested parties, consistent with the OCSLA mandate that it appropriately balance the economic benefits associated with “expeditious and orderly development” against the potential environmental risks (
BOEM has developed a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether this proposed rule would have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the NEPA. The draft EA is available for review and public comment in the docket for this proposed rule at
This proposed rule contains a collection of information that has been submitted to the OMB for review and approval under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). If you wish to comment on the IC aspects of this proposed rule, you may send your comments directly to OMB (see the
The title of the collection for this rule is Air Quality, 30 CFR part 550, subparts A, B, and C (Proposed Rulemaking).
This rulemaking proposes to add new IC requirements to current regulations under 30 CFR part 550, subparts A, B, and C. The IC for the current regulations has been approved under the following OMB Control Numbers:
• 1010-0114 (subpart A), expires December 31, 2016 (30,635 hours; $165,492 non-hour costs).
• 1010-0151 (subpart B), expires January 31, 2018 (432,512 hours; $3,939,435 non-hour costs).
• 1010-0057 (subpart C), expires January 31, 2018 (112,111 hours; $0 non-hour costs).
This rule would add new and expand existing requirements under regulations at 30 CFR part 550, subparts A and B, and would provide a rewrite of 30 CFR part 550, subpart C. Therefore, we are requesting OMB assign a new OMB Control Number for the IC requirements in the proposed rule. When the final rule becomes effective, we will move the requirements and burdens associated with subpart A and subpart B into their respective collections. We will use the new OMB Control Number for the IC requirements and burdens associated with the new subpart C and will discontinue the use of current OMB Control Number 1010-0057.
The PRA provides 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 rule proposes: To incorporate the USEPA's regulatory standards for air quality; address the expansion of BOEM's air quality jurisdiction to include the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska; account for technological advances in air quality measurement, evaluation, and reporting capabilities; take into account emissions from offshore supporting vessels; and reflect changes in practices and procedures as they have evolved. Potential respondents are holders and operators of federal OCS leases, operating rights holders, holders of Rights of Use and Easement (RUEs), holders of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROWs) or holders of a lease-term pipeline, and independent third-parties working on behalf of any of these persons. The frequency of response varies, but is primarily on the occasion or as per the requirement. Responses to this collection are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain a benefit. The IC does not include questions of a sensitive nature. BOEM will protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), 30 CFR part 552,
We expect the estimated hour burden for the rulemaking to be 146,490 hours and $3,455,000 in non-hour costs. Some of the requirements, especially in subpart A, are not new; they are being moved or expanded. The table below provides a breakdown of the estimates for the rule. Current OMB-approved hours and requirements are in regular font; expanded requirements and hours are shown in italics. The proposed new requirements are shown in bold and are summarized as follows:
• Subpart A. BOEM is proposing to implement a requirement from the CAA to work with the USEPA to expand and maintain a national air emissions inventory. The requirement to submit a copy of a USEPA-required Episode Avoidance Plan is currently approved as part of the IC in subpart C but would be collected under subpart A (§ 550.141(d)) in the proposed rule. We expect no burden change since the occurrence is very limited and therefore the burden currently approved is sufficient. The proposed rule would expand a requirement under right-of-use and easement (RUEs) to account for air quality documentation and records (§ 550.160(
• Subpart B. To simplify the air quality review process, BOEM is proposing to consolidate the requirements relating to air quality into one new section (§ 550.205), which would be equally applicable to all Exploration Plans (EPs), Development and Production Plan (DPPs), or DOCDs, as well as to any updates or modifications of any such plans. Proposed § 550.205 includes the expanded air quality emissions factors and reporting requirements for all emissions sources. The proposed rule would expand BOEM's air quality submission requirements to include any area in which BOEM is given jurisdiction, including the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. To accommodate various changes in the air quality requirements, BOEM will modify its current air quality information forms (BOEM-0138, Air Emission Calculations for EPs, and BOEM-0139, Air Emission Calculations for DPPs and DOCDs). These forms will be updated to include the new air pollution emissions factors and to reflect the addition of new emissions sources and categories and types of equipment and vessels (
• Subpart C. This rulemaking proposes a rewrite of current subpart C regulations to address new air pollution prevention and control requirements so we are addressing all requirements as new. This subpart would require analysis and modeling for expanded air emissions and compliance reporting for those criteria and major precursor air pollutants that exceed the threshold, and allow for air emissions consolidation from multiple facilities (expanded from current regulations) (§§ 550.303 and 550.304; 6,626 hours, $1,000,000 non-hour costs for modeling). This subpart would also add the requirements associated with emission reduction measures, including but not limited to the BACT (§§ 550.306 through 550.310; 682 hours), as well as monitoring and reporting requirements, including the collection of data and maintenance of fuel logs (§§ 550.311 through 550.314; 17,986 hours, $2,455,000 non-hour costs); and general departure information (§§ 550.300 through 550.314; 10 hours). The proposed rule would create new subpart C with a total burden of 25,304 hours and $3,455,000 non-hour costs.
BOEM uses the information collected under subparts A, B, and C to ensure operations on the OCS are carried out in a safe and environmentally sound manner, do not interfere with the rights of other users, and balance the protection and development of OCS resources.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting and recordkeeping burden. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:
(1) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for BOEM to properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?
(2) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed collection reasonable?
(3) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality, clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(4) Is there a way to minimize the IC burden on those who must respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology?
In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping non-hour cost burden resulting from the collection of information, and we solicit your comments on this item. For reporting and recordkeeping only, your response should split the cost estimate into two components: (1) Total capital and startup cost component; and, (2) annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased (1) before October 1, 1995; (2) to comply with requirements not associated with the IC; (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 to 60 days after publication of this document in the
Please reference Air Quality, 30 CFR part 550, subparts A, B, and C (Proposed Rulemaking) in your comments. To see a copy of the IC request, with the draft proposed forms, submitted to OMB, go to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of proposed regulations when a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is likely and to consider regulatory alternatives that will achieve the agency's goals while minimizing the burden on small entities. In addition, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 note, requires agencies to produce compliance guidance for small entities if the rule has a significant economic impact. For the reasons explained in this section, BOEM has concluded that the proposed rule would likely not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) assesses the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, as defined by the applicable Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. The IRFA can be found in the Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (IRIA) within the docket for this rulemaking. The IRFA assesses the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, as defined by the applicable SBA size standards.
Based on this initial analysis, BOEM expects the implementation of this proposed rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). BOEM, however, is seeking comments on the IRIA to inform its analysis and conclusions regarding the degree to which this rule may have an economic impact on such entities.
As defined by the SBA, a small entity is one that is “independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.” The definition of small business varies from industry to industry in order to properly reflect industry size differences. The proposed rule would affect operators and holders of BOEM-issued oil and gas leases that are seeking to explore, develop or transport OCS oil and gas resources. BOEM's analysis shows that this could include about 130 companies with active operations. Entities that operate under this rule fall under the SBA”s North American Industry Classification System codes 211111 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction) and 213111 (Drilling Oil and Gas Wells) or 237120 (Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures). For these codes, a small company is defined as one with fewer than 500 employees. A small entity is one that is “independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.” Based on this criterion, approximately 90 (69 percent) of the 130 companies operating on the OCS are considered small and the remaining are considered large businesses.
Of the approximately 130 operators, a total of 56 companies submitted initial, revised, or supplemental exploration/development plans during calendar year 2013. Twenty-four large companies submitted 63 percent of the plans and thirty-two small companies submitted 37 percent of the plans. Operators not submitting exploration or development plans typically are continuing existing operations or hold leases undergoing geological and geophysical exploration.
Submitting an exploration or development plan is a necessary step before companies explore for hydrocarbons on the OCS or develop an economic prospect. All companies operating on the OCS including small entities must be well capitalized to undertake these multi-million or multi-billion dollar projects. The incremental cost for providing additional or consolidated air quality information for exploration plans, DOCDs or DPPs, ROWs or RUEs is a small cost in the context of an exploration or development project. Most of the compliance costs imposed as a result of this rulemaking are variable costs directly dependent on the complexity and number of plans submitted. Emission reduction measure costs would be directly related to the impact a project may have on a State's air quality. BOEM's first-order estimate for the rulemaking's small entity compliance costs is proportional to the number of plans submitted excluding ERM costs.
The compliance costs from this rulemaking may be less for most small
Using 2013 as a base, small companies submit about 37 percent of the plans each year and are expected to incur approximately the same proportion of costs. The incremental first year compliance costs for this rulemaking are projected to be $23 million and the peak year is $49 million. Some of those costs are for ERM or emissions credits on a very small number of projects which may or may not be owned or operated by small entities. The modeling, reporting and other costs range from $7 to $28 million each year and small entities operating in the GOM are estimated to incur a similar proportion (37 percent) of costs in each subsequent year. As described in more detail in the Executive Summary to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), these costs are expected to vary from approximately $3 million in the first year up to $10 million in the 10th year.
BOEM prepared an IRFA to assess the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, as defined by the applicable SBA size standards. The IRFA is prepared using conservative assumptions and seeks public comments on potential small entity impacts. This rule would only affect operators and federal oil and gas lessees that could conduct operations on the OCS. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, defines small entities as small businesses, small nonprofits, and small governmental jurisdictions. We have identified no small nonprofits or small governmental jurisdictions that the rule would impact.
For the reasons explained below, BOEM has concluded this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This incremental modeling and reporting costs for this rulemaking will generally be required of both the larger deepwater projects and near-shore projects. While there are smaller companies that explore and operate in deeper water, these companies are well capitalized and the incremental compliance costs for this rulemaking are estimated to be minimal when compared to the cost of drilling a single deepwater well.
Although BOEM does not believe that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, BOEM is requesting comment on the costs and impacts of the proposed policies in this rule on small entities. We will consider all comments at the final rule stage. We specifically request comments on the compliance cost estimates as well as regulatory alternatives that would reduce the burden on small entities.
This proposed rule:
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The compliance cost will not materially affect the economy nationally or in any local area.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; federal, State, tribal or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This proposed rule would have minimal effects on OCS operators and is not anticipated to impact oil and gas production or the cost of fuels for consumers.
c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule would have a negligible economic effect on the OCS oil and gas industry. BOEM has determined that the current costs of implementation of the current USEPA standards would likely not be significant, and that any costs associated with potential future USEPA actions are too speculative for purposes of analysis.
Pursuant to 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 so they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you believe this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, you may contact Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis at
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 to the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board. 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 BOEM, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule does not impose on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
According to E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. The rulemaking is not a governmental action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
The OMB has reviewed this rulemaking under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. OMB has determined this proposed rule is significant because it will potentially raise novel legal or policy issues. This rulemaking is not economically significant.
Executive Order 12866 provides the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB will review all significant rules. To the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (a) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (b) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with attaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to
(1) The proposed requirements in this rule would not have an effect of $100 million or more per year on the economy. The proposed rule would alter requirements for reporting emissions in an operator's exploration or development plan. The proposed rule also would require more accurate estimating and reporting of the emissions associated with offshore operations. The compliance costs for this rulemaking primarily relate to air dispersion and photochemical grid modeling, air pollutant emissions monitoring, air quality monitoring and the implementation of emission reduction measures (including the use of emissions credits). The remaining compliance costs are for additional paperwork burden hours identified in the section of the preamble on the PRA for Operators submitting EPs and DOCDs or DPP pipeline Rights-of-Way ROW, RUE and lease term pipeline applications. BOEM estimates the industry compliance costs for activities in the first year will be $23 million, the peak year (2020) $49 million and $290 million over 10 years discounted at 3 percent. The government staffing costs are estimated to be about $1.6 million per year and $12 million over 10 years discounted at 3 percent. BOEM estimates the total first year compliance cost for both the regulated industry and the government is $23.6 million, $51 million for the peak year and over 10 years is $302 million discounted at 3 percent. Additional information on the compliance costs can be found in the rulemaking's draft RIA posted in the docket.
The qualitative benefits for the proposed regulatory changes would be the improved ability to ensure the continued development of offshore facilities does not adversely impact any State, including its human population, economy and environment, as well as the improved information BOEM and States will receive regarding the expected air quality impacts onshore and above State submerged lands from OCS exploration and development. The proposed regulatory changes will require more accurate emissions information resulting from BOEM-authorized operations in both the Arctic and GOM. This improved air emission information will better ensure BOEM only approves plans that meet the requirements of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1331
Based on a consideration of the qualitative as well as quantitative factors related to the rulemaking proposal, BOEM's assessment is that it is necessary to achieve compliance with the requirements of the OCSLA and that the proposed rule's adoption would provide a net benefit to the public. The additional monitoring information required for certain plans will also permit the BSEE to better assess the air quality compliance for OCS operations on a plan-by-plan basis.
The table below summarizes BOEM's estimate of the 10-year quantifiable net benefits. BOEM has only estimated the quantified benefits of NO
BOEM does not expect that the proposed regulatory changes will be unduly burdensome to industry. The proposed requirements are intended to improve BOEM's review and approval of planned operations by requiring more accurate information and better assessments of the air quality impacts from OCS oil and gas operations. While many of the proposed regulatory changes require additional information from operators, the changes are not expected to increase the incidences of mechanical BACT on OCS facilities. BOEM expects that plans usually will employ ERMs and emissions credits as a response to failing to meet exemption thresholds. Mechanical BACT emission controls or other ERMs may be required for some projects due to the proposed requirements in this rulemaking if emissions credits are not available. Other exploration or development projects may require ERMs due to changes in the USEPA 1-hour NO
(2) The proposed rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The changes proposed in this rule would strengthen the environmental safeguards and provide additional information to BOEM and coastal States to assess potential impacts to air quality. As discussed in the E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments section of this preamble, BOEM will hold consultation meetings in Alaska.
(3) This proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. BOEM has consulted with the BLM, FWS, NPS, the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the USEPA and has proposed changes to align its regulations with those of the BLM, FWS, the NPS and the USEPA where applicable. While the proposed rule would allow the use of the MARPOL emissions standards as proxies for marine diesel engine emission factors for marine engines, the USCG and the USEPA will continue to enforce any applicable emissions limits on vessels. The proposed regulatory changes would improve the information available and facilitate BLM, FWS and NPS analysis regarding the air quality impacts on Class II areas and endangered species.
(4) This proposed rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(5) This proposed rule potentially raises novel legal or policy issues regarding consistency with other federal agencies or international vessel requirements. The novel legal and policy issues are the change in attributed emissions for plans as well as the proposed relocation of the compliance boundary from the shoreline to the offshore submerged lands (State seaward) boundary used for determining exemptions from more detailed air quality analysis and/or modeled compliance with NAAQS. This proposed rule formalizes the methodology for attributed emissions. The 25-mile radius traditionally used by BOEM will no longer apply; the projected emissions calculations account for all emissions supporting a plan's activity, including in certain cases support emissions from aircraft and onshore facilities.
BOEM has linked its air quality regulations, where applicable, to those of other agencies in multiple areas. Many USEPA standards have been explicitly cited and referenced. The Marine Pollution Convention (MARPOL) standards, which are covered in USEPA and USCG regulations, are incorporated. The BLM, FWS, NPS, and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture programs to maintain AQRVs, as part of the FLM process, have been explicitly referenced in the BOEM regulations. In addition, informal consultations have and will continue to take place with other federal and State agencies.
We have developed this proposed rule consistently with these requirements. The proposed changes in this rulemaking would update and better conform BOEM's air quality regulations to the requirements of OCSLA. The proposed air quality requirements would automatically be updated as the USEPA changes its standards with respect to which pollutants are potentially harmful and at what levels of exposure those pollutants cause harm. The proposed rule would replace various provisions in the current regulations with more comprehensive and up-to-date provisions based upon more recent science and technology. The rulemaking would better address DOI's mandate to evaluate the potential impact of any OCS development with respect to the probable impacts to most closely affected States.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this proposed rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The USEPA has determined, and BOEM agrees, that children are an at-risk group for health effects associated with exposures to certain air pollutants, including some pollutants released or formed from OCS operations.
This proposed rule addresses those air pollutants of greatest concern. BOEM welcomes additional comments on this topic and whether, or to what extent, the proposed rule addresses these relevant issues.
This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or a risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this proposed rule would not have any substantial federalism implications. This proposed rule would not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this proposed rule would not have any significant effect on that role.
A separate federalism assessment is not required and has not been prepared.
DOI strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. BOEM has evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and has determined this proposed rule would not cause a substantial direct or adverse effect on any Federally-recognized Indian tribe.
There are a number of reasons why BOEM has come to this conclusion. There are many circumstances whereby the proposed rule has strengthened the requirements for identifying, measuring and tracking the emissions of air pollutants and no circumstances in which the proposed rule would relax or lessen any existing air quality requirements or standards. The proposed rule would incorporate the various enhancements to the current BOEM air quality regulatory process, including but not limited to the following:
• The proposed rule would incorporate all key USEPA air quality standards and benchmarks by direct cross-reference. Thus, BOEM's proposed regulations would both reflect current USEPA standards and would be updated automatically in the future if a new air quality standard or benchmark were to be promulgated by the USEPA.
• The proposed rule expands the circumstances under which emissions from MSCs would be accounted for in both exploration and development plans. MSC emissions would be tracked and reported whenever a vessel would be operating in support of a regulated facility, regardless of its distance from that facility.
The proposed rule would enhance the accuracy of the evaluation of emissions from support vessels by measuring all such emissions from the point at which they occur. The proposed rule mandates all potentially significant emitters of air pollutants maintain fuel logs, which can be used to calculate their potential emissions. This proposed rule contains new provisions for mandatory stack testing or the installation of meters when the Regional Supervisor determines emissions estimates may be unreliable or inaccurate. In circumstances where a lessee or operator proposes to use equipment that is not compliant with the USEPA requirements, the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to obtain relevant air pollutant emissions data from the equipment manufacturer or, alternately, to test the actual level of pollutants that are emitted.
The proposed rule does reflect changes Congress made with respect to the CAA when it granted Federally-recognized Indian tribes the right to regulate the air quality over their territories independently from the States. If such a tribe has been granted the authority to regulate its own air quality, by issuing air quality permits in lieu of the States, or if the tribe has implemented a tribe-wide air quality implementation plan to which new permit applicants must comply, BOEM would recognize this authority and grant the tribes the same authority as a State to appeal BOEM's approval of plans for OCS development activities. This authority would not be extended to all tribes, however, since a tribe may elect not to establish any air quality regulatory scheme. In the event that a tribe has not established its own air quality regulatory mechanism, there is no reason that it should have the same rights as a State under BOEM's regulations. Such a tribe would, of course, retain all the rights of public comment on rulemakings and to provide feedback to BOEM at public forums.
Although BOEM does not believe this proposed rule would cause any substantial direct or adverse impact to any Indian tribe, in order to inform such Indian tribe(s), DOI intends to initiate consultations with potentially affected tribe(s) on a government-to-government basis during the public comment period for this rule. BOEM will fully consider all tribal views and concerns before issuing a final rule on this topic.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” and have determined this rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. The IRIA provides a general discussion of modeling, monitoring and emission reduction compliance costs on potentially marginal GOM development projects.
E.O. 13689 recognizes the Arctic has critical long-term strategic, ecological, cultural, and economic value, and it is imperative we continue to protect our national interests in the region, which include: National defense; sovereign rights and responsibilities; maritime safety; energy and economic benefits; environmental stewardship; promotion of science and research; and preservation of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea as reflected in international law.
E.O. 13689 also recognizes it is vital that federal agencies work together to enhance coordination on Arctic efforts. Pursuant to this goal, the E.O. establishes an Arctic Executive Steering Committee (Steering Committee), to provide “guidance to executive departments and agencies (agencies) and enhance coordination of federal Arctic policies across agencies and offices, and, where applicable, with State, local, and Alaska Native tribal governments and similar Alaska Native organizations, academic and research institutions, and the private and nonprofit sectors.” DOI is a member of this Steering Committee.
Consistent with DOI's long-standing commitment to coordinate with other federal agencies on Artic matters, BOEM will work with the Steering Committee and other relevant agencies, including the USEPA, BSEE, FWS, NPS, BLM, and the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture.
The E.O. also recognizes “it is in the best interest of the Nation for the Federal Government to maximize transparency and promote collaboration where possible with the State of Alaska, Alaska Native tribal governments and similar Alaska Native organizations, and local, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector stakeholders.” BOEM intends to take action consistent with this
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further regulations must be based on the best available science and the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rulemaking in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 13563 also calls for consideration regarding a regulation's impact on employment. It states, “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” An analysis of employment impacts is a standalone analysis, and these impacts are not included in the estimation of benefits and costs.
BOEM does not expect the proposed rule's compliance cost will be great enough to close operations or prevent new ones from starting. However, employment reductions are possible in related activities if operators chose to slow development due to the provisions of this rulemaking. On the other hand, actions taken to comply with this proposed rule also will create employment opportunities; for example, consulting firms specializing in air quality analysis and modeling are likely to experience increased employment demand. As more companies need to model and maintain records of their emissions, new employment opportunities in the broad field of air quality analysis will emerge. While BOEM does not anticipate that companies will adopt an emission reduction measure like post-combustion SCR, the companies that install these mitigation technologies would benefit from increased demand for their equipment.
The proposed rule is not expected to generate either large negative or positive employment impacts. On balance, there will likely be adjustments on both sides among companies directly and indirectly affected by the regulation.
As stated in E.O. 12866, to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination its benefits justify its costs (recognizing some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with attaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive benefits; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information with which choices can be made by the public. BOEM has evaluated these options and made the determination there is no alternative that meets the need for this rulemaking and the proposed rulemaking is the best alternative for addressing the important policy objectives that BOEM is pursuing.
The proposed changes in this rulemaking would better ensure that BOEM's air quality regulations conform to the requirements of OCSLA. Unlike the current regulations, the proposed air quality requirements would automatically be updated if the USEPA changed its standards as to which pollutants are potentially harmful and at what levels of exposure those pollutants cause harm. The proposed rule would replace various provisions in the current regulations with more comprehensive and up-to-date provisions based upon more recent science and technology. The rule would better address DOI's mandate to evaluate the potential impact of any OCS development with respect to the probable impacts to most closely affected States.
E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(2)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require every agency write its rules in plain language. This means that, wherever possible, each rule must: (a) Have a logical organization; (b) use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) use common, everyday words and clear language, rather than jargon; (d) use short sections and sentences; and (e) maximize the use of lists and tables.
If you feel we have not met these requirements, send your comments to
We will post all comments, including names and addresses of respondents, at
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollutant, Air pollution, Air quality, Arctic, Attainment area, Continental shelf, Compliance, Criteria pollutants, Development plan, Development and production plan, Environmental assessments, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Exploration plan, Federal lands, Federal Land Manger, Greenhouse gasses, Hazardous air pollutants, Incorporation by reference, New source review, Non-attainment area, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas development, Oil pollution, Oil production, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Penalties, Pipelines, Precursor pollutants, Prevention of significant deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, (BOEM) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 550 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(a) 30 CFR part 550 contains the regulations of the BOEM Offshore program that govern oil, gas and sulphur exploration, development and production operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These regulations may require you, when conducting operations on the OCS, to submit plans, requests, applications, and notices, and, upon request, to submit supplemental information.
(b) The following table of general references shows where to look for information about these processes.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) Any criteria pollutant for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), in 40 CFR part 50, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA);
(2) Any precursor air pollutant identified by the USEPA that contributes to the formation of a criteria pollutant through a photochemical or other reaction, including, but not limited to, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH
(3) any USEPA-defined Greenhouse Gas (GHG), as defined at 40 CFR 98.6, pursuant to section 111 of the CAA; and
(4) Any USEPA-defined Hazardous Air Pollutant, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.
(d) In order to protect public health, you may be required or allowed by the Regional Supervisor to temporarily suspend the use of equipment that emits air pollutants, or to implement operational control(s) on the use of such equipment, when an adjacent State or locality declares an air quality episode or emergency, provided that any such suspension or operational control(s) would not cause an immediate threat to safety or the environment.
(e) With respect to published documents cited in these regulations, including those incorporated by reference in § 550.198, the following provisions apply:
(1) In each instance, the applicable document is the one specifically referred to, including any referenced supplement or addendum, and not any other version, supplement or addendum, even if by the same author, agency or publisher. You may comply with a later edition of a specific document incorporated by reference, provided you show that complying with the later edition provides a degree of scientific or technical accuracy, environmental protection, or performance equal to or better than would be achieved by compliance with the listed edition; and you obtain the prior written approval for alternative compliance from the authorized BOEM official.
(2) In the case of USEPA documents, you may always use the most recent version approved by the USEPA.
(f) If you apply for a RUE with a facility as defined in § 550.302 or you hold a RUE with such a facility, then you must submit the information required by § 550.205, except that the ten-year periodic review requirement in § 550.310(c) may be waived by the Regional Supervisor. For the purposes of this section, any provisions of those sections applicable to a lessee or operator should be read to refer equally to any RUE applicant or any holder thereof. If the RUE is approved or held as part of an existing or proposed plan, no additional air quality requirements would apply to the plan.
(a)
(b) The information provided must include the emissions of or the activity data necessary to calculate the emissions of stationary emissions sources, including all facilities, and all non-stationary sources, including MSC(s) and any other non-stationary emissions source(s) of air pollutants above the OCS or above State submerged lands that operate in support of your facility or facilities, as determined by the Regional Supervisor. You may request that the owner of such non-stationary emissions source(s) provide the information to BOEM or a BOEM-designated agent, but if the owner does not provide the information, the lessee, operator, or RUE or pipeline ROW holder is still responsible for submitting the required information.
(c) As part of the information required in this section, you must submit, in a form and manner as specified by the Regional Supervisor:
(1) Your facility and equipment usage, including hours of operation at each percent of capacity for each emissions source; and/or
(2) Your monthly and annual fuel consumption showing the quantity, type, and sulphur content of fuel used for each emissions source that generates air pollutants in connection with operations on the OCS.
(3) The information provided should be at a sufficient level of detail so as to facilitate BOEM's compilation of a comprehensive OCS emissions inventory of air pollutants.
(4) You must classify the emissions according to the appropriate Source Classification Codes (SCCs) as defined by the USEPA in FIRE Version 5.0: Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, incorporated by reference in § 550.198(b)(1)(iv).
(d) The Regional Director may waive or permit delay in compliance with the
(a) (1) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. In each instance, the applicable document is the one specifically referred to, including any referenced supplement or addendum, and not any other version, supplement or addendum, even if by the same author, agency or publisher. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, BOEM will publish a document in the
(2) The effect of incorporation by reference of a document into the regulations in this part is that the incorporated document is a regulatory requirement. When a section in this part incorporates all of a document, you are responsible for complying with the provisions of that entire document, except to the extent that the section which incorporates the document by reference provides otherwise. When a section in this part incorporates part of a document, you are responsible for complying with that part of the document as provided in that section. BOEM incorporated each document or specific portion by reference in the sections noted. The entire document is incorporated by reference, unless the text of the corresponding sections in this part calls for compliance with specific portions of the listed documents. In each instance, the applicable document is the specific edition or specific edition and supplement or addendum cited in this section.
(b) Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., MS6101A, Washington, DC 20460.
(1) AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, January 1995, incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b.
(2) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-B-14-055, July 2014, incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b).
(3) User's Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 Model, EPA420-R-05-013, December 2005 incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b).
(4) FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval System) Version 5.0: Source Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants, EPA 454/R-95-012, August 1995, incorporated by reference at § 550.187(c).
(c) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Environment and Energy, (AEE-100), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
(1) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) User's Guide, Version 2B, July 2015 (as amended) incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b).
(2) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), Version 2B, AEDT Standard Input File (ASIF) Reference Guide, May 2015 (as amended) incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b).
(d) International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
(1) Revised MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, and NO
(2) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“2008 Annex VI”), incorporated by reference at § 550.205(b.
(3) NO
All of the terms used in this section have the meaning described in § 550.302, unless defined in § 550.105. Except if excluded from the Air Quality Regulatory Program (AQRP) by paragraph (o) of this section, the requirements in this section apply to all plans, RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease term pipeline applications submitted in any area of the OCS in which the Secretary of the Interior has authority to regulate air quality on the OCS. Your plan must contain the following criteria air pollutant and major precursor air pollutant emissions information:
(a)
(1) For each emissions source, you must identify, to the extent practicable:
(i) Equipment type and number, manufacturer, make and model, location, purpose (
(ii) The type and sulphur content of fuel stored and/or used to power the emissions source; and
(iii) The frequency and duration of the proposed use.
(2) For every engine on each facility, including non-road engines, marine propulsion engines, or marine auxiliary engines, in addition to the information specified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must identify and provide the engine manufacturer, engine type, and engine identification, and the maximum rated capacity of the engine (given in kilowatts (kW)), if available. If you have not yet determined what specific engine will be available for you to use, you must provide analogous information for an engine with the greatest maximum rated capacity for the type of engine which you will use. If the engine has any physical design or operational limitations and you choose to base your emissions calculations on these limitations, then you must provide
(3) For engines on MSCs, including marine propulsion and marine auxiliary engines, in addition to the information specified under paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of this section, you must provide the engine displacement and maximum speed in revolutions per minute (rpm). If the specific rpm information is not available, indicate whether the rpm would be less than 130 rpm, equal to or greater than 130 rpm but less than 2,000 rpm, or equal to or greater than 2,000 rpm, based on best available information. If the actual MSC engine types needed for calculating emissions are unknown or cannot be verified, assume an MSC possessing the maximum potential emissions for the type of MSC you would typically use for your planned operations.
(4) For offshore vehicles, you must provide the information specified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the actual offshore vehicle engine types needed for calculating emissions are unknown or cannot be verified, assume an offshore vehicle possessing the maximum emissions for the types of offshore vehicles you would typically use for your planned operations.
(5) For any emissions source not described above, you must provide all information needed to calculate and verify the associated emissions, such as volumes vented, volumes flared, size of tank, and number of components.
(b)
(1)
(i)
(B) Testing should be done consistent with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 53 to the maximum extent practicable. Where the unique circumstances or requirements of the proposed operations make such procedures impracticable, alternative procedures may be implemented with the approval of the Regional Supervisor. As appropriate, you must use the General Provisions for Determining Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, at 40 CFR 60.8.
(ii)
(2) In the event that you elect not to measure the actual emissions for any given emissions source, select an emissions factor from one of the following references (references are listed in priority order; you may use a method only if all the methods identified above it are not available):
(i) You may use the emissions factor(s) that are vendor-guaranteed or provided by the manufacturer of the specific emissions source, if available; where a manufacturer has not provided an emissions factor for the emissions source you propose to use, you may use a manufacturer's emissions factor for a similar source only if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor that the emissions generated by your emissions source are the same as or lower than that for which a manufacturer's emissions factor is available. If you elect to use vendor-guaranteed or manufacturer data, you must demonstrate that:
(A) The fuel used by the manufacturer to generate the emission factors reflects the type of fuel that will be used by the engine in actual operation; and,
(B) The actual engine has not been modified outside the configuration used to generate the emission factors; thus, the emission factors used in the plan must represent the actual pattern of use for that equipment in operations.
(ii) You may use emissions factors generated from source tests required by the USEPA OCS permits as BOEM emission estimates for a specific rig. If emissions factors were not generated through testing for a particular engine, emissions factors generated from a recent and similar permit engine may be used. Data from a rig from the same manufacturer, having an engine of the same model and year is generally allowed, unless the Regional Supervisor has a reason to believe that such data may not be accurate or reliable.
(iii) You may use a model or table, as appropriate, developed by the USEPA or FAA, if available and appropriate to the emissions source, and you may use the emissions factors from that model or table.
(A) For commercial marine engines operating aboard MSC, excluding vehicles and aircraft, apply emission factors based on the classification of the engine (
(B) For non-road equipment used on the drill ships or platforms, non-road emission factors, rather than marine engine emission factors may be used. The primary source for these emission factors is the NONROAD portion of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model (
(C) For storage tanks, use the USEPA's TANKS model, or the most recent USEPA-recommended update or replacement, to generate emission factors, such as the AP 42 Compilation of Emissions Factors, Chapter VII, incorporated by reference at § 550.198.
(D) In the event that you are required to report emissions data from aircraft, use emissions factors generated by the AEDT, incorporated by reference at § 550.198, or from another appropriate model, or set of models, approved by the FAA, in the event that the AEDT does not contain emissions factors for the relevant aircraft proposed in your plan. AEDT emissions factors are available at:
(iv) You may use an emission factor from a published study conducted by a reputable source, such as the California Air Resources Board, a university, or research agency, if such source yields reliable emission factors or formula(s) to calculate emissions factors for certain types of engines and equipment other than for the large main engines on drilling ships and drill platforms and for locomotive-sized engines powering cranes. If an emission study is used, the study must cover representative engines, fuels, and duty cycles.
(v) For non-U.S. flagged vessels having non-USEPA-certified, MARPOL-certified marine engines, you may use the MARPOL Annex VI standards, available from the International Maritime Organization, incorporated by reference at § 550.198, or the Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, incorporated by reference at § 550.198, as appropriate taking vessel flag as well as engine size into account when determining the emission factor that should apply to an engine. With respect to calculations specifically for NO
(vi) For a natural gas-powered engine of any rated capacity, or for a non-road diesel-powered engine with a maximum rated capacity less than 900 kW, or for a non-engine emissions source, you may use the appropriate emissions factor from the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Emissions Sources, or any update thereto, incorporated by reference at § 550.198; or,
(vii) If you elect to use the methods described in paragraph (b)(2)(v) or (vi) of this section, you must take appropriate account of the deterioration in the performance of the equipment based on its age and the potential variation of the actual emissions from the standard to account for the maximum potential emissions that the emissions source may emit. Given that equipment tends to operate less efficiently over time, you should make an appropriate upward adjustment in the emissions estimates for older equipment. At any time you revise your plan, including resubmissions every ten years, you must consider the age of the equipment, adjust for any change in operating efficiency, and provide the associated emissions factors in your revised or resubmitted plan, as applicable.
(3) If the Regional Supervisor has reason to believe that any air emissions factor used in your plan is inappropriate, or new or updated information on emissions factors becomes available, the Regional Supervisor may require you to use a different emissions factor for any emissions source for any air pollutant. The Regional Supervisor may require you to perform stack testing, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or some other form of validation to verify the accuracy of an emissions factor.
(4) If you propose to utilize an engine or equipment that is not certified by the USEPA for use in the U.S., you may not use a USEPA emissions factor intended to apply to a certified engine or equipment. If you propose to utilize an engine or equipment that is USEPA-certified, then you must submit documentation of its certification.
(5) If your projected emissions include emissions for a U.S. flagged vessel, you must submit documentation of the USEPA-issued Certificate of Conformity for each engine on the vessel.
(6) If you propose to use any non-U.S. engine or equipment on a non-U.S. flag vessel that is not MARPOL-compliant, you may not use an emissions factor intended to apply to a MARPOL-compliant engine or equipment.
(c)
(1) Calculate total emissions generated annually by each emissions source on or physically connected to each of the facilities described in your plan that would result from the construction, installation, operation, or decommissioning of the facility. Such calculations should be done for each year that the plan states that the operator proposes to engage in operating activities, up to ten years. This calculation should be based on the maximum rated capacity of each emissions source associated with the facility, or the capacity that generates the highest rate of emissions, and the facility's maximum potential projected annual emissions, using the methods and procedures specified under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(2) Calculate the maximum 12-month rolling sum of emissions from each emissions source on or physically connected to each facility and the maximum 12-month rolling sum of emissions from each facility that would result from the construction, installation, operation, or decommissioning of the facility. Identify the 12-month period used for this calculation. This should be the 12-month period during which your facility generates the highest amount emissions over the life of your plan.
(3) Calculate the maximum projected peak hourly emissions from each emissions source on or physically connected to each facility and the maximum projected peak hourly emissions from each facility that would result from the construction, installation, operation, or decommissioning of the facility.
(d)
(1) For each facility described in your plan, identify the MSCs that will be used to support that facility. To the extent practicable, identify the other facilities that each MSC will support.
(2) For each MSC referred to in paragraph (d)(1) of this section:
(i) An MSC that is intended to remain at sea continuously (
(ii) For all other MSCs, calculate the emissions per trip, irrespective of what
(3) Multiply the emissions per trip from paragraph (d)(2) of this section by the number of trips the MSC will make during the 12 month period described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section to get the total support emissions for that MSC. If the MSC will remain at sea continuously, multiply the emissions it will generate per day by the number of days that it will operate in support of your facility during the 12 month period described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(4) If the MSC provides support only to your facility, then you must attribute the MSC's total support emissions to that facility.
(5) For each MSC described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that supports multiple facilities, you may attribute the total support emissions for that MSC to your facility or you may attribute a portion of its total support emissions to your facility (
(i) Subtract the emissions you can document that should be reasonably allocated to other facilities from the total support emissions calculated under paragraph (d)(3) of this section for that MSC; or
(ii) If it is not practicable to use the method in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section, divide the total support emissions calculated under paragraph (d)(3) of this section by the lowest number of facilities that the MSC will service on a typical trip; or
(iii) Where it is not practicable to use either paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, calculate the greater of:
(A) The emissions that would be generated by the MSC traveling round-trip between the port or home base and the facility; or
(B) The emissions generated by the MSC for the entire time it will operate within 25 statute miles of the facility.
(6) Calculate the sum of the emissions estimates that result from the calculation in paragraph (d)(4) or (5) of this section for every MSC identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. That sum represents the attributed emissions for your facility.
(7) All calculations must be based on the maximum rated capacity or the capacity that generates the highest rate of emissions for each of the relevant sources on every MSC.
(8) If BOEM questions your determination of the attributed emissions, the Regional Supervisor may require additional documentation to support your findings and may direct you to make changes, as appropriate.
(e)
(1) If any of your proposed facilities would be located in such a manner as to potentially constitute proximate activities with a pre-existing facility or a facility that was previously approved but not yet constructed, you must identify any such facility in your plan.
(2) If you are required to consolidate air emissions from multiple facilities, in accordance with the provisions of § 550.303(d), you must provide the projected emissions information for each facility and provide the complex total emissions for all of the consolidated activities.
(f)
(g)
(1) Table(s) of the appropriate and relevant maximum projected air pollutant concentrations over any area(s) of any State(s), including the most affected attainment area(s) and the most affected non-attainment area(s);
(2) Table(s) of the appropriate and relevant maximum projected air pollutant concentrations over any Class I area(s), if relevant;
(3) The maximum projected concentrations resulting from the projected emissions for each of your facilities, for each criteria air pollutant and major precursor air pollutant, for the corresponding averaging time(s) (
(4) A list of all inputs, assumptions, and default values used for modeling and justification for each, including the source and justification for the proposed meteorological information;
(5) The name and version of the model(s), and whether the model is listed on the USEPA preferred list of models in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W; and
(6) A modeling report, including the modeling results. If you have previously provided such a report and/or results of the analysis relevant to paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section to the Regional Supervisor, and the projected emissions are the same as or lower than in the previously submitted report(s) or results, you may instead provide a reference to such report and/or results.
(7) For each MSC, provide the distance from each facility described in your plan to the closest relevant home port (for MSCs other than offshore vehicles) or home base (for offshore vehicles), consistent with the maps and information you provide under § 550.224(e) or 550.256(b).
(h)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(i)
(i) The nearest mean high water mark of a State, or, on the Pacific coast, the nearest mean higher high water mark; or
(ii) The nearest Class I area of any State.
(2)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(2) The Regional Supervisor may require such additional data or information related to these sources as is necessary to demonstrate your plan's compliance with subpart C of this part, and/or applicable federal laws related to the protection of air quality within BOEM jurisdiction.
(n)
(1) All of the requirements of this section have been completed;
(2) You have completed the Ambient Air Increment (AAI) analysis, including the required BOEM forms, the modeling protocol, and the modeling results, as specified in § 550.307(b) if required; and
(3) You have completed any other analysis required by subpart C of this part.
(o)
(c)
(2) For purposes of this section, the term “facility” means any installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or device that is temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or other operations.
(f) Air emissions information required by § 550.205;
(d) * * *
(2) If any H
(e)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(g) Air emissions information required by § 550.205;
(d) * * *
(3) If any H
(e)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
The provisions of this subpart apply to any existing facility or proposed plan involving a facility or facilities operating on, or proposed to operate on, any area of the OCS where the Secretary of the Interior has authority to regulate air emissions pursuant to section 5(a)(8) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8), as amended, and jurisdiction pursuant to section 328(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7627(b), as amended, including OCS operations conducted pursuant to any plan approved under this part.
(a) Acronyms and terms used in this subpart, and in § 550.205, have the following meanings:
(b) Terms used in this subpart have the following meanings:
(1) An engine with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 liters installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 1990 but prior to January 1, 2000 that is subject to regulation 13.7 of MARPOL Annex VI; or
(2) An engine with a power output of more than 130 kW built on or after January 1, 2000 that is subject to regulations 13.1 through 13.6 of MARPOL Annex VI.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(1) BOEM will establish new EETs based on the factors listed in this paragraph and publish them in the
(i) The first time that BOEM establishes a new set of EETs, BOEM will publish a notice in the
(ii) Any time that BOEM determines that a revised EET should be established, BOEM will publish a notice in the
(iii) Until the date of the notice described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, a facility will not be exempt under this section if its projected emissions of any pollutant exceed EETs as calculated using the following formulas:
Where D is the distance of the facility from the shoreline, as identified in § 550.205(i)(1).
(C) For Pb, the EET value is the level defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
(iv) Subsequent to the date of the notice, a facility will not be exempt under this section if its projected emission of any pollutant exceeds an EET published in the notice.
(v) Because the USEPA's AAQSB are subject to change as scientific knowledge improves and because modeling and evaluation techniques may improve over time, BOEM will revise EETs on an ongoing basis. Thus, as the USEPA revises the NAAQS, or any applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM, at its discretion, will periodically revise its EET formula(s) or its amount(s) for the corresponding air pollutant(s), as appropriate.
(2) BOEM will determine new EET formulas taking into account the following factors:
(i) The absolute level of projected emissions;
(ii) The distance of the proposed facility or facilities from any State or from areas critical to natural resources, animals, and habitats;
(iii) The existing ambient air pollution in potentially affected States, trend in the ambient air pollution in those States, the associated attainment status of such areas, and the associated effects to public health and welfare;
(iv) Any USEPA AAQSB applied in this part;
(v) The types, frequency, and duration of any air pollutant emissions and their formation and/or dispersion characteristics;
(vi) The characteristics of the facility or facilities and MSCs, including the type and nature of the emissions sources, and the height of the associated points or stacks;
(vii) Prevailing meteorological characteristics in any given area, including air stability, relevant wind speeds and directions;
(viii) The amount of emissions from existing facilities and vessels in the vicinity of the proposed facility; and
(ix) Other necessary and appropriate considerations.
(3) BOEM will set the EET formulas within the following ranges:
(i) The minimum values in this range are determined by the formulas in table 1 to § 550.303.
(ii) The maximum values of this range are set by the following formulas:
Where
(4) If your projected emissions for any criteria air pollutant or precursor air pollutant exceeds the EETs as determined pursuant to § 550.303, then you will be required to perform air quality modeling in accordance with the requirements of § 550.304 and you may be required to apply controls, as described in §§ 550.305 through 550.307.
(d)
(i) The air pollutant emissions are generated by proximate activities (
(ii) You wholly or partially own, control or operate those facilities; in the event of a dispute as to what constitutes common ownership, control or operations, BOEM will make a determination by reference to the ONRR criteria defined in 30 CFR 1206.101 and 1206.151; and
(iii) The construction, installation, drilling, operation, or decommissioning of any of your facilities occurs within a contemporaneous 12-month period as the construction, installation, drilling operation, or decommissioning of any other facility; and
(iv) Such a consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities would generate emissions sufficient to exceed an applicable emission exemption threshold (based on the exemption review described in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this section).
(2) If any two or more facilities meet all of the conditions specified in (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, you must calculate the sum of the projected emissions from those facilities (including their respective attributed emissions) as the complex total emissions for your plan.
(3) BOEM will make a determination that you have appropriately considered the relevant data in your analysis of the complex total emissions.
(4) If you are required to consolidate projected emissions data from multiple facilities, then anywhere a requirement applies to projected emissions you must instead use complex total emissions, except with respect to the process by which projected emissions are determined for any given facility (as specified in § 550.205(d)).
(e)
(f)
(1) If the exceedance is for VOCs, you must control your emissions of VOCs in accordance with § 550.306, for a short-term facility, or § 550.307, for a long-term facility.
(2) If the exceedance is for any criteria air pollutant, then you must conduct modeling in accordance with § 550.304.
(3) If the exceedance is for NO
(4) If the exceedance is for NO
(2) If at any time you anticipate an increase in the maximum air pollutant emissions from a previously approved plan, you must submit a revised plan, pursuant to 30 CFR 550.283(a)(4).
(3) If you propose to make a change to your operations on your existing facility or facilities, but not to the equipment used in such operations, and your approved projected annual emissions in any given year are higher than those previously approved for the particular year, but lower than the maximum air pollutant emissions for any year, you do not need to submit a revised plan—as long as the operations would occur in the same year as described in the previous plan.
(4) If you propose to make a change to the equipment on your existing facility or facilities in a year or years where your plan already anticipated operations, and your proposed change would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions from that equipment for any air pollutant, you must submit a revised plan.
(5) If your plan was approved for a short-term facility that becomes a long-term facility, then you must submit a revised plan for review and approval by BOEM.
(h)
(1) BOEM may consult with one or more relevant FLMs to determine what
(2) BOEM will consider the views of the FLMs in determining whether your plan complies with the provisions of this subpart. Based on this consultation, BOEM may require additional information and analysis, either prior to or as a condition of approving your plan.
(3) If the FLM does not raise any concerns regarding your plan in a timely manner, BOEM will assume that the FLM has no objections to the proposed plan.
If your projected emissions or your complex total emissions exceed the limits defined in § 550.303(c) for any criteria or precursor pollutant, you must conduct modeling of that pollutant, and any other pollutant for which that pollutant is a precursor, to project the impacts of those emissions.
(a)
(i) A model approved by the USEPA, as described in appendix A to appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 (Summaries of Preferred Air Quality Models); or
(ii) A model included in the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup Guidance; or
(iii) Another model approved by the BOEM Chief Environmental Officer (CEO).
(iv) The BOEM CEO may disapprove the use of a USEPA-approved or FLM-approved air quality model, if the CEO determines that such model would not be appropriate in the OCS context.
(2) You must follow the modeling procedures recommended in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W, to the extent possible. You must provide BOEM with a copy of your dispersion modeling protocol and the associated data and assumptions used to do your analysis before you conduct modeling.
(b)
(1) Your projected emissions (or your complex total emissions where applicable) for the relevant precursor air pollutants exceed an applicable EET;
(2) An appropriate photochemical air quality model is available that:
(i) Meets the USEPA's requirements of section 3.2 of appendix W to 40 CFR;
(ii) Complies with the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup Guidance; or
(iii) Is another model approved by the BOEM CEO;
(3) BOEM has determined that adequate relevant information on background concentrations is available for the relevant location(s) in a potentially affected State(s).
(4) Upon request, you must provide BOEM with a copy of your photochemical modeling protocol and the associated data and assumptions used to do your photochemical analysis before you conduct modeling.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) To the extent practicable, your estimate of the incremental ambient air concentrations of any criteria air pollutant must consider not only the dispersion of each criteria air pollutant itself, but also the formation of any criteria air pollutant that may result from the dispersion or presence of any relevant precursor air pollutant(s). Specifically:
(i) Any analysis of PM
(ii) Any analysis of O
(2) BOEM may provide information though a Notice to Lessees to assist lessees and operators in evaluating existing ambient air concentrations, or changes in such concentrations over time if it determines that there is an effective means of estimating ambient air quality.
(i) In the event that BOEM has established appropriate background concentration data, or baseline concentration data, for any given pollutant, at any given location and point in time, you must use the data provided by BOEM.
(ii) In the event that BOEM has not established appropriate background concentration data for any given pollutant, for any given location, and point in time, you should use the relevant data from the USEPA for the closest appropriate location, as specified by the Regional Supervisor.
(f)
(g)
(a) For all criteria air pollutants other than PM
(b) For PM
(c) For O
(a) If any short-term facility requires ERM under § 550.303(f) for VOCs or § 550.305 for a CP, then you are required to conduct an ERM analysis to determine potential control options and their likely cost effectiveness. In
(1) Identify all available control technologies relevant to the emissions of the pollutant(s) for which ERM is required;
(2) Determine which of these options are technically feasible for your plan; a demonstration of technical infeasibility must be clearly documented and must show, based on physical, chemical or engineering principles, that technical difficulties would preclude the successful use of the applicable emission control technology or methodology.
(3) Rank the technically feasible control technologies by their emission control efficiencies (ECE) and determine their likely reduction of criteria air pollutant emissions (
(4) Evaluate the most effective ERM and document the results of your analysis; and
(5) Select reasonable operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment that are technically and economically feasible and that are designed to limit your facility's projected emissions to the greatest practicable extent, taking into consideration the effectiveness and the cost of implementation, for each option considered. You must demonstrate that you have chosen the most effective technically and economically feasible operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment for every pollutant requiring such controls that can be implemented cost effectively. As an alternative, you may propose an equivalent reduction through the use of emissions credits.
(6) If you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor that no technically feasible operational controls or equipment replacement(s) can be implemented cost effectively, then;
(i) For any given pollutant, if your emissions would affect only attainment areas, no ERM will be required with respect to that pollutant beyond that which was proposed in your plan.
(ii) If your emissions affect any non-attainment area for a specific pollutant, the Regional Supervisor may require the implementation of other ERM for that pollutant in lieu of operational controls or equipment replacement(s) as a condition of approving your plan. For any proposed BACT, you must provide a description of the associated energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other costs.
(b) Unless you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor that no technically feasible control technology can be implemented cost effectively, your plan must include:
(1) An evaluation of the ERM you select, quantifying and verifying the emission reduction measure(s) and associated cost(s);
(2) A description of how your selected operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment meet the criteria in § 550.309 for emission reduction measures; and a calculation of your revised projected emissions (or complex total emissions, where applicable), taking into account your selected operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment.
(c) Upon making a commitment to apply the appropriate operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment or other ERM in lieu of operational controls or replacement(s) of equipment, BOEM may approve your plan, provided all other applicable requirements have been met.
(d) In the event that BOEM obtains information or data that would indicate that your projected emissions may cause the NAAQS to be exceeded, the Regional Supervisor may require you to provide additional data, analysis, or modeling to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS or may require that you implement additional ERM so that the NAAQS are not exceeded.
(a)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if all the State areas potentially affected by your projected emissions of VOCs are designated as attainment areas for O
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if your projected emissions of VOCs potentially affect a State coastal area designated as a non-attainment area for O
(3)
(b)
(1) If all State areas affected by your emissions are designated as attainment areas, then:
(i) You must consider all relevant ERM excluding BACT, utilizing the process described for a short-term facility in § 550.306(a)(1) through (4).
(ii) You must conduct modeling for all of the air pollutants set out in the table at 40 CFR 52.21(c) using the reduced projected emissions that result from your proposed ERM. If photochemical models are required under § 550.304, then you must also perform photochemical modeling and add the results of those models to the results of the subsequent model results.
(iii) You must combine the ambient air concentrations resulting from the projected emissions of each relevant CP with those emissions of the same CP from other onshore and offshore sources which contribute to the consumption of the maximum allowable increases above the baseline concentration for each pollutant and baseline area as established in 40 CFR 52.21. Compare your results with the AAIs applicable to the Class area designation of the State area set out in table 40 CFR 52.21(c).
(A) For this analysis, use the ambient air quality concentration data specified in § 550.304(e)(2).
(B) As an alternative, you may instead model only the increment-related emissions increases and decreases between the baseline date and the modeling date (using emissions inventory data) for all relevant onshore and offshore sources, combined, and then compare the resulting modeled concentration change to the appropriate increment value, without regard to ambient background concentrations.
(iv) If your projected emissions affect State areas with multiple class area designations, then you must reduce your projected emissions to meet the AAIs set out in the table in 40 CFR 52.21(c), according to the requirements for each class area.
(v) If your proposed ERM are sufficient to reduce projected emissions, such that projected concentrations do not exceed any of the AAIs, you must then conduct the analysis described in § 550.307(b)(1)(vi). If your modeling results exceed the AAIs for any given air pollutant, then you must continue to apply additional ERM to sources to reduce that pollutant until additional modeling confirms that your projected concentrations do not exceed any AAI. Having done this, you must then conduct the analysis described in § 550.307(b)(1)(vi).
(vi) You must conduct additional modeling, adding the appropriate background concentrations defined under § 550.302 and specified in § 550.304(e)(2) to your results, in order to determine the relevant design concentrations. You must compare the design concentrations for each criteria air pollutant with the NAAQS set out in 40 CFR part 50. If any of the NAAQS is exceeded for any air pollutant for any period of exposure, then you must propose additional ERM, and repeat the corresponding modeling, until you can demonstrate that your design concentrations do not exceed the NAAQS.
(2) If your emissions affect any area designated as a non-attainment area, then you must evaluate BACT and other relevant ERM utilizing the process described for a short-term facility in § 550.306(a)(1) through (4) and consider all relevant ERM, including BACT. You must reduce the ambient impact of your emissions of all criteria air pollutants to a level that does not exceed the applicable SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). You must conduct modeling using your revised projected emissions and compare the results with the SILs. If photochemical modeling is required under § 550.304, then you must also perform additional photochemical modeling and combine the results of that modeling with the results of the subsequent dispersion models. If your results exceed any SIL for any criteria air pollutant for any averaging time, then you must apply additional ERM until additional modeling demonstrates that all projected emissions have been fully reduced so that no SIL is exceeded for any criteria air pollutant over any applicable averaging time. Having done this, you must then conduct the analysis described in § 550.307(b)(1)(vi).
(c)
(2) NO
(i) The potentially affected area is an attainment area for NO
(ii) The potentially affected area is a non-attainment area for NO
(3) VOC Waiver. A VOCs waiver could apply, as described in § 550.307(a)(3).
(4) Safety exception. If the implementation of a plan under these regulations would compromise the safety of the operation of the facility, and such implementation of any air quality standards or benchmarks cannot be otherwise addressed, then BOEM may waive the requirement to apply ERM.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) Information submitted by a State or local government, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe;
(2) A cumulative impacts analysis conducted for an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
(3) A compliance review of your proposed plan under § 550.232(b) for an EP, or § 550.267(c) for a DPP or DOCD; or
(4) The declaration by an adjacent State, or the USEPA, of an air quality emergency for a location that may be affected by air emissions generated by your operations.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Should your substantiating data indicate a range of ECE, you must utilize the more conservative estimates (
(2) ECE estimates of 100 percent are generally not acceptable, except in cases where there is clear and convincing and/or historical evidence to justify their use.
(d)
(1) If your plan is approved subject to the application of ERM, you must ensure that the emissions associated with each emissions source for which ERM is required complies with the emissions verification requirements of § 550.311. The Regional Supervisor may require that you install emissions measurement meters if the Regional Supervisor determines that such meters are necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement.
(2) If you propose or are required to install emissions meters or any other monitoring equipment, you must collect and maintain monthly logs of the relevant meter or monitoring equipment readings.
(e)
(1) You must acquire your emissions credits from emissions source(s), either offshore or onshore, that affect the air quality of the same AQCR.
(2) For a CP, the emissions credits that you propose must provide a net air quality benefit for the same pollutant; for a precursor pollutant, any emissions credits that you propose must provide a net air quality benefit for that CP for which the pollutant is a precursor.
(3) You must demonstrate to the Regional Supervisor that the emissions credit you propose binds you and any other parties who agree to lower their emissions.
(4) You must also demonstrate that any emissions reductions will last for a period of time sufficient to ensure your plan's continued compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The Regional Supervisor may periodically require you to certify that the emissions reductions are still in place.
(5) Any emissions credits must reduce emissions below rates otherwise required by law;
(6) In addition to BOEM, you must notify the appropriate State air quality control jurisdiction of your proposal to acquire emissions offsets and, if necessary, its need to revise the State Implementation Plan to include the information regarding the emissions offsets you have acquired. You must provide evidence of such State notification to BOEM before you commence any operations that rely on the associated emissions credits.
(7) Emissions credits are allowed in those circumstances where BOEM can readily verify the historical emissions from the facility to be used for the emissions credit, and the emissions reduction associated with the acquired emissions credit.
(8) The approval of an emissions credit will be contingent upon receipt of proper documentation and will not be granted if such an emissions credit would require BOEM to engage in ongoing monitoring to verify continued compliance.
(9) Nothing in these regulations is intended to restrict emissions credits from being obtained and shared by multiple lessees or operators.
(f)
(1) In the event that you elect or are required to apply equipment replacement on a facility as the selected form of ERM, both the method of replacement and the equipment must comply with all other applicable federal regulations.
(2) In the event that the equipment being replaced is part of an MSC subject to USCG regulation, such replacement must be implemented in such a manner as to comply with USCG regulations.
(a)
(b)
(1) If your plan was deemed submitted shortly after the effective date of a new or revised AAQSB, and you believe the immediate application of the new or revised AAQSB is impracticable or would otherwise impose an unreasonable hardship on your proposed operations, then you may request a deferral from the requirement to comply with the new or revised standard. The Regional Director will review your request and may with the concurrence of the Director grant a temporary deferral, not to exceed two years, from compliance with the new or revised AAQSB based upon a finding of impracticability or undue hardship.
(2) Upon a finding that noncompliance with a new or revised AAQSB would not significantly affect the air quality of any State, the Director may grant a departure from compliance with the revised AAQSB. The Director may condition the departure upon any requirement(s) deemed necessary to avoid causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS.
(c)
(2) In order to ensure that your emissions remain compliant with OCSLA, starting in 2020, BOEM will conduct periodic reviews of plans approved prior to the effective date of the new exemption thresholds. To accomplish this, from that year forward, you must submit the air quality component of your previously approved plan according to the following schedule, regardless of whether you have a change in emissions.
(i) The plan is due to BOEM on the same month as the month in which the plan was originally approved.
(ii) For an initially approved plan, the lessee or operator is required to resubmit the plan in accordance with the table in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) If a revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental plan is submitted within ten years from the date of the initial plan submittal, the new resubmission date would be ten years from the date of approval of the revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental plan.
(iv) If you fail to submit a revised plan as required under this section, then the previous approval of your plan is revoked. You may be subject to civil penalties or other appropriate sanctions for a regulatory violation, including the requirement to cease operations, as provided by 43 U.S.C. 1350.
(a)
(1) Your plan is approved subject to the implementation of BACT or emissions credits;
(2) Any emission source on your facility uses an engine that is not certified by the USEPA consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 1042 or 40 CFR 1043, for U.S.-flag vessels, or that is not certified to the MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13 requirements as required by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, for foreign-flag vessels operating in the U.S.
(3) The Regional Supervisor determines that your projected emissions, or complex total emissions, for any criteria or precursor air pollutant, calculated on either an annual basis or on the basis of a 12-month rolling sum, may significantly underestimate your actual emissions based either on historical data about your emissions sources or on ambient air monitoring.
(4) BOEM determines that your facility causes or contributes to an exceedance of the NAAQS in any State.
(b)
(1) Your measurement of actual emissions must include enough of your emissions sources to ensure that the actual emissions associated with facilities and MSCs operating under your approved plan are consistent with the projected emissions approved for your plan. You must consider every source that was included in your approved plan in addition to any source that would be classified as part of your projected emissions if your plan were resubmitted under the current regulations.
(2) BOEM will consider various alternatives for reporting of relevant emissions sources. One option would be to monitor only the following key pieces of equipment:
(i) For facilities, the required monitoring and reporting of engines would typically include:
(A) Onboard facility engines;
(B) Power generation engines;
(C) Hydraulic power units (HPU) engines;
(D) Deck cranes;
(E) Cementing units;
(F) Engines with a maximum power rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW).
(ii) For facilities, monitoring and reporting would typically exclude:
(A) Propulsion engines;
(B) Boilers and incinerators;
(C) Emergency generators;
(D) Lifeboat engines.
(iii) For MSCs the sources, monitoring and reporting would likely include:
(A) Propulsion engines;
(B) Power generation engines;
(C) Marine auxiliary engines; or,
(D) Engines with a maximum power rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW).
(iv) MSCs monitoring and reporting would typically exclude boilers and incinerators, emergency generators, and any engines onboard science vessels, OSVs, or lifeboats.
(3) Your demonstration must reflect your actual operations on the OCS and must be based exclusively on data derived from your actual equipment and not only on the basis of ECEs or fuel logs or activity data.
(4) You must be able to demonstrate that the data submitted to BOEM under this section is consistent with any data provided to BOEM under the requirements of § 550.187.
(5) You must provide the information required for this demonstration in a manner and on a schedule determined by the Regional Supervisor.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) You must retain this information for a period of no less than ten years. You must submit this information to BOEM on a schedule set by the Regional Director.
(2) If BOEM obtains the relevant data for your attributed emissions from an independent third party, then the Regional Supervisor may waive the requirement to submit fuel logs or collect facility and equipment usage information for MSCs.
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) BOEM may impose additional air quality requirements on facilities operating under already approved plans if an applicable AAQSB changes or if BOEM determines:
(1) Your operations are causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, either individually or in combination with any other offshore operations;
(2) Your plan was approved with either a NO
(3) Your plan was approved with a NO
(4) Your operation is emitting unauthorized air pollutants;
(5) Your operation is creating conditions posing an unreasonable risk to public health or welfare; or
(6) Your operation is violating any applicable federal, State or tribal law related to air quality.
(b) If a plan was approved for a short-term facility that becomes a long-term facility, a new air quality plan must be submitted for the facility under the standards applicable to a long-term facility. If this reclassification resulted from adverse weather conditions, or other circumstances beyond your control, that prevented operations in your lease area, the Regional Director may grant a temporary exception for a period not to exceed the number of months that you were unable to operate.
(a) A State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, may request the Regional Supervisor to supply it with the air pollution data regarding an existing facility's projected emissions, when such data are needed either for the updating of the State's emissions inventory or because a State believes an existing facility's projected emissions may cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
(b) The Regional Supervisor may require you to submit air pollutant emissions data to the State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, submitting such a request.
(c) The State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, submitting a request may submit information to BOEM that it believes indicates projected emissions from an existing facility may cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. You will be given the opportunity to present information to the Regional Supervisor that demonstrates that your facility's projected emissions do not cause such an effect.
(d) The Regional Supervisor will evaluate the new information submitted and will determine, based on the emissions data, the available meteorological data, and the distance of the facility from the SSB whether your actual emissions, including your attributed emissions, has the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
(1) If the Regional Supervisor determines that your existing facility's projected emissions are unlikely to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, the Regional Supervisor will notify the requesting State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, and you and explain the reasons for this finding.
(2) If the Regional Supervisor determines that your existing facility's projected emissions have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, you must submit the additional information that the Regional Supervisor requests in order for BOEM to determine whether or not your existing facility causes or contributes to a violation of the NAAQS. You must submit this information within 120 days of the Regional Supervisor's request, or within a longer period of time at the Regional Supervisor's discretion.
(a) When you apply for or acquire a ROW in any part of the OCS under the air quality regulatory jurisdiction of the Department, you must:
(1) Include in your application the information required by § 550.205; and
(2) Demonstrate that your activities will comply with the requirements of subpart C of this part.
(b) For the purpose of this section:
(1) Any requirement in either § 550.205 or subpart C of this part that refers to plans should be interpreted to apply equally to ROW applications except for the provision regarding the consolidation of multiple facilities (§ 550.303(d)) and for the periodic resubmission of plans (§ 550.310(c));
(2) Any requirement in either § 550.205 or subpart C of this part that refers to lessees or operators applies equally to ROW holders or grantees, except that no additional requirements apply to any proposed or existing pipeline ROW or lease term pipeline holders, that are already included within the scope of an existing or proposed exploration or development plan.
(3) BOEM will notify BSEE of its determination that you have provided the information required by § 550.205 and met the requirements of subpart C of this part. If necessary, BOEM will
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation is updating the regulations that govern the organization of the Department of Transportation and delegate authority from the Secretary to departmental officers, including the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, the Assistant Secretaries, the Inspector General, and the heads of the Department's Operating Administrations. This amendment responds to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2015, removes some delegations of authority that were unnecessary or inaccurate, and revises some delegations of authority to improve the description of current Department practice.
Effective April 5, 2016.
Michael A. Smith, Office of the General Counsel (C-10), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2917,
This final rule updates the regulations that organize the Department of Transportation and delegate authority from the Secretary of Transportation to other departmental officials, including the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, the Assistant Secretaries, the Inspector General, and the heads of the Operating Administrations. The purpose of this rule is to describe to the public and other government officials how the Department operates, which offices within the Department are responsible for which activities, and what authority each office exercises.
This rule updates part 1 on Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties in two ways. First, the rule responds to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405) and the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235 div. K, tit. I, 128 Stat. 2696). The rule adds delegations for new sources of authority from those laws. Second, the rule improves and simplifies the existing delegations of authority. It removes some delegations that were unnecessary or no longer described the exercise of authority within the Department. It revises and clarifies other delegations to more accurately describe current Department practice and ensure consistency with relevant statutory authorities.
This final rule does not impose substantive requirements on the public. It is ministerial and relates only to the Department's organization, procedure, and practice. Therefore, the Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary and that the rule is exempt from prior notice and comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). As these changes will not have a substantive impact on the public, the Department does not expect to receive substantive comments on the rule. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Department finds good cause for this rule to be effective less than 30 days after its publication in the
The Department has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There are no costs associated with this rule.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) does not require a written statement for this final rule because the rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure in any one year of $155,000,000 or more by State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector.
The agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Transportation revises 49 CFR part 1 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322.
This part describes the organization of the United States Department of Transportation and provides for the performance of duties imposed upon, and the exercise of powers vested in, the Secretary of Transportation by law.
(a) The Secretary of Transportation is the head of the Department.
(b) The Department comprises the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the following Operating Administrations, each headed by an Administrator who reports directly to the Secretary:
(1) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
(2) The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
(3) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
(4) The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
(5) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
(6) The Maritime Administration (MARAD).
(7) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
(8) The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
(9) The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).
(10) The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).
(a) In exercising powers and performing duties delegated by this part or redelegated pursuant thereto, officials of the Department of Transportation are governed by applicable laws, Executive Orders and regulations and by policies, objectives, plans, standards, procedures, and limitations as may be issued from time to time by or on behalf of the Secretary, or, with respect to matters under their jurisdictions, by or on behalf of the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, an Assistant Secretary, the Inspector General, or an Administrator. This includes, wherever specified, the requirement for advance notice to, prior coordination with, or prior approval by
(b) Subject to the reservations of authority to the Secretary of Transportation in § 1.21, the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, the Assistant Secretaries, the Inspector General, and the Administrators exercise the powers and perform the duties delegated to them under this part.
(c) For delegations of authority vested in the Secretary by Executive Order 13526 (see also Executive Orders 12958 and 12065) originally to classify documents as secret and confidential, see § 8.11 of this subtitle. Previous delegations of authority to Department of Transportation officials to originally classify information as secret and confidential are hereby rescinded.
For the purposes of this part:
(a) “Federal Aviation Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
(b) “Federal Highway Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.”
(c) “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.”
(d) “Federal Railroad Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.”
(e) “Federal Transit Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.”
(f) “Maritime Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Maritime Administration.”
(g) “National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
(h) “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.”
(i) “Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Administrator” is synonymous with “Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.”
This subpart sets forth the OST's key responsibilities, its basic organizational structure, and the line of Secretarial succession in time of need. It also describes the key responsibilities of OST officials, and sets forth delegations and reservations of authority to those officials.
(a) The OST is responsible for:
(1) Providing leadership in formulating and executing well-balanced national and international transportation objectives, policies, and programs to ensure the Nation has safe, economically competitive transportation systems that support U.S. interests, that are maintained in a state of good repair, that foster environmental sustainability, and that support livable communities;
(2) Chairing the Department's Safety Council;
(3) Stimulating and promoting research and development in all modes and types of transportation, with special emphasis on transportation safety;
(4) Coordinating the various transportation programs of the Federal Government;
(5) Encouraging maximum private development of transportation services;
(6) Providing responsive, timely, and effective liaison with Congress and public and private organizations on transportation matters;
(7) Providing innovative approaches to urban transportation and environmental enhancement programs;
(8) Overseeing the Department's multimodal freight policy;
(9) Providing effective management of the Department as a whole to ensure it achieves organizational excellence;
(10) Leading Department-wide efforts for greater transparency and accountability;
(11) Administering the Department's Livable Communities initiative to increase access to convenient and affordable transportation choices and improve transportation networks that accommodate pedestrians and bicycles;
(12) Coordinating the Department's credit and financial assistance programs by leading the Credit Council to ensure responsible financing for the Nation's transportation projects;
(13) Formulating and executing policies to ensure effective operation of the Department's aviation economic program including functions related to consumer protection and civil rights, domestic airline licensing matters, competition oversight, airline data collection, and review of international route negotiations and route awards to carriers; and
(14) Leading and coordinating Federal Government transportation fringe benefit programs.
(b) [Reserved]
(a)
(1) The Chief of Staff;
(2) The Executive Secretariat;
(3) The Departmental Office of Civil Rights;
(4) The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization;
(5) The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response;
(6) The Office of Public Affairs;
(7) The Office of the Chief Information Officer; and
(8) The Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance.
(b) The Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, the General Counsel, and the Assistant Secretaries for Administration, Budget and Programs, and Governmental Affairs also report directly to the Secretary.
(c)
(1) The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, which includes:
(i) The Office of Policy Development, Strategic Planning and Performance;
(ii) The Office of Infrastructure Finance and Innovation; and
(iii) The Office of the Chief Economist.
(2) The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, which includes:
(i) The Office of International Transportation and Trade;
(ii) The Office of International Aviation; and
(iii) The Office of Aviation Analysis.
(d)
(1) The Office of General Law;
(2) The Office of International Law;
(3) The Office of Litigation;
(4) The Office of Legislation;
(5) The Office of Regulation and Enforcement;
(6) The Office of Operations, which includes the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office;
(7) The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, which includes the Aviation Consumer Protection Division; and
(8) The Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
(e)
(1) The Office of Budget and Program Performance;
(2) The Office of Financial Management;
(3) The Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the Office of the Secretary; and
(4) The Office of Credit Oversight and Risk Management.
(f)
(g)
(1) The Office of Audit Relations;
(2) The Office of Human Resource Management;
(3) The Office of Hearings;
(4) The Office of Security;
(5) The Office of the Senior Procurement Executive;
(6) The Office of Financial Management and Transit Benefit Programs; and
(7) The Office of Facilities, Information and Asset Management.
(a) The following officials, in the order indicated, shall act as Secretary of Transportation, in case of the absence or disability of the Secretary, until the absence or disability ceases, or in the case of a vacancy, until a successor is appointed. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by the law, to depart from this order in designating an acting Secretary of Transportation.
(1) Deputy Secretary.
(2) Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.
(3) General Counsel.
(4) Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.
(5) Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
(6) Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.
(7) Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
(8) Assistant Secretary for Administration.
(9) Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.
(10) Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(11) Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
(12) Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.
(13) Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.
(14) Administrator of the Maritime Administration.
(15) Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
(16) Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
(17) Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
(18) Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
(19) Regional Administrator, Southern Region, Federal Aviation Administration.
(20) Director, Resource Center, Lakewood, Colorado, Federal Highway Administration.
(21) Regional Administrator, Northwest Mountain Region, Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Without regard to the foregoing, a person directed to perform the duties of the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3347 (the Vacancies Act) shall act as Secretary of Transportation.
The Secretary is the head of the Department. The Secretary exercises oversight of all of the OST components, as well as each of the Operating Administrations, and overall planning, direction, and control of the Department's agenda.
(a) All powers and duties that are not delegated by the Secretary in this part, or otherwise vested in officials other than the Secretary, are reserved to the Secretary. Except as otherwise provided, the Secretary may exercise powers and duties delegated or assigned to officials other than the Secretary.
(b) The delegations of authority in subpart C (Office of the Inspector General) and subpart D (Operating Administrations) of this part do not extend to the following actions, authority for which is reserved to the Secretary or the Secretary's delegatee within the Office of the Secretary:
(1) General transportation matters.
(i) Transportation leadership authority pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 301 (Duties of the Secretary of Transportation: Leadership, consultation, and cooperation).
(ii) Functions relating to transportation activities, plans, and programs under 49 U.S.C. 304 (Joint activities with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development).
(iii) Authority to develop, prepare, coordinate, transmit, and revise transportation investment standards and criteria under 49 U.S.C. 305 (Transportation investment standards and criteria).
(iv) Authority relating to standard time zones and advanced (daylight) time (15 U.S.C. 260
(2)
(ii) Submission to the President or Congress of any report or any proposed transportation policy or investment standards or criteria, except with the prior written approval of the Secretary.
(iii) Submission of the annual statement on systems of internal accounting and administrative control under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) (31 U.S.C. 3512 note).
(3)
(ii) Approval of requests for legislation which, if enacted, would authorize subsequent appropriations for the Department (31 U.S.C. 581b).
(iii) Transfer of the balance of an appropriation from one operating element to another within the Department (31 U.S.C. 581c).
(iv) Submission to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget of requests for the transfer of the balance or portions of an appropriation from one element to another within the Department (31 U.S.C. 665).
(4)
(ii) Recommendations to the Office of Personnel Management of approval of the qualifications of any candidate for a position in the SES or SL.
(iii) Recommendations to the Office of Personnel Management of a Lump-Sum Incentive Award in Excess of $10,000 (5 U.S.C. 4502).
(iv) Approval of the following actions relating to Schedules A, B, C, or D (5 CFR part 213) and noncareer executive assignment positions or incumbents, except for actions under Schedules A and B limited to one year or less at grade GS-9 or lower, or an equivalent level:
(A) Establishment or abolition of positions;
(B) Hires;
(C) Promotions other than quality and periodic within-grade promotions;
(D) Transfer of personnel to Schedule A, B, C, or D positions or non-career executive assignment positions, either permanently or on detail; and
(E) Transfer of personnel from Schedule A, B, C, or D or non-career executive assignment positions to career Civil Service positions.
(v) Approval of employment of experts or consultants.
(vi) Authority to determine the maximum limit of age for appointment of air traffic controllers as provided by 5 U.S.C. 3307(b).
(vii) Authority to develop, coordinate, and issue wage schedules under the Federal Wage system.
(5)
(ii) Requesting Presidential approval of a claim of executive privilege with respect to information requested by a Congressional committee or Member of Congress.
(iii) Making determinations prescribed by Executive Order 12968 as amended by Executive Order 13467 and 32 CFR part 147 relating to the adjudication and final denial of access to classified information to industry personnel.
(iv) Making those determinations or delegations prescribed by Executive Order 13526 that are reserved to the head of the Department.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Along with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary exercises oversight of all of the OST components, as well as each of the Operating Administrations, and overall planning, direction, and control of the Department's agenda. The Deputy Secretary:
(a) May exercise the authority of the Secretary, except where specifically limited by law, order, regulation, or instructions of the Secretary;
(b) Serves as the Chief Operating Officer; and
(c) Serves as the Chief Acquisition Officer.
The Deputy Secretary may exercise the authority of the Secretary, except where specifically limited by law, order, regulations, or instructions of the Secretary. In addition, the Deputy Secretary is delegated authority to:
(a) Exercise executive control over Departmental Budgeting and Program Evaluation.
(b) Serve as Chairman of the Departmental Executive Resources Board and its Executive Committee.
(c) Serve as the Chair of the Department's Safety Council.
(d) Serve as the Chair of the Department's Credit Council.
(e) Approve the establishment, modification, extension, or termination of:
(1) Department-wide (intra-department) committees affecting more than one program.
(2) OST-sponsored interagency committees.
(f) Approve the designation of:
(1) Departmental representatives and the chairman for interagency committees sponsored by the Office of the Secretary.
(2) Departmental members for international committees.
(g) Serve as the representative of the Secretary on the board of directors of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and carry out the functions vested in the Secretary as a member of the board by 49 U.S.C. 24302.
(h) Approve the initiation of regulatory action, as defined in Executive Order 12866, by Secretarial offices and Operating Administrations.
The Under Secretary provides leadership in the Department's development of policies and programs to protect and enhance the safety, adequacy, and efficiency of the transportation system and services. The Office of the Under Secretary serves as the focal point within the Federal Government for coordination of intermodal transportation policy, which brings together departmental intermodal perspectives, advocates intermodal interests, and provides secretarial leadership and visibility on issues that involve or affect more than one Operating Administration.
The Under Secretary is delegated the following authorities:
(a) Lead the development of transportation policy and serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all transportation policy matters.
(b) Establish policy and ensure uniform departmental implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) within the Department of Transportation.
(c) Oversee the implementation of 49 U.S.C. 303 (Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites).
(d) Represent the Secretary of Transportation on various interagency boards, committees, and commissions to include the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Trade Policy Review Group and the Trade Policy Staff Committee.
(e) Serve as the Department's designated principal conservation officer pursuant to section 656 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 94-91 [42 U.S.C. 7266], and carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 656 of the Act, which pertains to planning and implementing energy conservation matters with the Department of Energy.
(f) Carry out the functions of the Secretary pertaining to aircraft with respect to Transportation Order T-1 (44 CFR chapter IV) under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, Pub. L. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 [50 U.S.C. App. 2061
(g) Serve as Department of Transportation member of the Interagency Group on International Aviation, and pursuant to Executive Order 11382, as amended, serve as Chair of the Group.
(h) Serve as second alternate representing the Secretary of Transportation to the Trade Policy Committee as mandated by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (5 U.S.C. App. at 1381), as amended, and Executive Order 12188, as amended.
(i) As supplemented by 14 CFR part 385, and except as provided in §§ 1.99(j) (RITA), and 1.27 (General Counsel) of this part, carry out the functions transferred to the Department from the Civil Aeronautics Board and other related functions and authority vested in the Secretary under the following:
(1) Sections 40103(a)(2) (relating to the consultation with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board before prescribing regulations or procedures that will have a significant impact on accessibility of commercial airports for handicapped individuals), and (c) (relating to foreign aircrafts); 40105 (relating to international negotiations, agreements, and obligations); 40109(a), (c), (g), 46301(b) (smoke alarm penalty), (d), (f), (g) (relating to the authority to exempt certain air carriers) and (h); 40113(a) and (c); 40114(a) (relating to reports and records); 40115 (relating to the withholding of information from public disclosure) of Chapter 401 of 49 U.S.C.; and 40116 (relating to the Anti-Head Tax Act);
(2) The following chapters of title 49, U.S.C., except as related to departmental regulation of airline consumer protection and civil rights which is delegated to the General Counsel at § 1.27:
(i) Chapter 411 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to air carrier certification;
(ii) Chapter 413 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to foreign air transportation;
(iii) Chapter 415 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to pricing;
(iv) Chapter 417 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to the operations of air carriers, except sections 41721-41723;
(v) Chapter 419 of title 49, U.S.C. and 39 U.S.C. 5402, relating to the transportation of mail; and
(vi) Section 42303 of 49 U.S.C., relating to the management of the Web site regarding the use of insecticides in passenger aircraft.
(3) Section 42111 of title 49, U.S.C. with respect to mutual aid agreements as it relates to foreign air transportation;
(4) Chapters 461 and 463 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to aviation investigations, proceedings, and penalties under Part A of Subtitle VII of title 49, U.S.C. except for those sections delegated to the General Counsel under § 1.27, and to the Federal Aviation Administrator under § 1.83;
(5) Chapter 473 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to international airport facilities.
(6) Section 11 of the Clayton Act, Pub. L. 63-212 [15 U.S.C. 21], relating to air carriers and foreign air carriers.
(7) Section 3 of An Act to Encourage Travel in the United States, and for other purposes, Pub. L. 76-755, 54 Stat. 773 [16 U.S.C. 18b].
(8) Sections 108(a)(4), 621(b)(5), 704(a)(5), and 814(b)(5) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Pub. L. 90-321 [15 U.S.C. 1607(a)(4), 1681s(b)(5), 1691c(a)(5), and 1692l(b)(5)].
(j) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 44907(b)(1), (c), and (e) related to the security of foreign airports in coordination with the General Counsel, the Federal Aviation Administrator, and the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
(k) Carry out section 101(a)(2) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. 107-42 [49 U.S.C. 40101 note], as delegated to the Secretary of Transportation by the President pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum dated September 25, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 911.
(l) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by section 11143 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (SAFETEA-LU), to manage the day-to-day activities associated with implementation of section 11143 regarding private activity bonds and tax-exempt financing of highway projects and rail-truck facilities.
(m) In coordination with the General Counsel, carry out the duties of the Secretary under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to establish the values of time and statistical life in connection with assessing the costs and benefits of Departmental regulatory action.
(n) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 47129, relating to resolution of disputes over the reasonableness of fees imposed upon air carriers.
(o) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 167(f) (National Freight Strategic Plan).
(a) The Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy is redelegated authority to:
(1)(i) Redelegate and authorize successive redelegation of authority granted in this paragraph (a) to officials within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, except as limited by law or specific administrative reservation.
(ii) Publish, in appendix A of this part, redelegations made under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Establish policy and maintain oversight of implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) within the Department of Transportation.
(3) Oversee the implementation of 49 U.S.C. 303 (Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites).
(4) Represent the Secretary of Transportation on various interagency boards, committees, and commissions to include the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Trade Policy Review Group and the Trade Policy Staff Committee.
(5) Serve as the Department's designated principal conservation officer pursuant to section 656 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 94-91 [ 42 U.S.C. 7266], and carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 656 of the Act, which pertains to planning and implementing energy conservation matters with the Department of Energy.
(6) Carry out the functions of section 42303 of 49 U.S.C., relating to the management of the Web site regarding
(7) In coordination with the General Counsel, carry out the duties of the Secretary under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to establish the value of statistical life in connection with assessing the costs and benefits of Departmental regulatory action.
(8) Carry out the duties of the Secretary under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to establish the value of time in connection with assessing the costs and benefits of Departmental regulatory action.
(b) The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs is redelegated authority to:
(1)(i) Redelegate and authorize successive redelegation of authority granted in this paragraph (b) to officials within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, except as limited by law or specific administrative reservation.
(ii) Publish, in appendix A of this part, redelegations made under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Carry out the functions of the Secretary pertaining to aircraft with respect to Transportation Order T-1 (44 CFR chapter IV) under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, Pub. L. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 [50 U.S.C. App. 2061
(3) Serve as Department of Transportation member of the Interagency Group on International Aviation, and pursuant to Executive Order 11382, serve as Chair of the Group.
(4) Serve as second alternate representing the Secretary of Transportation to the Trade Policy Committee as mandated by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (5 U.S.C. App. at 1381), as amended, and Executive Order 12188.
(5) Represent the Department of Transportation at the Trade Policy Committee Review Group and the Trade Policy Staff Committee, which were established at 15 CFR part 2002 as subordinate bodies of the Trade Policy Committee.
(6) As supplemented by 14 CFR part 385, and except as provided in §§ 1.99 (RITA), and 1.27 (General Counsel), carry out the functions transferred to the Department from the Civil Aeronautics Board and other related functions and authority vested in the Secretary under the following provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.:
(i) Sections 40103(a)(2) (relating to the consultation with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board before prescribing regulations or procedures that will have a significant impact on accessibility of commercial airports for handicapped individuals), and (c) (relating to foreign aircrafts); 40105 (relating to international negotiations, agreements, and obligations); 40109(a), (c), (g), 46301(b) (smoke alarm penalty), (d), (f), (g) (relating to the authority to exempt certain air carriers) and (h); 40113(a) and (c); 40114(a) (relating to reports and records); 40115 (relating to the withholding of information from public disclosure; and 40116 (relating to the Anti-Head Tax Act);
(ii) The following chapters of title 49, U.S.C., except as related to departmental regulation of airline consumer protection and civil rights which is delegated to the General Counsel at § 1.27:
(A) Chapter 411, relating to air carrier certification;
(B) Chapter 413, relating to foreign air transportation;
(C) Chapter 415, relating to pricing;
(D) Chapter 417, relating to the operations of air carriers, except section 41721-41723;
(E) Chapter 419, and 39 U.S.C. 5402, relating to the transportation of mail;
(iii) Section 42111 of title 49, U.S.C. with respect to mutual aid agreements as it relates to foreign air transportation;
(iv) Chapters 461 and 463 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to aviation investigations, proceedings, and penalties under Part A of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII except for those sections delegated to the General Counsel under § 1.27, and to the Federal Aviation Administrator under § 1.83;
(v) Chapter 473 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to international airport facilities.
(vi) Section 11 of the Clayton Act, Pub. L. 63-212 [15 U.S.C. 21], relating to air carriers and foreign air carriers.
(vii) Section 3 of An Act to Encourage Travel in the United States, and for other purposes, Pub. L. 76-755, 54 Stat. 773 [16 U.S.C. 18b].
(viii) Sections 108(a)(4), 621(b)(5), 704(a)(5), and 814(b)(5) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Pub. L. 90-321 [15 U.S.C. 1607(a)(4), 1681s(b)(5), 1691c(a)(5), and 1692l(b)(5)].
(7) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 44907(b)(1), (c), and (e) related to the security of foreign airports in coordination with the General Counsel, the Federal Aviation Administrator, and the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
(8) Carry out section 101(a)(2) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. 107-42 [49 U.S.C. 40101 note], as delegated to the Secretary of Transportation by the President pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum dated September 25, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 911.
(9) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 47129, relating to resolution of disputes over the reasonableness of fees imposed upon air carriers.
The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department, legal advisor to the Secretary, and final authority within the Department on questions of law. The Office of the General Counsel provides legal advice to the Secretary and secretarial offices, and supervision, coordination, and review of the legal work of the Chief Counsel Offices in the Department. The General Counsel participates with each Operating Administrator in the performance reviews of Chief Counsel. The General Counsel is responsible for retention of outside counsel, and for the approval of the hiring and promotion of departmental attorneys (other than in the Federal Aviation Administration). The General Counsel is also responsible for departmental regulation under statutes including the Air Carrier Access Act, statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, and the Uniform Time Act. The General Counsel coordinates all international legal matters, and departmental participation in proceedings before other federal and state agencies. The General Counsel provides oversight of departmental litigation, regulation, legislation, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and administrative enforcement.
The General Counsel is delegated authority to:
(a) Conduct all rulemaking proceedings under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, and the Uniform Time Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 260
(b) Determine the practicability of applying the standard time of any standard time zone to the movements of any common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and issue operating exceptions in any case in which the General Counsel determines that it is impractical to apply the standard time (49 CFR 71.1).
(c) Issue regulations making editorial changes or corrections to the regulations of the Office of the Secretary.
(d) Grant permission, under specific circumstances, to deviate from a policy or procedure prescribed by the regulations of the Office of the Secretary (49 CFR part 9) with respect to the testimony of OST employees as witnesses in legal proceedings, the serving of legal process and pleadings in legal proceedings involving the Secretary or his Office, and the production of records of that Office pursuant to subpoena.
(e) Respond to petitions for rulemaking or petitions for exemptions in accordance with 49 CFR 5.13(c) (Processing of petitions), and notify petitioners of decisions in accordance with 49 CFR 5.13(d).
(f) Provide counsel to employees on questions of conflict of interest covered by departmental regulations on employee responsibility and conduct.
(g) Coordinate the issuance of proposed Executive Orders and proclamations for transmittal to the Office of Management and Budget for action by the White House.
(h) Except with respect to proceedings relating to safety fitness of an applicant (49 U.S.C. 307), decide on requests to intervene or appear before courts (with the consent of the Department of Justice) or agencies to present the views of the Department, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary.
(i) Exercise the authority delegated to the Department by the Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division, in his order of October 2, 1970, to approve the sufficiency of the title to land being acquired by purchase or condemnation by the United States for the use of the Department. (See also Appendix 1 relating to delegations to Operating Administration Chief Counsel).
(j) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 28 U.S.C. 2672 and 28 CFR part 14, related to the administrative disposition of federal tort claims, for claims involving the Office of the Secretary.
(k) Compromise, suspend collection action on, or terminate claims of the United States that are referred to, or arise out of the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
(l) Conduct coordination with foreign governments under section 118 of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (30 U.S.C. 1428).
(m) Exercise review authority under 49 U.S.C. 41307 (related actions about foreign air transportation) delegated to the Secretary by the President in Executive Order 12597.
(n) Assist and protect consumers in their dealings with the air transportation industry and conduct all departmental regulation of airline consumer protection and civil rights pursuant to chapters 401 (General Provisions), 411 (Air Carrier Certificates), 413 (Foreign Air Transportation), 417 (Operations of Carriers), and 423 (Passenger Air Service Improvements) of title 49 U.S.C.
(o) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b) (Security and research and development activities), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15 (Protection of Sensitive Security Information), in consultation and coordination with the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response.
(p) Appear on behalf of the Department on the record in hearing cases, and initiate and carry out enforcement actions on behalf of the Department, under the authority transferred to the Department from the Civil Aeronautics Board as described in §§ 1.25 and 1.25a (delegations to and redelegations by the Under Secretary), and 1.99 (RITA). This includes the authority to compromise penalties under 49 U.S.C. 46301 (civil penalties); to issue appropriate orders, including cease and desist orders, under 49 U.S.C. 46101 (complaints and investigations); and to require the production of information, under 49 U.S.C. 41708, enter carrier property and inspect records, under 49 U.S.C. 41709, and inquire into the management of the business of a carrier under 49 U.S.C. 41711 (Air carrier management inquiry and cooperation with other authorities), as appropriate to the enforcement responsibilities. In the event that such an enforcement matter comes before the Secretary of Transportation for adjudication, the Deputy General Counsel shall advise the Secretary.
(q) Initiate and carry out enforcement actions relating to:
(1) Foreign airport security on behalf of the Department under 49 U.S.C. 44907; and
(2) The Consumer Credit Protection Act under section 4(a)(5) of the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-443) [15 U.S.C. 1607(a)(4), 1681s(b)(5), 1691c(a)(5) and 1692l(b)(5)].
(r) Administer 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA) and 49 CFR part 7 (Public Availability of Information) in connection with the records of the Office of the Secretary and issue procedures to ensure uniform departmental implementation of statutes and regulations regarding public access to records.
(s) Prepare reports by carriers on incidents involving animals during air transport pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41721.
(t) Exercise authority vested in the Secretary by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321), to promulgate rules that adjust civil penalties with respect to aviation enforcement.
(u) In coordination with the Under Secretary, to carry out the duties of the Secretary under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to establish the value of statistical life in connection with assessing the costs and benefits of Departmental regulatory action.
(v) Approve the initiation of regulatory action, as defined in Executive Order 12866, by Secretarial offices and Operating Administrations in the event that the Deputy Secretary is absent or otherwise unavailable to exercise such authority (see § 1.23(h)).
(w) Approve requests to reclassify rulemakings as non-significant under DOT procedures.
The career Deputy General Counsel is delegated authority to:
(a) Serve as the Department's Designated Agency Ethics Official in accordance with 5 CFR 2638.202;
(b) Serve as the Department's Dispute Resolution Specialist pursuant to section 3(b) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-320, 5 U.S.C. App.; and
(c) Serve as the Department's Chief FOIA Officer under 5 U.S.C. 552(j).
The Assistant General Counsel for General Law is delegated authority to serve as the Department's Alternate Agency Ethics Official in accordance with 5 CFR 2638.202.
(a) In performing their functions, the Assistant Secretaries are responsible for continuing liaison and coordination among themselves and with the Operating Administrations to:
(1) Avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by or in conflict with the performance of similar activities by the Operating Administrations and the other Assistant Secretaries pursuant to their Secretarial delegations of authority or other legal authorities; and
(2) Assure that the views of the Operating Administrations are considered in developing departmental policies, plans, and proposals. The Assistant Secretaries are also available to assist, as appropriate, the Operating Administrations in implementing departmental policy and programs. As primary staff advisors to the Secretary,
(b) There are exceptions to the normal staff role described in paragraph (a) of this section. In selected instances, the Secretary has specifically delegated to Assistant Secretaries authority which they may exercise on the Secretary's behalf.
The Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy provides policy advice to the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy is responsible for: Public policy development, coordination, and evaluation for all aspects of transportation, except in the areas of aviation and international affairs, with the goal of making the Nation's transportation resources function as an integrated national system; evaluation of private transportation sector operating and economic issues; evaluation of public transportation sector operating and economic issues; regulatory and legislative initiatives and review; energy, environmental, disability, and safety policy and program development and review; and transportation infrastructure assessment and review. For delegations to the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, see § 1.25a(a).
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs is responsible for policy development, coordination, and evaluation of issues involving aviation, as well as international issues involving all areas of transportation; private sector evaluation; international transportation and transport-related trade policy and issues; regulatory and legislative initiatives and review of maritime/shipbuilding policies and programs; transport-related trade promotion; coordination of land transport relations with Canada and Mexico; economic regulation of the airline industry while placing maximum reliance on market forces and on actual and potential competition; the essential air service program and other rural air service programs; and, in coordination with the FAA, promotion of the aerospace industry. For delegations to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, see § 1.25a(b).
(a) The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is the principal budget and financial advisor to the Secretary and serves as Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The CFO and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs provides oversight and policy guidance for all budget, financial management, program performance, and internal control activities of the Department and its Operating Administrations.
(b) The CFO and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs concurs in the appointment and promotion of Chief Financial Officers, Budget Officers, and Directors of Finance of the Department and its Operating Administrations, and participates with each Administrator in the performance reviews of Chief Financial Officers, Budget Officers, and Directors of Finance in each of the Operating Administrations.
(c) The CFO and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer, may designate any information technology system as a financial management system under the CFO's policy and oversight area of responsibility.
(d) The CFO and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs serves as the Vice Chair of the Department's Credit Council. The Office of the Assistant Secretary supports the Department's Credit Council by analyzing applications for the Department's various credit programs. The CFO also oversees the TIFIA program and the TIFIA Joint Program Office on behalf of the Secretary, including the evaluation of individual projects, and provides overall policy direction and program decisions for the TIFIA program.
(e) The CFO and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is responsible for preparation, review, and presentation of Department budget estimates; liaison with the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget and Appropriations Committees; preparation of the Department's annual financial statements; departmental financial plans, apportionments, reapportionments, reprogrammings, and allotments; program and systems evaluation and analysis; program evaluation criteria; program resource plans; analysis and review of legislative proposals and one-time reports and studies required by Congress; and budget and financial management relating to the Office of the Secretary.
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is delegated authority to:
(a) Serve as the Department's Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 901 (Establishment of Agency Chief Financial Officers).
(b) Exercise day-to-day operating management responsibility over the Office of Budget and Program Performance, the Office of the OST Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Financial Management, and the Office of Credit Oversight and Risk Management.
(c) Direct and manage the Departmental planning, evaluation, budget, financial management, and internal control activities.
(d) Exercise oversight and provide exclusive policy guidance to the Enterprise Services Center (ESC) regarding all financial management activities conducted by ESC and financial systems operated by ESC. This authority includes concurrence with any organizational changes within the Federal Aviation Administration that may affect financial management operations of the ESC.
(e) Request apportionment or reapportionment of funds by the Office of Management and Budget, provided that no request for apportionment or reapportionment which anticipates the need for a supplemental appropriation shall be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget without appropriate certification by the Secretary.
(f) Issue allotments or allocations of funds to components of the Department.
(g) Authorize and approve official travel and transportation for staff members of the Immediate Office of the Secretary including authority to sign and approve related travel orders and travel vouchers, but not including requests for overseas travel.
(h) Issue monetary authorizations for use of reception and representation funds.
(i) Except as otherwise delegated, establish or operate or both, any special funds that are required by statute or administrative determination.
(j) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 31 U.S.C. 3711 to collect, compromise, suspend collection action on, or terminate claims of the United States which are referred to, or arise out of the activities of, the Office of the Secretary (excluding claims pertaining to the Working Capital Fund), subject to the limits on that authority imposed by 31 U.S.C. 3711 and the Federal Claims
(k) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-204) (33 U.S.C. 3301 note).
(l) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-300) (31 U.S.C. 3321 note).
(m) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Recovery Auditing Act (Section 831, Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107)).
(n) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3512 note).
(o) Exercise the Secretary's authority under Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) (31 U.S.C. 3512 note).
(p) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 3512), as amended by FMFIA.
(q) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-623).
(r) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, 31 U.S.C. 3515.
(s) Exercise the Secretary's authority under the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA) (Pub. L. 103-356).
(t) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 5 U.S.C. 5584 and the OMB memorandum, “Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316” (December 17, 1996) to waive claims of the United States arising out of an erroneous payment to an employee of pay or allowances, or travel, transportation, or relocation expenses and allowances, and deny requests for waiver of such claims.
(u) Serve as the Department's Performance Improvement Officer under 31 U.S.C. 1124.
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs serves as the Department's primary point of contact for Congressional offices, as well as State and locally elected officials; works with other departmental offices to ensure that Congressional mandates are fully implemented by the Department; and works with the White House, other Federal agencies, and Congress to fulfill the Department's legislative priorities. The Assistant Secretary coordinates congressional and intergovernmental activities with governmental affairs offices in the Operating Administrations. The Assistant Secretary participates with each Administrator in the performance reviews of the Operating Administrations' Directors of Governmental Affairs. The Assistant Secretary supervises the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs who plans and coordinates the Department's policies and programs with respect to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is delegated authority to:
(a) Establish procedures for responding to Congressional correspondence; and
(b) Supervise the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on Department-wide administrative matters. The Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as the Designated Agency Safety and Health Official. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration's responsibilities include: Strategic management of human capital; monitoring the progress of departmental offices related to sustainability goals; controls and standards to ensure that procurement and financial assistance programs are in accord with good business practice; follow-up and resolution of Government Accountability Office and Inspector General audit reviews; information resource management; property management information; facilities; and security. The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for recommending performance objectives for the Operating Administrations' Directors of Human Resources.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration is delegated authority for the following:
(a)
(2) Make the required determinations with respect to mistakes in bids relative to sales of personal property conducted by the Office of the Secretary without power of redelegation.
(3) Except as delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator by § 1.95, carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 3 of Executive Order 11912 (“Delegation of Authorities Relating to Energy Policy and Conservation”), as amended.
(4) Carry out the functions delegated to the Secretary from time to time by the Administrator of General Services to lease real property for Department use.
(5) Carry out the duties and responsibilities of agency head for departmental procurement within the meaning of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. This authority as agency head for departmental procurement excludes duties, responsibilities, and powers expressly reserved for the Secretary of Transportation.
(6) Serve as Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer.
(7) Provide departmental guidance on grants, cooperative agreements, and other financial assistance transactions, but not including loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies, or insurance.
(8) Issue departmental procurement regulations, subject to coordination with the General Counsel and interested Operating Administrations. In commenting upon proposed provisions for the procurement regulations, the Operating Administrations will indicate the nature and purpose of any additional implementing or supplementing policy guidance which they propose to issue at the Operating Administration level.
(b)
(2) Serve as Vice Chair of the Departmental Executive Resources Board.
(3) Exercise emergency authority to hire without the prior approval of the Deputy Secretary normally required by departmental procedures implementing general employment limitations when in the judgment of the Assistant Secretary immediate action is necessary to effect the hire and avoid the loss of a well-qualified job applicant, and for similar reasons.
(4) Review proposals of the Office of the Secretary for each new appointment or transfer to verify the essentiality of the position.
(5) Approve employment of experts and consultants in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3109.
(6) Provide policy and overall direction in the execution of the DOT Labor-Management Relations Program.
(7) Develop and operate the Federal Employee Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Program in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-143, Title V.
(8) Serve as the Chief Human Capital Officer:
(i) Oversee, direct, and execute all authorities included in the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (5 U.S.C. 1401
(ii) Advise the Secretary on the Department's human capital needs and obligations, and implement all related rules and regulations of the President and the Office of Personnel Management, and all laws governing human resource management.
(9) Serve as the Telework Managing Officer under 5 U.S.C. 6505.
(c)
(2) Serve as the Chief Sustainability Officer under Executive Order 13693.
(d)
(2) Oversee the Working Capital Fund for the Office of the Secretary, established by 49 U.S.C. 327.
(3) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 31 U.S.C. 3711 to collect, compromise, suspend collection action on, or terminate claims of the United States which are referred to, or arise out of the activities of the Working Capital Fund, subject to the limits on that authority imposed by 31 U.S.C. 3711 and the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR chapter IX.
(e)
(2) Represents the department on the White House Communications Agency Principal Communications Working Group and the Department of State Overseas Security Policy Board.
(3) Conducts an internal security management program for the Department of Transportation with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve security actions with respect to such authorities related to personnel security, physical security, technical security, and classified and sensitive information management.
(4) Issues identification media as directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, “Policy for Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors” and other identification media (including credentials, passports and visas) by direction of the Secretary.
(5) Manages the Department's classified information program as directed by Executive Order 13526 (“Classified National Security Information”).
(6) Takes certain classified actions on behalf of the Department in connection with technical counter-surveillance programs as required by Executive Order 13526 (“Classified National Security Information”).
(7) In conjunction with the Office of Security, Intelligence and Emergency Response, and the Office of the General Counsel, carries out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, related to the protection of information designated as Sensitive Security Information.
(8) Ensure Department-wide compliance with Executive Orders 12968 as amended, 13467, 13488, 13526, 13556, and related regulations and issuances.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(2) Consult with and provide guidance to other Federal agencies on transportation fringe benefit programs under 5 U.S.C. 7905 and 26 U.S.C. 132(f).
(3) Establish and maintain uniform Federal Government standards for developing and supporting Federal agencies' transportation fringe benefit programs under 5 U.S.C. 7905 and 26 U.S.C. 132(f).
(a) The Director, Office of the Senior Procurement Executive is redelegated the authority to:
(1) Carry out the duties and responsibilities of agency head for departmental procurement within the meaning of the Federal Acquisition Regulation except for those duties expressly reserved for the Secretary of Transportation.
(2) Carry out the functions of the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) except for those functions specifically reserved for the Deputy Secretary. In carrying out these functions and in support of requirements under Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA), enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004—Public Law 108-136, the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is expected to interact directly, and without intervening authority, with the CAO on issues related to strategic acquisition policy, implementation, and management. The nature and frequency of interactions with the CAO will be determined mutually between the SPE and the CAO.
(3) Procure and authorize payment for property and services for the Office of the Secretary, with power to re-delegate and authorize successive re-delegations.
(b) The Director of Human Resources Management is redelegated the authority to:
(1) Develop departmental human capital policies and objectives, and monitor and oversee the implementation of those policies.
(2) Establish departmental human capital performance objectives and metrics.
(3) Conduct a personnel management program for the Office of the Secretary with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action with respect to such authority.
(4) Concur in the appointment and promotion of all Human Resources (HR) Directors in each Operating Administration and participate in the performance reviews of HR Directors.
(5) Provide policy and overall direction in the execution of the DOT Labor-Management Relations Program.
(6) Develop and operate the Federal Employee Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Program in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-143, Title V.
(7) Develop, coordinate, and issue wage schedules for Department employees under the Federal Wage System.
(c) The Director of Financial Management within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is redelegated the authority to:
(1) Settle and pay claims by Working Capital Fund employees for personal property losses as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3721 if the amount of the payment does not exceed $500.
(d) The Director, Transit Benefit Program is redelegated the authority to:
(1) Oversee the Department's transportation fringe benefit program under 5 U.S.C. 7905 and 26 U.S.C. 132(f).
(2) Consult with and provide guidance to other Federal agencies on transportation fringe benefit programs under 5 U.S.C. 7905 and 26 U.S.C. 132(f).
(3) Establish and maintain uniform Federal Government standards for developing and supporting Federal agencies' transportation fringe benefit programs under 5 U.S.C. 7905 and 26 U.S.C. 132(f).
The Executive Secretariat provides organized staff services to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist them in carrying out their management functions and their responsibilities for formulating, coordinating and communicating major policy decisions. The Office controls and coordinates internal and external material directed to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and ensures that their decisions and instructions are implemented.
The Departmental Office of Civil Rights serves as the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Officer and Title VI Coordinator. The Director also serves as principal advisor to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the civil rights and nondiscrimination statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders applicable to the Department, including titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. The Departmental Office of Civil Rights provides guidance to the Operating Administrations and Secretarial officers on these matters. The Office periodically reviews and evaluates the civil rights programs of the Operating Administrations to ensure that recipients of financial assistance meet applicable Federal civil rights requirements.
The Director of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights is delegated authority to conduct all stages of the formal employment discrimination complaints process (including acceptance/dismissal, investigation, and final adjudication); to provide guidance to the Operating Administrations and Secretarial officers concerning the implementation and enforcement of all civil rights laws, regulations and Executive Orders for which the Department is responsible; to otherwise perform activities to ensure compliance with external civil rights programs; and to review and evaluate the Operating Administrations' enforcement of these authorities. These authorities include:
(a) Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d
(b) Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 794-794a.
(c) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621
(d) Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101
(e) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101-121213.
(f) ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-325) [42 U.S.C. 12101 Note].
(g) Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
(h) Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d).
(i) Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act (Pub. L. 102-321)
(j) Chapter XIV of subtitle B, of title 29 of the CFR (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regulations).
(k) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-284) [42 U.S.C. 3601
(l) 40 U.S.C. 476 (prohibition on sex discrimination).
(m) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681.
(n) In coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Executive Order 12898 (“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”) (See also Executive Order 12948).
(o) 49 U.S.C. 306 (prohibition on discrimination in programs receiving financial assistance), 5310 (transportation for elderly persons and persons with disabilities), 5332 (nondiscrimination in mass transportation), 41705 (discrimination by air carriers against handicapped persons), 47113 (minority and disadvantaged business participation), and 47123 (nondiscrimination in airport improvement programs).
(p) 23 U.S.C. 324 and 402(b)(1)(D) (nondiscrimination in highway programs).
(q) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1919, section 1003.
The Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ensures that the Department's small and disadvantaged business policies and programs are developed in a fair, efficient, and effective manner. The Office is responsible for the Department's implementation and execution of the functions and duties under the Small Business Act, and providing opportunities, technical assistance, and financial services to the small and disadvantaged business community.
The Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is delegated authority to:
(a) Exercise departmental responsibility for the implementation
(b) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 332 (Minority Resource Center).
The Director of the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response is responsible for the development, coordination, and execution of plans and procedures for the Department to balance transportation security requirements with the safety, mobility and economic needs of the Nation through effective intelligence, security, preparedness and emergency response programs. The Director is the Department's principal Emergency Coordinator for the implementation of these programs.
The Director of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the functions related to emergency preparedness and response vested in the Secretary by the following authorities: 49 U.S.C. 101 and 301; Executive Order 12148, as amended (“Federal Emergency Management”); Executive Order 12656 (“Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities”) (as amended; see Executive Order 13286); Executive Order 12742 (“National Security Industrial Responsiveness”); Executive Order 13434 (“National Security Professional Development”); Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. app at 235 (2012); and such other statutes, executive orders, and other directives as may pertain to emergency preparedness and response.
(b) Serve as the Department's Continuity Coordinator in accordance with National Security Presidential Directive 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20,
(c) Lead departmental collaboration efforts with the Department of Homeland Security and other Departments and Agencies related to transportation security and transportation infrastructure protection as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7,
(d) Together with the Assistant Secretary for Administration, carry out oversight and management of the duties pertaining to national security professional development assigned to the Secretary under Executive Order 13434 (“National Security Professional Development”).
(e) Together with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, coordinate the Department's responsibilities under National Security Presidential Directive 44,
(f) Lead departmental efforts pertaining to transportation-related international civil emergency preparedness activities, including coordinating DOT representation on North Atlantic Treaty Organization committees, as directed under Executive Order 12656 (as amended; see Executive Order 13286).
(g) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, in consultation and coordination with the General Counsel.
(h) Oversee the Department's protective service program.
(i) Serve as the Secretary's representative to the Transportation Security Oversight Board, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 115, when so designated.
(j) Lead Departmental participation in internal and interagency planning efforts related to preparedness in accordance with Presidential Policy Directive 8, National Preparedness, in coordination with the Under Secretary.
(k) Serve as the Secretary's senior advisor on matters pertaining to public health, biological, and medical matters.
(l) Develop departmental plans to support the Department of Defense Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program and allocate civil air carrier aircraft to CRAF based on Department of Defense requirements.
(m) Oversee operation of the Department's Crisis Management Center.
(n) Lead departmental efforts for all interaction with the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment to include appointing the Associate Director for Intelligence as the DOT Information Sharing Program Manager to coordinate day-to-day Information Sharing Environment matters.
(o) Carry out departmental responsibilities under Executive Order 13587 (“Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information”) including overseeing classified information sharing and safeguarding efforts for DOT. Oversee the day-to-day activities for monitoring the Top Secret and Secret classified network used by DOT and function as the Senior Official principally responsible for establishing and implementing the DOT Insider Threat Program.
(p) Serve as the department's program manager responsible for oversight of all intelligence programs, to include the DOT Counterintelligence effort as it pertains to the DOT classified networks, and coordinate intelligence matters throughout the department. Nothing in this provision is intended to prohibit or limit a component's ability to conduct intelligence activities authorized by law.
(q) Carry out the functions under the Defense Production Act of 1950, Public Law 81-774, 64 Stat. 798, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2061
The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to the Secretary and Secretarial Officers on public affairs issues. The Office of Public Affairs prepares news releases and supporting media materials, and maintains a new media presence. The Office also provides information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and news media on programs and transportation issues. The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for the supervision, coordination, and review of the activities of the public affairs offices within the Operating Administrations.
The Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs is delegated authority to:
(a) Monitor the overall public information program and review and approve departmental informational materials having policy-making ramifications before they are printed and disseminated.
(b) Carry out the functions to promote carpooling and vanpooling transferred to the Department of Transportation by
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) is the principal information technology (IT), cyber security, privacy, and records management advisor to the Secretary. The Office of the CIO supports the Organizational Excellence Strategic Goal by providing leadership on all matters associated with the Department's $3.5 billion IT portfolio.
The Chief Information Officer is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out all functions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506);
(b) Carry out all functions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary with respect to the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 11312 to 11314, and 11317);
(c) Carry out all functions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary with respect to the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347;
(d) Carry out all functions and responsibilities necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3534 and 3544);
(e) Serve as the Chief Privacy Officer, 42 U.S.C. 2000ee-2, and administer the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 49 CFR part 10 (Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals) in connection with the records of the Office of the Secretary;
(f) Carry out all functions and responsibilities necessary to issue notices of Department of Transportation systems of records as required by the Privacy Act;
(g) Carry out all functions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary with respect to the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. 3101-3102) and necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration (36 CFR parts 1220 through 1299; 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33), in coordination with the General Counsel; and
(h) Serve as the Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information under Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-06-07, “Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information” (March 3, 2006).
The Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance advises the Secretary on national and international drug testing and control issues and is the principal advisor to the Secretary on rules related to the drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive transportation employees in aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, pipelines, and other transportation industries. The Office, in coordination with the Office of the General Counsel, publishes and provides interpretations of rules related to 49 CFR part 40 on the conduct of drug and alcohol tests, including how to conduct tests, and which procedures to use when testing. The Office coordinates with Federal Agencies and assists foreign governments in developing drug and alcohol testing programs and implementing the President's National Drug Control Strategy.
(a) Acting in his or her own name and title, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, and each Assistant Secretary, within his or her sphere of responsibility, is authorized to identify and define the requirements for, and to recommend to the Secretary, new or revised departmental policies, plans, and proposals. Each of these officers is authorized to issue departmental standards, criteria, systems and procedures that are consistent with applicable laws, Executive Orders, Government-wide regulations and policies established by the Secretary, and to inspect, review, and evaluate departmental program performance and effectiveness and advise the Secretary regarding the adequacy thereof.
(b) Except for nondelegable statutory duties including those that transfer as a result of succession to act as Secretary of Transportation, each Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy General Counsel is authorized to act for and perform the duties of his or her principal in the absence or disability of the principal and as otherwise directed by the principal.
(c) The Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary, the General Counsel, and the Assistant Secretaries for Administration, Budget and Programs, and Governmental Affairs are delegated authority to:
(1) Redelegate and authorize successive redelegations of authority granted by the Secretary within their respective organizations, except as limited by law or specific administrative reservation, including authority to publish those redelegations in appendix A of this part.
(2) Authorize and approve official travel (except foreign travel) and transportation for themselves, their subordinates, and others performing services for, or in cooperation with, the Office of the Secretary.
(3) Establish ad hoc committees for specific tasks within their assigned staff area.
(4) Establish, modify, extend, or terminate standing committees within their specific areas of responsibility when directed or authorized to do so by the Secretary.
(5) Designate members of interagency committees when such committees are specifically concerned with responsibilities of direct interest to their office.
(6) Exercise the following authorities with respect to positions in the Senior Executive Service and Senior Level within their respective areas of responsibility:
(i) Determine how executive level positions will be filled;
(ii) Establish selection criteria to be used in identifying eligible candidates.
(iii) Confer with the Administrators on selection criteria and candidates for an executive level position that is a counterpart of an activity or position in the Office of the Secretary.
(iv) Recommend final selection for executive level positions, subject to review by the Executive Committee of the Departmental Executive Resources Board and approval by the Secretary and the Office of Personnel Management.
(7) Enter into inter- and intra-departmental reimbursable agreements other than with the head of another department or agency (31 U.S.C. 686). This authority may be redelegated only to office directors or other comparable levels and to contracting officers.
(8) Administer and perform the functions described in their respective functional statements.
(9) Exercise the authority of the Secretary to make certifications, findings and determinations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) with regard to any rulemaking document for which issuance authority is delegated by other sections in this part. This authority may be redelegated to those officials to whom document issuance authority has been redelegated.
(10) Exercise the authority of the Secretary to resolve informal allegations of discrimination arising in or relating to their respective organizations through Equal Employment Opportunity
(11) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 326(a) and 31 U.S.C. 1353 to accept, subject to the concurrence of the Designated Agency Ethics Official, the following: Gifts of property (other than real property) not exceeding $1,000 in value, gifts of services (in carrying out aviation duties and powers) not exceeding $1,000 in value, and reimbursement of travel expenses from non-federal sources not exceeding $3,000 in value. Acceptance of gifts or travel reimbursement that exceed these limits in value or are otherwise significant may only take place with the additional concurrence of the General Counsel. This delegation extends only to the acceptance of gifts or travel expenses and does not authorize the solicitation of gifts, which is reserved to the Secretary at § 1.21.
This subpart describes the key responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General, the structure of the office, and the authority of the Inspector General.
The Inspector General conducts, supervises, and coordinates audits and investigations; reviews existing and proposed legislation and makes recommendations to the Secretary and Congress concerning their effect on the economy and efficiency of program administration, or the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse; recommends policies for and conducts, supervises, or coordinates other activities of the Department for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in program administration, or preventing and detecting fraud and abuse; and keeps the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed.
This Office is composed of:
(a) The Office of the Deputy Inspector General;
(b) The Office of the Principal Assistant Inspector General for Investigations;
(c) The Office of the Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation;
(d) The Office of the Assistant Inspector General for Administration; and
(e) The Office of the Assistant Inspector General for Legal, Legislative and External Affairs.
The Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. The Inspector General has such authority as is provided by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and as is otherwise provided by law. Authorities provided to the Inspector General by law are reserved to the Inspector General. In accordance with the statutory intent of the Inspector General Act to create an independent and objective unit, the Inspector General is authorized to make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the Department as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary and desirable. Neither the Secretary nor the Deputy Secretary shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation.
The Inspector General is delegated authority to:
(a) Redelegate and authorize successive redelegations of authority granted by the Secretary within the Office of Inspector General, except as limited by law or specific administrative reservation.
(b) Authorize and approve official travel, including foreign travel and transportation for themselves, their subordinates, and others performing services for, or in cooperation with, the Office of Inspector General.
(c) Exercise the authority of the Secretary to resolve informal allegations of discrimination arising in or relating to the Office of Inspector General through Equal Employment Opportunity counseling or the Alternative Dispute Resolution process and to develop and implement affirmative action and diversity plans.
(d) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 326(a) to accept gifts of property (other than real property) or services (in carrying out aviation duties and powers), and the authority to accept travel reimbursements from non-federal sources under 31 U.S.C. 1353.
(e) Exercise the implied authority to solicit gifts associated with 49 U.S.C. 326(a), notwithstanding the reservation of authority to the Secretary in § 1.21.
(f) Carry out the emergency preparedness functions assigned to the Secretary by Executive Order 12656 (as amended; see Executive Order 13286) and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and General Services Administration (FEMA and GSA) as they pertain to the Office of Inspector General, including those relating to continuity of operations, emergency resource management, and training.
(g) Determine the existence and amount of indebtedness and the method of collecting repayments from employees and members within the Office of Inspector General and collect repayments accordingly, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 5514.
(h) Waive claims of the United States arising out of an erroneous payment to an employee of the Office of Inspector General of pay or allowances, or travel, transportation, or relocation expenses and allowances, and deny requests for waiver of such claims, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5584 and the OMB memorandum, “Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316” (December 17, 1996). But for claims arising from erroneous payments to current employees, this delegation of authority is limited to claims greater than $500. For claims arising from erroneous payments to former employees, this delegation of authority is not limited by claim amount. Redelegation of this authority may be made only to the principal officials responsible for financial management or such officials' principal assistants.
(i) Settle and pay claims by employees of the Office of Inspector General for personal property losses as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3721 (Claims of personnel of agencies and the District of Columbia government for personal property damage or loss).
(j) Review and approve for payment any voucher for $25 or less the authority for payment of which is questioned by a certifying or disbursing officer.
(k) [Reserved]
(l) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 31 U.S.C. 3711 to collect, compromise, suspend collection action on, or terminate claims of the United States which are referred to, or arise out of the activities of, the Office of Inspector General, subject to the limits on that authority imposed by 31 U.S.C. 3711 and the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR chapter IX.
(m) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 28 U.S.C. 2672 and 28 CFR part 14, related to the administrative disposition of federal tort claims, for claims involving the Office of Inspector General. The Inspector General may request the approval of the Attorney
(n) Make written requests under subsection (b)(7) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7), for records maintained by other agencies that are necessary to carry out an authorized law enforcement activity.
(o) Administer the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and 49 CFR part 7 (Public Availability of Information) in connection with the records of the Office of the Inspector General.
(p) Administer the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 49 CFR part 10 (Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals) in connection with the records of the Office of the Inspector General.
(q) Exercise the authority of the Secretary over and with respect to any personnel within the Office of Inspector General, except as prescribed by the Secretary or limited by law.
(r) Approve payment of recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754.
(s) Administer 49 CFR part 9 (Testimony of Employees of the Department and Production of Records in Legal Proceedings) in connection with the records of the Office of Inspector General and testimony of current and former employees of the Office of Inspector General.
This subpart sets forth the key responsibilities of the Operating Administrations, and the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrators.
(a) Except as prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation, each Administrator is authorized to:
(1) Exercise the authority of the Secretary over and with respect to any personnel within their respective organizations.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary to prescribe regulations under 49 U.S.C. 322(a) with respect to statutory provisions for which authority is delegated by other sections in this part.
(4) Carry out the functions of the Secretary concerning environmental enhancement by 49 U.S.C. 303 (Duties of the Secretary of Transportation: Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites) and 23 U.S.C. 138 as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of each Operating Administration.
(5) Carry out the functions of the Secretary under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
(6) Carry out the functions of the Secretary under section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f, as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of each Operating Administration.
(7) Administer FOIA and 49 CFR part 7 (Public Availability of Information) in connection with the records of the Operating Administration.
(8) Administer the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 49 CFR part 10 (Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals) in connection with the records of the Operating Administration.
(9) Make written requests under subsection (b)(7) of the Privacy Act for records maintained by other agencies that are necessary to carry out an authorized law enforcement activity.
(10) Carry out the emergency preparedness functions assigned to the Secretary by Executive Order 12656, (as amended; see Executive Order 13286) and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and General Services Administration (FEMA and GSA) as they pertain to his or her administration, including those relating to continuity of operations, emergency resource management, associated Federal claimant procedures, facilities protection and warfare effects monitoring and reporting, research, stockpiling, financial aid, and training.
(11) Enter into inter- and intradepartmental reimbursable agreements other than with the head of another department or agency. This authority may be redelegated only to Office Directors, Regional Directors, District Commanders or other comparable levels and Contracting Officers.
(12) Determine the existence and amount of indebtedness and the method of collecting repayments from employees within their respective administrations and collect repayments accordingly, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 5514. Redelegation of this authority may be made only to the principal officials responsible for financial management or such officials' principal assistants.
(13) Waive claims of the United States arising out of an erroneous payment to an employee of the Operating Administration of pay or allowances, or travel, transportation, or relocation expenses and allowances, and deny requests for waiver of such claims, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5584 and the OMB memorandum, “Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316” (December 17, 1996). But for claims arising from erroneous payments to current employees, this delegation of authority is limited to claims greater than $500. For claims arising from erroneous payments to former employees, this delegation of authority is not limited by claim amount. Redelegation of this authority may be made only to the principal officials responsible for financial management or such officials' principal assistants.
(14) Settle and pay claims by employees of the Operating Administration for personal property losses as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3721 (Claims of personnel of agencies and the District of Columbia government for personal property damage or loss). This authority may be redelegated only to Office Directors, Regional Directors, or other comparable levels and to those individuals that report to the above officials.
(15) Exercise the authority of the Secretary to resolve informal allegations of discrimination arising in or relating to their respective organizations through Equal Employment Opportunity counseling or the Alternative Dispute Resolution process and to develop and implement affirmative action and diversity plans within their respective organizations. With regard to external civil rights programs, each Administrator exercises authority pursuant to statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, or delegations in this subpart to carry out these programs, under the guidance of the Director of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, including conducting compliance reviews and other activities relating to
(16) Review and approve for payment any voucher for $25 or less the authority for payment of which is questioned by a certifying or disbursing officer.
(17) Authorize and approve official non-foreign travel and transportation for themselves, their subordinates, and others performing services for, or in cooperation with, their Operating Administrations.
(18) Exercise the authority of the Secretary to make certifications, findings and determinations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
(19) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 15 U.S.C. 3710(a), which authorizes agencies to permit their laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements.
(20) [Reserved]
(21) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 31 U.S.C. 3711 to collect, compromise, suspend collection action on, or terminate claims of the United States which are referred to, or arise out of the activities of, the Operating Administration, subject to the limits on that authority imposed by 31 U.S.C. 3711 and the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR chapter IX.
(22) Exercise the Secretary's authority under 28 U.S.C. 2672 and 28 CFR part 14, related to the administrative disposition of federal tort claims, for claims involving the Operating Administration. The Administrator may request the approval of the Attorney General to adjust, compromise, and settle any such claim if the amount of the adjustment, compromise, or award exceeds $100,000, but only after the General Counsel concurs with the request. If the Administrator believes that a pending claim presents a novel question of law or of policy, he or she shall coordinate with the General Counsel to obtain the advice of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division. If the Administrator settles a claim for an amount greater than $50,000, the Administrator shall prepare a memorandum fully explaining the basis for the action taken and coordinate with the General Counsel before sending a copy of the memorandum to the Director, Federal Torts Claims Act Staff, Torts Branch of the Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
(23) Enter into memoranda of agreement with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in regard to setting and enforcing occupational safety or health standards and whistleblower protection for employees in DOT-regulated industries. The General Counsel shall concur in each memorandum of understanding with OSHA prior to its execution by the Administrator of the Operating Administration concerned.
(24) Enter into memoranda of agreement with the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) in regard to setting and enforcing safety standards for employees in DOT-regulated industries while on mine property. The General Counsel shall concur in each memorandum of agreement with MSHA prior to its execution by the Administrator of the Operating Administration concerned.
(25) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by Section 329A of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, Public Law 103-331, 329A, 108 Stat. 2471, 2493 (September 30, 1994), to enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, any unit of state or local government, any educational institution, and any other entity in execution of the Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992, Public Law 102-484, 106 Stat. 2658 (October 23, 1992), and related legislation.
(26) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, in coordination with the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, relating to the determination that information is Sensitive Security Information within their respective organizations.
(27) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 326(a) and 31 U.S.C. 1353 to accept, subject to the concurrence of the Operating Administration's Deputy Ethics Official, the following: Gifts of property (other than real property) not exceeding $1,000 in value, gifts of services (in carrying out aviation duties and powers) not exceeding $1,000 in value, and reimbursement of travel expenses from non-federal sources not exceeding $3,000. Acceptance of gifts or travel reimbursement that exceed these limits in value or are otherwise significant may only take place with the additional concurrence of the General Counsel. This delegation extends only to the acceptance of gifts or travel expenses and does not authorize the solicitation of gifts, which is reserved to the Secretary at § 1.21.
(28) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321), to promulgate rules that adjust civil penalties.
(29) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary to implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), 42 U.S.C. Chapter 61, with respect to programs administered by their respective Operating Administrations. Each Operating Administration may prescribe additional Uniform Act guidance that is appropriate to those particular programs, provided that such additional guidance must be consistent with the Uniform Act and 49 CFR part 24. The lead agency for Uniform Act matters is the Federal Highway Administration (see § 1.85 and 49 CFR part 24).
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, each Administrator may redelegate and authorize successive redelegations of authority within the organization under that official's jurisdiction.
Is responsible for:
(a) Promulgating and enforcing regulations on all safety matters relating to the operation of airports, the manufacture, operation, and maintenance of aircraft, and the efficiency of the National Airspace System;
(b) Planning and supporting the development of an integrated national system of airports, with due consideration of safety, capacity, efficiency, environmental compatibility and sustainability;
(c) Administering federal financial assistance programs for airports including airport grants-in-aid;
(d) Preserving and enhancing the safety and efficiency of the Nation's air transportation system by implementing NextGen and other technologies, as appropriate;
(e) Registering aircraft and recording rights in aircraft;
(f) Developing, modifying, testing, and evaluating systems, procedures, facilities, and devices needed for the safe and efficient navigation and traffic control of aircraft;
(h) Locating, constructing or installing, maintaining and operating Federal aids to air navigation, wherever necessary;
(i) Developing air traffic regulations, and administering air navigation services for control of civil and military air operations within U.S. airspace, as well as administering such air navigation services as the FAA has accepted responsibility for providing in international airspace and the airspace of foreign countries;
(j) Promoting aviation safety and efficiency through technical aviation assistance to foreign aviation authorities;
(k) Developing strategies to improve runway safety at all commercial service airports;
(l) Administering the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise program, improving connections to surface transportation, and other efforts to increase the environmental sustainability of the Nation's air transportation systems;
(m) Conducting an effective airport technology research program to improve airport safety, efficiency, and sustainability;
(n) Exercising the final authority for carrying out all functions, powers, and duties of the Administration in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and adjudication in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40110(d) and that such authorities supersede any conflicting provisions elsewhere in this part.
(o) Promoting and encouraging U.S. leadership in commercial space activities, and promulgating and enforcing regulations on safety matters relating to commercial space transportation.
The Federal Aviation Administrator is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the following functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (Aviation Programs):
(1) Sections 40103(a)(2), relating to the consultation with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board before prescribing regulations or procedures that will have a significant impact on accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for individuals with disabilities; 40109(c), but only as it relates to the regulation of 49 U.S.C. 46301(b) (smoke alarm device penalties), and 40109(e), relating to maximum flying hours 40113(a) as it relates to the functions vested in the Secretary and delegated in this section; 40114, relating to reports and records requirements; 40115, relating to withholding information from public disclosure; 40116, relating to the prohibition on State taxation as the prohibition may affect an airport sponsor's grant assurances; 40117, relating to passenger facility charges; 40119(b), relating to the issuance of regulations on disclosure of information obtained or developed in ensuring security; and 40127(b) of chapter 401, relating to prohibition on discrimination by private airports;
(2) Section 41723 of subchapter I of chapter 417, relating to notice concerning aircraft assembly;
(3) Section 44102(b) of chapter 441, relating to defining the term “based and primarily used in the United States”;
(4) Chapter 443, relating to insurance;
(5) Chapter 445, relating to facilities, personnel, and research, except section 44502(a)(3) as it relates to authorizing a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government to carry out any duty or power under subsection 44502(a) with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or instrumentality;
(6) Chapter 447, relating to safety regulation;
(7) Chapter 451, relating to alcohol and controlled substances testing;
(8) Subpart IV of Part A of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (chapters 461-465) relating to the Secretary's authority to enforce and impose penalties under sections of Subtitle VII that have been delegated to the Federal Aviation Administrator in this section;
(9) Part B of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (chapters 471-475) relating to airport development and noise, except 49 U.S.C. 47129(a);
(10) Part C of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (chapters 481-483) relating to financing; and
(11) Part E of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (chapter 501) relating to Buy-American Preferences.
(b) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by chapters 509 and 511 (commercial space) of title 51, U.S.C. and coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs regarding those functions related to the promotion of the aerospace industry.
(c) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by part B of title II of the Clean Air Act, as amended (Pub. L. 91-604, sec. 11, 84 Stat. 1703), and by 40 CFR part 87 as it relates to exemptions from aircraft air pollution standards.
(d)(1) Except as delegated to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy by § 1.25, carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c), and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, relating to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by air.
(2) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5114, relating to the establishment of procedures for monitoring and enforcing regulations with respect to the transportation of radioactive materials on passenger-carrying aircraft.
(3) Participate, with the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in the Dangerous Goods Panel at the International Civil Aviation Organization, under the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5120.
(e) Serve, or designate a representative to serve, as Vice Chairman and alternate Department of Transportation member of the Interagency Group on International Aviation (IGIA) pursuant to the interagency agreement of December 9, 1960, and Executive Order 11382, and provide for the administrative operation of the IGIA Secretariat.
(f) Carry out the functions assigned to the Secretary by Executive Order 12465 relating to commercial expendable launch vehicle activities.
(g) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. 102-588, 106 Stat 5119, November 4, 1992).
Is responsible for:
(a) Improving mobility on our Nation's highways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery.
(b) Developing safety strategies using a data-driven, systematic approach to address safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians from engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services perspectives and coordinating with FMCSA and NHTSA as appropriate.
(c) Planning, in cooperation with the States, the nation's highway system.
(d) Improving, in cooperation with the States (via the provision of grants), infrastructure condition, safety, mobility and freight movement roads on the National Highway System, including the Interstate System and to other federal-aid roads and other surface transportation infrastructure.
(e) Identifying and deploying innovation aimed at shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of our roadways, and protecting the environment.
(f) Surveying and constructing Federal lands transportation facilities, Federal
(g) Developing and administering uniform State standards for highway safety programs with respect to identification and surveillance of crash locations; highway design, construction, and maintenance, including context sensitive solutions, highway-related aspects of pedestrian safety, and traffic control devices.
(h) Administering the Department's National Bridge Inspection Standards and the National Tunnel Inspection Standards to ensure the Nation has safe, well-maintained bridges and tunnels for use by the traveling public.
(i) In coordination with NHTSA, RITA, and FMCSA, conducting vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure research.
(j) Managing TIFIA funds, 23 U.S.C. 601-609, in conjunction with the TIFIA Joint Program Office, including managing accounting and budgeting activities, and procuring any necessary financial or technical support services for the TIFIA program.
(k) Maximizing the positive impacts on the U.S. economy by encouraging domestic manufacturing on highway projects through the enforcement of Buy America provisions.
(a) The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to administer the following provisions of title 23, U.S.C. (Highways):
(1) Chapter 1, Federal-Aid Highways, except for:
(i) Section 142 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator);
(ii) The following sections as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 153, 154, 158, 161, 163, and 164; and
(iii) Section 167(f) (National Freight Strategic Plan).
(2) Chapter 2, Other Highways, except for section 205.
(3) Chapter 3, General Provisions (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), except for section 322.
(4) Section 409 of chapter 4, Highway Safety.
(5) Chapter 5, Research, Technology, and Education, except for section 508.
(6) Chapter 6, Infrastructure Finance, subject to the limitations set forth in §§ 1.33 (Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs) and 1.21 (reservation to the Secretary of final approval of TIFIA credit assistance applications).
(b) The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to administer the following provisions of title 49, U.S.C. (Transportation):
(1) Section 20134(a) with respect to the laws administered by the Federal Highway Administrator pertaining to highway safety and highway construction; and
(2) Sections 31111 and 31112 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration).
(3) Section 31314 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration).
(c) The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to administer the following laws relating generally to highways:
(1) Section 502(c) of the General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended, Public Law 79-601, tit. V, 60 Stat. 847, [33 U.S.C. 525(c)].
(2) Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1949 (63 Stat. 1070).
(3) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, as amended (Pub. L. 83-350, 68 Stat. 70).
(4) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended (Pub. L. 84-627, tit. I, 70 Stat. 374).
(5) The Highway Revenue Act of 1956, as amended (Pub. L. 84-627, tit. II, 70 Stat. 374, 387).
(6) The Alaska Omnibus Act, as amended (Pub. L. 86-70, 73 Stat. 141).
(7) The Act of September 26, 1961, as amended (Pub. L. 87-307, 75 Stat. 670).
(8) The Act of April 27, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-441, 76 Stat. 59).
(9) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, as amended (Pub. L. 87-866, 76 Stat. 1145).
(10) The Joint Resolution of August 28, 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 89-139, 79 Stat. 578).
(11) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 889-574, 80 Stat. 766).
(12) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, as amended (Pub. L. 90-495, 82 Stat. 815).
(13) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, as amended (except section 118) (Pub. L. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713).
(14) Sections 103, 104, 111(b), 128(b), 131, 135, 136, 141, 147, 149, 154, 158 through 161, 163, 203, 206, 401, and 402 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 93-87, 87 Stat. 250; Pub. L. 93-643, 88 Stat. 2281).
(15) Sections 102(b) (except subparagraph (2)) and (c); 105 (b)(1) and (c); 141; 146; 147; and 152 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-280, 90 Stat. 425).
(16) The Highway Beautification Act of 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 89-285, 79 Stat. 1028, 23 U.S.C. 131
(17) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-327, 96 Stat. 1611), except section 6 as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator.
(18) The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, (Pub. L. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097) except:
(i) Sections 165 and 531 as they relate to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Transit Administrator;
(ii) Sections 105(f), 413; 414(b)(2); 421, 426, and Title III; and
(iii) Section 414(b)(1), unless with the concurrence of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.
(19) Sections 103(e), 105(a) through (g), 106(a), and (b), 110(b), 114(d), 117(f), 120(c) and (d), 123(g) and (i), 133(f), 134, 136, 137, 139 through 145, 146(b), 147(c), 149(a) through (f), (h), (i), (k), 151 through 157, 164, and 208 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-17, 101 Stat. 132).
(20) Sections 105, 107(c) through (e), 123(a) and (b), 124(c), 126(d) through (g), 138(c), 142, 144, 147 through 154, 167, and 171, Title IV, as amended (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administrator), and sections 502-504 of Title V of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689).
(21) Sections 201 through 205, 327 through 336, 339, 340, 349, 352, 353, and 408 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568).
(22) Sections 1002(e), 1006(h), 1009(c), 1012(b) and (d) through (f), 1015, 1016(g), 1017(c), 1021(c) and (d), 1022(c), 1023(f) through (g), 1032(d), 1038 through 1041, 1044, 1046(d), 1047, 1051, 1057 through 1060, 1072, 1073, 1105, and 6016 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914).
(23) Sections 1108(f) and (g) and 1224 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107).
(24) Sections 1101(a), 1102, 1109(f), 1111(b)(4), 1112, 1115(c), 1116(a) and (b), 1117, 1119(n), 1120(c), 1201, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1308, 1310, 1404, 1408, 1409(a) and (b), 1410, 1411, 1502, 1604, 1803, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1923, 1928, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1957, 1959, 1962, 1964, 4404 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal
(25) Sections 1101(a), 1102, 1106(b), 1112(b), 1113(c), 1116, 1123, 1201(b), 1315 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1316 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1317 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1318(a) and (b) (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1323 (a) and (b), 1401(b), (c) and (d), 1405, 1503(c), 1512(b), 1519(a), 1520, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1528, 1529, 1530 (as it relates to matters within the primary responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration), 1533, 1534, 1535, 32801, 32802, and 51001 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405).
(d) The Federal Highway Administrator is delegated authority to:
(1) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 601 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508, 106 Stat. 3289) relating to construction of the Page Avenue Extension Project in Missouri.
(2) Carry out the functions of the Secretary under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 40 U.S.C. Subtitle IV.
(3) Carry out the Act of September 21, 1966, Public Law 89-599, relating to certain approvals concerned with a compact between the States of Missouri and Kansas.
(4) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 (as it relates to bridges, other than railroad bridges, not over navigable waters), and section 8(a) (as it relates to all bridges other than railroad bridges) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731) [33 U.S.C. 535c and 535e(a)].
(5) Carry out the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731) for highway safety programs, research, and development relating to highway design, construction and maintenance, traffic control devices, identification and surveillance of crash locations, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian safety.
(6) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 20134(a) with respect to the laws administered by the Federal Highway Administrator pertaining to highway safety and highway construction
(7) Prescribe regulations, as necessary, at part 24 of this title, to implement the Uniform Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 61, and to act as the lead agency in carrying out all other functions vested in the Secretary by the Uniform Act, in coordination with the Under Secretary.
(8) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 101, 118, 120(b), 123 and 124 of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-643, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2281).
(9) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 114 of Part C of the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986 (contained in the Act Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1987 and for Other Purposes, Public Law 99-591, 100 Stat. 3341, 2241-349), relating to construction of Interstate Highway H-3 in Hawaii.
(10) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by Public Law 98-229, 98 Stat. 55, insofar as it relates to apportioning certain funds for construction of the Interstate Highway System in Fiscal Year 1985, apportioning certain funds for Interstate substitute highway projects, and increasing amounts available for emergency highway relief.
(11) Carry out all of the functions vested in the Secretary under section 324 of the Fiscal Year 1986 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 99-190, 99 Stat. 1288), notwithstanding the reservation of authority under § 1.21.
(12) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended, (Pub. L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31) relating to the Alameda Corridor Project in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administrator.
(13) Act as the lead DOT agency in matters relating to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 [42 U.S.C. 4321
(14) Exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 309 (high speed ground transportation).
(15) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 201(4)(d) and (e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, as amended (Pub. L. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2377) [16 U.S.C. 410hh(4)(d) and (e)].
Is responsible for:
(a) Managing program and regulatory activities, including administering laws and promulgating and enforcing regulations on safety matters relating to motor carrier safety;
(b) Carrying out motor carrier registration and authority to regulate household goods transportation;
(c) Developing strategies for improving commercial motor vehicle, operator, and carrier safety and administering grants to implement these strategies;
(d) Inspecting records and equipment of commercial motor carriers, and investigating accidents and reporting violations of motor carrier safety regulations;
(e) Carrying out research, development, and technology transfer activities to promote safety of operation and equipment of motor vehicles for the motor carrier transportation program; and
(f) Carrying out an effective communications and outreach program which includes providing relevant safety data to the public.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the following functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IV, part B:
(1) Chapter 131, relating to general provisions on transportation policy;
(2) Chapter 133, relating to administrative provisions;
(3) Chapter 135, relating to jurisdiction;
(4) Sections 13704 and 13707 of chapter 137, relating to rates, routes, and services;
(5) Chapter 139, relating to registration and financial responsibility requirements, except section 13907(d)(2);
(6) Chapter 141, relating to operations of motor carriers;
(7) Sections 14501, 14502, and 14504a relating to Federal-State relations, and
(8) Sections 14701 through 14705, 14707, 14708, 14710, and 14711 of chapter 147, relating to enforcement remedies, investigations and motor carrier liability; and
(9) Sections 14901 through 14913, 14915, and 14916 of chapter 149 relating to civil and criminal penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B.
(b) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by sections 104 and 204 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, relating to self-insurance rules and a savings clause.
(c) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 42 U.S.C. 4917, relating to procedures for the inspection, surveillance and measurement of commercial motor vehicles for compliance with interstate motor carrier noise emission standards and related enforcement activities including the promulgation of necessary regulations.
(d) Carry out the following functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by chapter 51 of title 49, U.S.C.:
(1) Except as delegated to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy by § 1.25, carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c), and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, relating to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by highway.
(2) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5105(e), relating to inspections of motor vehicles carrying hazardous material; 49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, except subsection (f); 49 U.S.C. 5112, relating to highway routing of hazardous materials; 49 U.S.C. 5113, relating to unsatisfactory safety ratings of motor carriers; 49 U.S.C. 5119, relating to uniform forms and procedures; and 49 U.S.C. 5125(a) and (c)-(f), relating to preemption determinations or waivers of preemption of hazardous materials highway routing requirements.
(e) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by:
(1) Chapter 313 of 49, U.S.C., relating to commercial motor vehicle operators; and
(2) Section 4123(c), (d) and (e) of SAFETEA-LU relating to grants, funding, and contract authority and availability, respectively, for commercial driver's license information system modernization.
(f) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., and 49 U.S.C. 31111, relating to commercial motor vehicle programs, safety regulation, and international activities, except that the authority to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture is limited to standards that are not based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.
(g) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5701 relating to food transportation inspections of commercial motor vehicles.
(h) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority delegated to the Secretary in section 2(d)(2) of Executive Order 12777, as amended, with respect to highway transportation, relating to the approval of means to ensure the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge, the review and approval of response plans, and the authorization of motor carriers, subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. 87-88, as amended [33 U.S.C. 1321], to operate without approved response plans.
(i) Carry out chapter 315 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to motor carrier safety.
(j) Carry out 49 U.S.C. 502, 503, 504, 506, and 523 to the extent they relate to motor carriers, motor carriers of migrant workers, and motor private carriers; 49 U.S.C. 507 to the extent it relates to motor carriers, motor carries of migrant workers, motor private carriers, or freight forwarders; and 49 U.S.C. 505, 508, 521(b), and 525.
(k) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 502(a)(1)(A).
(l) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the following sections of SAFETEA-LU:
(1) Section 4105(b)(1) relating to the study concerning predatory tow truck operations;
(2) Section 4126, relating to the commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment program;
(3) Section 4127, relating to outreach and education;
(4) Section 4128, relating to grants under the safety data improvement program;
(5) Section 4130-4133, amending section 229 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note) relating to the operators of vehicles transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies, and hours of service for miscellaneous vehicle operators;
(6) Section 4134 (49 U.S.C. 31301 note), relating to the grant program for persons to train operators of commercial motor vehicles;
(7) [Reserved]
(8) Section 4136 relating to interstate vans;
(9) Section 4138 relating to high risk carrier compliance (49 U.S.C. 31144 note);
(10) Section 4139(a)(1), relating to the training of and outreach to State personnel; section (b)(1) relating to a review of Canadian and Mexican compliance with Federal motor vehicles safety standards; and the first sentence of section (b)(2) relating to the report concerning the findings and conclusions of the review required by section (b)(1) (see 49 U.S.C. 31100 note);
(11) Section 4143, granting authority to stop commercial motor vehicles, 18 U.S.C. 3064;
(12) Section 4144, relating to a motor carrier safety advisory committee;
(13) [Reserved]
(14) Section 4147, relating to emergency conditions requiring immediate response (amending section 229 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note);
(15) Section 4213, relating to the establishment of a working group for the development of practices and procedures to enhance Federal-State relations (49 U.S.C. 14710 note);
(16) Section 4214, relating to the establishment of a system for collecting consumer complaint information and issuing regulations related to reporting requirements under the system (49 U.S.C. 14701 note); and
(17) Section 4308, granting authority to adopt regulations to carry out SAFETEA-LU, Title IV, subtitle C (49 U.S.C. 13902 note).
(m) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the following sections of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405):
(1) Section 32101(b) concerning proficiency examination (49 U.S.C. 13902 note).
(2) Section 32101(c) concerning conforming amendments to proficiency examinations (49 U.S.C. 31144 note).
(3) Section 32101(d) concerning agricultural and farm transportation exemption (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).
(4) Section 32104 concerning a study of financial responsibility requirements (49 U.S.C. 13903 note).
(5) Section 32206 concerning a rental truck accident study.
(6) Section 32301(a) requiring an hours of service study.
(7) Section 32302(c)(2) regarding the establishment of state licensing agency oversight (49 U.S.C. 31149 note).
(8) Section 32303(b) relating to the establishment of a driver record notification system (49 U.S.C. 31304 note).
(9) Section 32303(c) relating to a plan for national notification system.
(10) Section 32308 regarding a study, plan, report and implementation of accelerated veteran's licensing procedures (49 U.S.C. 31301 note).
(11) Section 32603(i) relating to the administration of grant programs (49 U.S.C. 31100).
(12) Section 32605 related to a report on the commercial vehicle information system and networks.
(12) Sections 32702, 32707(b), 32708, 32709, 32710, and 32711 related to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).
(13) Section 32918(b) relating to broker and forwarder financial responsibility rulemaking requirement (49 U.S.C. 13906 note).
(14) Section 32934 related to exemptions from requirements for covered farm vehicles (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).
Is responsible for:
(a) Regulating safety functions pertaining to railroads;
(b) Conducting research and development activity in support of safer and more efficient rail transportation;
(c) Investigating and issuing reports concerning collisions, derailments, and other railroad accidents resulting in serious injury to persons or to the property of a railroad;
(d) Developing safety strategies to combat the causes of collisions, derailments, and other railroad accidents, as well as to reduce overall risk in the Nation's rail systems;
(e) Promoting and strengthening the national rail system, including freight rail and high speed and higher performing intercity passenger rail.
(f) Providing financial assistance, including grants, loans and loan guarantees, for rail freight and intermodal development, as well as high-speed and intercity passenger rail development;
(g) Maximizing the positive impacts on the U.S. economy by encouraging domestic manufacturing on rail projects through the enforcement of Buy America provisions; and
(h) Strengthening local communities by supporting station-area development and strong connections among rail passenger service, intercity bus, local transit, bicycle/pedestrian, and airport facilities.
The Federal Railroad Administrator is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle V, Part A (Safety, chapter 201
(b) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848).
(c) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. B, 122 Stat. 4907), except Title VI (122 Stat. 4968) as it relates to capital and preventive maintenance projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
(d) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 (as it relates to railroad bridges not over navigable waterways) and section 8(a) (as it relates to railroad bridges) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731) (33 U.S.C. 535c and 535e(a)).
(e) Exercise the administrative powers vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle I, Chapter 5 (section 501
(f) Promote and undertake research and development relating to rail matters generally (49 U.S.C. Chapter 3 (section 301
(g) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 45 U.S.C. Ch. 15 (section 601
(h) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 45 U.S.C. chapter 17 (section 801
(i) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 45 U.S.C. chapter 21 (section 1201
(j) Except as delegated to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy by § 1.25, carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121-5124 relating to the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by railroad.
(k) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 7 of Executive Order 12580 (delegating sections 108 and 109, respectively, of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (49 U.S.C. 9615
(l) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 33 U.S.C. 493, relating to disputes over the terms and compensation for use of railroad bridges built under that statute.
(m) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5701 with respect to transportation of food and other products by railroad.
(n) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 322 (Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program).
(o) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by sections 1307 (see note to 23 U.S.C. 322), and 1946 of SAFETEA-LU as they relate to deployment of magnetic levitation transportation projects and a study of rail transportation and regulation.
(p) Carry out the function vested in the Secretary by the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 1163), which relates to the nomination of trustees for rail carriers in reorganization, with the concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel.
(q) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 327, as it relates to railroad projects.
(r) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the sections 1318(d) and 1534 of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405), as they relate to railroads.
(s) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 2(d)(2) of Executive Order 12777, with respect to rail transportation, relating to the approval of means to ensure the availability of private personnel and equipment to remove, to the maximum extent practicable, a worst case discharge, the review and approval of response plans, and the authorization of railroads to operate without approved response plans.
Is responsible for:
(a) Providing grants that support the development of safe, comprehensive and coordinated public transportation systems;
(b) Creating and implementing a national public transportation safety program that includes the development of safety practices and standards;
(c) Assisting public transportation systems to achieve and maintain their infrastructure, equipment and vehicles in a state of good repair;
(d) Promoting the environmental benefits of public transportation through continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning that improves the performance of the intermodal transportation system.
(e) Supporting research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects dedicated to assisting in the delivery of safe, efficient and effective public transportation service;
(f) Supporting, in coordination with FHWA and FRA, strong connections between public transportation and other modes of transportation, including bicycle/pedestrian facilities and station-area development that strengthen local communities; and
(g) Maximizing the positive impacts on the U.S. economy by encouraging domestic manufacturing on transit projects through the enforcement of Buy America provisions.
The Federal Transit Administrator is delegated authority to carry out the following:
(a) Chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, and notes thereto.
(b) Sections 3 and 9 through 15 of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-143, 83 Stat. 320), as amended (DC Code, section 9-1101.01
(c) Sections of title 23, United States Code, and notes thereto that involve public transportation projects, including those provisions that pertain to planning, environmental reviews and use of historic resources for public transportation projects.
(d) Section 303 of title 49, United States Code, as it involves public transportation projects.
(e) The following sections of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405):
(1) Sections 1315 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1316 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1317 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], 1318 [23 U.S.C. 109 note], and 1321, as they relate to public transit projects; and
(2) Sections 20005(b) [49 U.S.C. 5303 note], 20008(b) [49 U.S.C. 5309 note], 20013(b) [49 U.S.C. 5315 note], 20017(b) [49 U.S.C. 5324 note], 20021(b), and 20025(b) [49 U.S.C. 5335 note].
(f) Section 601 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Div. B).
Is responsible for:
(a) Fostering the development and maintenance of a United States merchant marine sufficient to meet the needs of the national security and of the domestic and foreign commerce of the United States;
(b) Operating the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in order to train officers for the Nation's merchant marine;
(c) Promoting development of ports and intermodal transportation systems through investments in port infrastructure via grant programs and America's Marine Highway program;
(d) Promoting the growth and modernization of the U.S. merchant marine and U.S. shipyards by administering loan and guarantee programs;
(e) Overseeing the administration of cargo preference statutes;
(f) Maintaining custody of, operating, and preserving ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet as well as other vessels under the custody of MARAD and managing, maintaining and operating its Ready Reserve Force component;
(g) Conducting research and development to improve and promote the waterborne commerce of the United States.
The Maritime Administrator is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary under Subtitle V of title 46, U.S.C., except for 46 U.S.C. 51303 and 55601(c) and (d);
(b) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary under Subtitle III of title 46, U.S.C.;
(c) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary under the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 1735
(d) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary under 50 U.S.C. App 1744 with respect to the National Shipping Authority;
(e) Exercise the authority vested in the Administrator of General Services by the Act of June 1, 1948, Public Law 80-566, 62 Stat. 281, 40 U.S.C. 318-318c and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, Public Law 81-152, 63 Stat. 377, and delegated to the Secretary of Transportation by the Administrator of General Services on March 23, 2000, relating to the enforcement of laws for the protection of property and persons at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, located in Kings Point, New York. This may be accomplished through appointment of uniformed personnel as special police, establishment of rules and regulations governing conduct on the affected property, and execution of agreements with other Federal, State, or local authorities.
(f) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary by section 3(d) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902(d)) as it relates to ships owned or operated by the Maritime Administration when engaged in noncommercial service;
(g) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 40 U.S.C. 554 relating to authority to convey surplus real property to public entities for use in the development or operation of port facilities;
(h) Carry out the following powers and duties and exercise the authorities vested in the Secretary by the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Public Law 93-627, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1501
(1) Section 4: The authority to issue, transfer, amend, or reinstate a license for the construction and operation of a deepwater port (33 U.S.C. 1503(b));
(2) Section 4: The authority to process applications for the issuance, transfer, amendment, or reinstatement of a license for the construction and operation of a deepwater port (33 U.S.C. 1503(b)), in coordination with the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
(3) Section 5(h)(2): Approval of fees charged by adjacent coastal States for use of a deepwater port and directly related land-based facilities (33 U.S.C. 1504(h)(2));
(4) Section 4: Make Adjacent Coastal State designations pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(2);
(5) Section 11: In collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, consultation with the Secretary of State relating to international actions and cooperation in the economic, trade and general transportation policy aspects of the ownership and operation of deepwater ports (33 U.S.C. 1510);
(6) Section 16(b): Submission of notice of the commencement of a civil suit (33 U.S.C. 1515(b));
(7) Section 16(c): Intervention in any civil action to which the Secretary is not a party (33 U.S.C. 1515(c));
(8) Sections 8(b), 12: Authority to request the Attorney General to seek the
(i) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, 46 U.S.C. 70101 note, to provide training for maritime security professionals;
(j) Exercise all the powers of the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 336 with respect to civil penalties;
(k) Carry out all of the duties, authorities and powers of the Secretary under the Reefs for Marine Life Conservation law, 16 U.S.C. 1220
(l) In consultation and coordination with the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, carry out the functions under the Defense Production Act of 1950, Public Law 81-774, 64 Stat. 798, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2061
(m) Carry out the functions related to the National Defense Reserve Fleet vested in the Secretary pursuant to 50 U.S.C. App. 1744;
(n) Carry out all of the duties, authorities and powers of the Secretary under the following statutes:
(1) 10 U.S.C. 2218, the National Defense Sealift Fund;
(2) 40 U.S.C. 3134, Bond waiver authority for certain contracts;
(3) 46 U.S.C. 501(b), Waiver of navigation and vessel-inspection laws and determination of non-availability of qualified U.S. flag vessels;
(4) 46 U.S.C. 3316, granting authority to appoint a representative to Executive Board of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS);
(5) 46 U.S.C. 12119(a)(5), authority to waive or reduce the qualified proprietary cargo requirements and determine citizenship;
(6) 50 U.S.C. 196, Emergency foreign vessel acquisition; purchase and requisition of vessels lying idle in United States waters;
(7) 50 U.S.C. 197, Voluntary purchase or charter agreement;
(8) 50 U.S.C. 198, granting authority over requisitioned vessels;
(o) Carry out all of the duties, authorities and powers of the Secretary with respect to 16 U.S.C. 1220
(p) Carry out all of the duties, powers and authorities delegated to the Secretary of Transportation by the Administrator of General Services with respect to the leasing and management of property under 41 CFR 102-72.30, Delegations of Authority;
(q) Carry out all of the duties, authorities and powers vested in the Secretary by 46 U.S.C. 70101 note, to provide training for maritime security professionals;
(r) Carry out the duties, authorities and powers of the Secretary under the following statutes:
(1) Title XV, Subtitle B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624 (104 Stat. 3359, 3665), 7 U.S.C. 1421 and Chapter 553 of Title 46, U.S.C., authorizing the Secretary to designate “American Great Lakes” vessels that are exempt from the restrictions relating to the carriage of preference cargoes;
(2) 46 U.S.C. 2302(e) (determination of substandard vessels);
(3) Section 304(a) of Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, 33 U.S.C. 1503(i), a program to promote liquefied natural gas tanker transportation;
(4) Section 306 of Public Law 111-281, concerning the phaseout of vessels supporting oil and gas development;
(s) Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the President by Section 1019 of John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) and delegated to the Secretary by the President;
(t) Lead efforts pertaining to civil emergency planning for sealift support for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations, including coordinating DOT representation on sealift-related committees, in coordination with the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response;
(u) Carry out the duties, functions, authorities, and powers of the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 109(e), (f), (h), (j)(3);
(v) Carry out all of the duties, authorities, and powers of the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to matters involving the Clarification Act, Public Law 78-17, 57 Stat. 45, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 1291);
(w) Carry out all of the duties, authorities, and powers of the Secretary under 46 U.S.C. 12102(d).
Is responsible for:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator is delegated authority to:
(a) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under chapters 301, 303, 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331, of Title 49, U.S.C., except for 49 U.S.C. 32916(b).
(b) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 20134(a) with respect to laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
(c) Carry out, in coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, the authority vested in the Secretary by subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C., to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the standards are based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated, either simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.
(d) Carry out the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731), for highway safety programs, research, and development except those relating to highway design, construction and maintenance, traffic control devices, identification and surveillance of crash locations, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian safety.
(e) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., except for 23 U.S.C. 409.
(f) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary for the following provisions of title 23, U.S.C. (with respect to matters within the primary responsibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration): 153, 154, 158, 161, 163, 164, and 313 (Buy America).
(g) Carry out the consultation functions vested in the Secretary by Executive Order 11912, as amended (“Delegation of Authorities Relating to Energy Policy and Conservation”) relating to automobiles.
(h) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by section 210(2) of the Clean Air Act, Public Law 90-148, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7544(2)].
(i) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the following sections of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59:
(1) Section 1906 [23 U.S.C. 402 note], relating to the grant program to prohibit racial profiling;
(2) Section 2010 [23 U.S.C. 402 note], relating to motorcyclist safety;
(3) Section 2011 [23 U.S.C. 405 note], relating to child safety and child booster seat incentive grants;
(4) Section 10202 [42 U.S.C. 300d-4], relating to emergency medical services, as amended by section 31108 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141;
(5) Section 10305(b) [49 U.S.C. 30101 note], relating to the publication of non-traffic incident data collection; and
(6) Section 10309(a), relating to the testing of 15-passenger van safety.
(j) Carry out the following functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140):
(1) Section 106 [49 U.S.C. 32902 note], relating to the continued applicability of existing standards;
(2) Section 107 [49 U.S.C. 32902 note], relating to the National Academy of Sciences studies;
(3) Section 108, relating to the National Academy of Sciences study of medium-duty and heavy-duty truck fuel economy;
(4) Section 110 [49 U.S.C. 32908 note], relating to the periodic review of accuracy of fuel economy labeling;
(5) Section 113 [49 U.S.C. 32904 note], relating to the exemption from separate calculation requirement;
(6) Section 131(b)(2) and (c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 17011(b)(2), (c)(1)], relating to the Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Program;
(7) Section 225(a), relating to the study of optimization of flexible fueled vehicles to use E-85 fuel;
(8) Section 227(a), relating to the study of optimization of biogas used in natural gas vehicles;
(9) Section 242 [42 U.S.C. 17051], relating to renewable fuel dispenser requirements; and
(10) Section 248(a) [42 U.S.C. 17054(a)], relating to biofuels distribution and advanced biofuels infrastructure.
(k) Carry out the functions and exercise the motor vehicle safety authority vested in the Secretary under section 7103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178.
(l) Carry out the functions and exercise the motor vehicle safety authority vested in the Secretary under sections 3(d), 10, 11 and 13 through 17 [uncodified provisions] of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, Public Law 106-414.
(m) Carry out the functions and exercise the motor vehicle safety authority vested in the Secretary under Anton's Law, Public Law 107-318.
(n) Carry out the functions and exercise the motor vehicle safety authority vested in the Secretary under the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 or the K.T. Safety Act of 2007, Public Law 110-189.
(o) Carry out the functions and exercise the motor vehicle safety authority vested in the Secretary under the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, Public Law 111-373.
(p) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the following sections of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141:
(1) Sections 31101(d) and (f) (23 U.S.C. 402 note), Authorization of Appropriations;
(2) Sections 31203(b), Civil Penalty Criteria Rule, 31301, Public Availability of Recall Information, 31302, NHTSA Outreach to Manufacturer, Dealer, and Mechanic Personnel, 31309(a), Study of Crash Data Collection, 31401, NHTSA Electronics, Software, and Engineering Expertise, 31402, Electronics Systems Performance, 31501, Child Safety Seats, 31502, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 31503, Rear Seat Belt Reminders, 31504, Unattended Passenger Reminders, 31505, New Deadline, and 31601, Rulemaking on Visibility of Agricultural Equipment;
(3) Section 32201, Crashworthiness Standards; and
(4) Sections 32703, Regulations for Improved Occupant Protection, Passenger Evacuation, and Crash Avoidance, 32704, Fire Prevention and Mitigation, 32705, Occupant Protection, Collision Avoidance, Fire Causation, and Fire Extinguisher Research and Testing, and 32706, Concurrence of Research and Rulemaking.
(q) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary to implement section 3(g)-(h) of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (Pub. L. 85-506, 72 Stat. 325), as amended (15 U.S.C. 1232(g)-(h)).
Is responsible for:
(a)
(2) Increasing the gas and liquid pipeline industry's focus on safety beyond compliance with minimum standards, with particular attention to developing strong safety cultures in regulated entities;
(3) Enhancing information awareness systems at the State and local levels to reduce pipeline damage from excavation and providing grants to support these systems; and
(4) Encouraging the timely replacement of aging and deteriorating pipelines in distribution systems, especially in areas with high potential
(b)
(2) Conducting outreach and provide available grants assistance to increase awareness and emergency preparedness.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator is delegated responsibility to:
(a)
(2) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185(a) and 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3)).
(3) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under section 21 of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1520) relating to the establishment, enforcement and review of regulations concerning the safe construction, operation or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf.
(4) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 (as it relates to pipelines not over navigable waterways) and section 8(a) (as it relates to pipelines) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731) (33 U.S.C. 535c and 535e(a)).
(5) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331
(6) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 7 of Executive Order 12580 (delegating sections 108 and 109, respectively, of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (49 U.S.C. 9615
(7) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 60301 as it relates to pipeline safety user fees.
(8) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 6101
(9) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355, 116 Stat. 2985).
(10) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90).
(b)
(1) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the shipment of hazardous materials and the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair or test of multi-modal containers that are represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the transportation of hazardous materials; and
(2) Participate, with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in the Dangerous Goods Panel at the International Civil Aviation Organization, under the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5120; and
(3) Carry out, in coordination with the Administrators of the Federal Aviation Administration (for matters relating to the transport of hazardous materials by aircraft), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (for matters relating to the transport of hazardous materials by public highway), and the Federal Railroad Administration (for matters relating to the transport of hazardous materials by rail), the functions vested in the Secretary by all other provisions of the Federal hazardous material transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101
(4) Exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 33005 (49 U.S.C. 5121 note), 33006, 33008 (49 U.S.C. 5121 note), 33009(b)(2) (49 U.S.C. 5121 note), and 33012 (49 U.S.C. 5117 note) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405).
(c) Exercise the authority delegated to the Secretary in the following sections of Executive Order 12777:
(1) Section 2(b)(2) relating to the establishment of procedures, methods, equipment and other requirements to prevent discharges from, and to contain oil and hazardous substances in, pipelines, motor carriers, and railroads; and
(2) Section 2(d)(2) relating to the issuance of regulations requiring the owners or operators of pipelines, motor carriers, and railroads, subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321
Is responsible for:
(a) Coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing the Department's research and development programs and activities, except as related to NHTSA;
(b) After consultation with Operating Administration and OST offices, making recommendations to the Secretary on all Operating Administration and OST research budgets;
(c) Providing leadership on technical, navigation, communication, and systems engineering activities, and spectrum management on behalf of the civil and civilian PNT communities;
(d) Directing and administering university transportation research grants;
(e) In coordination with FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA, conducting vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure research;
(f) Advancing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research and deployment of real-time multi-modal travel information for travelers, carriers, and public agencies;
(g) Providing oversight of the activities of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the ITS Joint Program Office, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the Transportation Safety Institute; and
(h) Providing technical support to advance the mission of the Secretary's Safety Council.
The Research and Innovative Technology Administrator is delegated authority for the following:
(a)
(2) After consultation with Operating Administration and OST offices, RITA shall make recommendations to the
(b)
(2) Serve as principal liaison official for the Department of Transportation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, the National Science and Technology Council, and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.
(3) Serve as primary official responsible for coordination and oversight of the Department's implementation of section 2 of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 3710a), relating to the transfer of Federal technology to the marketplace; and section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-113), as implemented by OMB Circular A-119: Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.
(4) Serve as Chair and Executive Secretary of the Department of Transportation's Research, Development and Technology Planning Council and Planning Team.
(5) Advocate Department of Transportation policy and program coordination efforts associated with transportation research.
(6) Represent the Department of Transportation on departmental, national and international committees and meetings dealing with transportation research and development (R & D).
(7) Manage the strategic planning process for transportation R & D across the Department of Transportation and, through the National Science and Technology Council, across the Federal Government.
(8) Carry out the transportation research and development strategic planning function vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 508.
(9) Conduct transportation system-level assessments and policy research.
(10) Facilitate the creation of transportation public/private partnerships.
(11) Foster innovation in the transportation sector.
(12) Disseminate information on departmental, national, and international transportation R & D activities.
(13) Provide legal support for Departmental intellectual property and patent issues.
(14) Manage department- and government-wide (inter/multimodal) transportation R & D programs.
(15) Oversee such advisory boards that deal with transportation system-level R & D assessments and issues, such as the Transportation Research Board Committee on the Federal Transportation R & D Strategic Planning Process.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g) Exercise authority over the Transportation Safety Institute.
(h) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 111 relating to transportation statistics, analysis, and reporting.
(i) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5503(d) (Office of Intermodalism).
(j)
(2) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 4(a)(7) of the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-443) relating to the reporting of the extension of unsecured credit to political candidates (section 401, Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; 2 U.S.C. 451), in conjunction with the General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
(3) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by: 49 U.S.C. 40113 (relating to taking such actions and issuing such regulations as may be necessary to carry out its air commerce and safety responsibilities), 49 U.S.C. 41702 (relating to the duty of carriers to provide safe and adequate service), 49 U.S.C. 41708 and 41709 (relating to the requirement to keep information and the forms in which it is to be kept), and 49 U.S.C. 41701 (relating to establishing just and reasonable classifications of carriers and rules to be followed by each) as appropriate to carry out the responsibilities under this paragraph in conjunction with the General Counsel and the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
(k)
(l) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 1801(e) of SAFETEA-LU (establishing and maintaining a national ferry database).
(m) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5513(c), (d), (g), (h), (i), (l), and (m) of SAFETEA-LU (establishing various research grants).
(n) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5201(m) of SAFETEA-LU (biobased transportation research program).
(o) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 509 (establishing and supporting a national cooperative freight transportation research program).
(p)
(q) Carry out the Secretary's authority to establish, operate and manage the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) as described in Section 346 of Public Law 105-66 (Department of Transportation
Is responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway within the territorial limits of the United States.
The Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is delegated authority to:
(a) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of section 2 of the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471) [33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, 1227, and 1231-1232] as they relate to the operation of the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
(b) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 5 and section 8(a) of the International Bridge Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-434, 86 Stat. 731) [33 U.S.C. 535c and 535e(a)] as it relates to the Saint Lawrence River.
(c) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by section 3(d) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships [33 U.S.C. 1902e] as it relates to ships owned or operated by the Corporation when engaged in noncommercial service.
1.
(a) Request apportionment and reapportionment of funds by the Office of Management and Budget, provided that no request for apportionment or reapportionment which anticipates the need for a supplemental appropriation shall be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget without appropriate certification by the Secretary.
(b) Issue allotments or allocations of funds to components of the Department.
2.
Section 855 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by Public Law 91-393, 84 Stat. 835 (40 U.S.C. 255) authorizes the Attorney General to delegate to other departments and agencies his authority to give written approval of the sufficiency to the title to land being acquired by the United States. The Attorney General has delegated to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land and Natural Resources Division the authority to make delegations under that law to other Federal departments and agencies (28 CFR 0.66). The Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division, has further delegated certain responsibilities in connection with the approval of the sufficiency of the title to land to the Department of Transportation as follows:
Pursuant to the provision of Public Law 91-393, approved September 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 835, amending R.S. 355 (40 U.S.C. 255), and acting under the provisions of Order No. 440-70 of the Attorney General, dated October 2, 1970, the responsibility for the approval of the sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired by purchase or condemnation by the United States for the use of your Department is, subject to the general supervision of the Attorney General and to the following conditions, hereby delegated to your Department.
This delegation of authority is further subject to:
1. Compliance with the regulations issued by the Assistant Attorney General on October 2, 1970, a copy of which is enclosed.
2. This delegation is limited to:
(a) The acquisition of land for which the title evidence, prepared in compliance with these regulations, consists of a certificate of title, title insurance policy, or an owner's duplicate Torrens certificate of title.
(b) The acquisition of lands valued at $100,000 or less, for which the title evidence consists of abstracts of title or other types of title evidence prepared in compliance with said regulations.
As stated in the above-mentioned Act, any Federal department or agency which has been delegated the responsibility to approve land titles under the Act may request the Attorney General to render his opinion as to the validity of the title to any real property or interest therein, or may request the advice or assistance of the Attorney General in connection with determinations as to the sufficiency of titles.
The Chief Counsels of the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Maritime Administration, and Research and Innovative Technology Administration are hereby authorized to approve the sufficiency of the title to land being acquired by purchase or condemnation by the United States for the use of their respective organizations. This delegation is subject to the limitations imposed by the Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division, in his delegation to the Department of Transportation. Redelegation of this authority may only be made by the Chief Counsels to attorneys within their respective organizations.
If the organization does not have an attorney experienced and capable in the examination of title evidence, a Chief Counsel may, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, request the Attorney General to (1) furnish an opinion as to the validity of a title to real property or interest therein, or (2) provide advice or assistance in connection with determining the sufficiency of the title.
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 |