| Page Range | 16509-16724 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 16723 - Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice | |
| 82 FR 16721 - Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits | |
| 82 FR 16719 - Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs Laws | |
| 82 FR 16717 - World Autism Awareness Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16715 - National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16713 - National Financial Capability Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16711 - National Donate Life Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16709 - National Child Abuse Prevention Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16707 - Cancer Control Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 16634 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 16559 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Yellow Lance | |
| 82 FR 16633 - Division of Federal Employees' Compensation Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16624 - Notice on Reallotment of Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) Title I Formula Allotted Funds for Dislocated Worker Activities for Program Year (PY) 2016 | |
| 82 FR 16624 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Native American Employment and Training Council | |
| 82 FR 16581 - Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition To Revoke Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 16576 - Withdrawal of Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews | |
| 82 FR 16656 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 16627 - Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standards for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment Standards for Construction and General Industry; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Collections of Information | |
| 82 FR 16630 - MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards | |
| 82 FR 16629 - The Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Standard (Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Collections of Information (Paperwork) Requirements) | |
| 82 FR 16602 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cost Submission | |
| 82 FR 16603 - Agency Information Collection Activities: CBP Regulations Pertaining to Customs Brokers | |
| 82 FR 16655 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Sweetwater Municipal Airport in Sweetwater, Texas; Correction | |
| 82 FR 16660 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft Registration and Renewal | |
| 82 FR 16660 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Notice of Landing Area Proposal | |
| 82 FR 16656 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage) | |
| 82 FR 16658 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Flight Data Center Web Portal | |
| 82 FR 16659 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter Operations | |
| 82 FR 16657 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Aviation Safety Team Safety Enhancements | |
| 82 FR 16659 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation Research Grants Program | |
| 82 FR 16657 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service | |
| 82 FR 16658 - Permanent Closure of the St. Marys Airport, St. Marys, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 16577 - Industry Information Day | |
| 82 FR 16510 - Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida | |
| 82 FR 16575 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16635 - Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Licenses of Broad Scope | |
| 82 FR 16592 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 16512 - Recreational Boat Flotation Standards-Update of Outboard Engine Weight Test Requirements | |
| 82 FR 16580 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Dyson, Inc. From the Department of Energy Battery Charger Test Procedure | |
| 82 FR 16579 - Application To Export Electric Energy; DTE Energy Trading, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 16593 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 16592 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 16573 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China and From Taiwan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order, in Part | |
| 82 FR 16636 - Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors | |
| 82 FR 16636 - Request for a License To Export Radioactive Waste; UniTech Service Group, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 16601 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16540 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 16661 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 82 FR 16662 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 16509 - Anti-Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and Records System | |
| 82 FR 16550 - Expediting Rate Cases | |
| 82 FR 16575 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Meeting of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel | |
| 82 FR 16632 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health | |
| 82 FR 16621 - Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 82 FR 16623 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 16599 - Determination That CEDAX (Ceftibuten Dihydrate) for Oral Suspension, 90 Milligrams/5 Milliliters and 180 Milligrams/5 Milliliters, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 82 FR 16597 - Antibody Mediated Rejection in Kidney Transplantation; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 16599 - Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Medical Device Conference (MedCon) | |
| 82 FR 16620 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0020 | |
| 82 FR 16621 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0091 | |
| 82 FR 16510 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
| 82 FR 16637 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 16578 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Migrant Education Program Regulations and Certificate of Eligibility | |
| 82 FR 16648 - Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund and Winton Capital US LLC | |
| 82 FR 16642 - Angel Oak Funds Trust and Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC | |
| 82 FR 16665 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Reimbursement of National Exam Fee | |
| 82 FR 16665 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Time Record (Work-Study Program) | |
| 82 FR 16664 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Compliance Inspection Report | |
| 82 FR 16647 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) the Shares of the VanEck Vectors AMT-Free National Municipal Index ETF of VanEck Vectors ETF Trust | |
| 82 FR 16638 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To (1) Implement the Margin Proxy, (2) Modify the Calculation of the Coverage Charge in Circumstances Where the Margin Proxy Applies, and (3) Make Certain Technical Corrections | |
| 82 FR 16651 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 5710 | |
| 82 FR 16643 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding Investments of the Janus Short Duration Income ETF Listed Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 82 FR 16644 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing To (1) Implement the Margin Proxy and (2) Modify the Calculation of the Coverage Charge in Circumstances Where the Margin Proxy Applies | |
| 82 FR 16634 - Legal Services Corporation Performance Criteria; Request for Comments on Performance Area 4 | |
| 82 FR 16613 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16610 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16608 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16617 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16605 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16594 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 82 FR 16604 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 16595 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge | |
| 82 FR 16570 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Understanding the Anti-Fraud Measures of Large SNAP Retailers | |
| 82 FR 16601 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16601 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16600 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 16577 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2008/18 Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B: 08/18) Field Test | |
| 82 FR 16522 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Scarlet-Chested Parrot and the Turquoise Parrot From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife | |
| 82 FR 16542 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2017 Annual Review | |
| 82 FR 16593 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 16668 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the West Indian Manatee From Endangered to Threatened | |
| 82 FR 16653 - In the Matter of the Designation of Sami Bashur Bouras; Also Known as Wakrici; Also Known as Khadim; as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 16653 - In the Matter of the Designation of El Shafee Elsheikh; Also Known as Shaf; Also Known as Shafee; as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 16653 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Anjem Choudary, aka Abu Luqman as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 16579 - Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the State Energy Program | |
| 82 FR 16653 - Production of Tritium in Commercial Light Water Reactors |
Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act regulation exempting portions of a system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, entitled Anti-Harassment & Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and Records System. Because this system will contain some investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, this rule will exempt those records within this new system of records from specific provisions of the Privacy Act.
This final rule is effective on April 5, 2017.
Pamela J. Carcirieri, Supervisory Government Information Specialist, SSA, Office of Privacy & Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, Phone: (410) 965-0355, for information about this rule. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) we also issued a public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records entitled, Anti-Harassment & Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and Records System (Anti-Harassment System) (60-0380). (81 FR 87119). In order to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment, agencies must implement anti-harassment policies and procedures separate from the Equal Employment Opportunity process. Consequently, we are establishing the Anti-Harassment system to manage information regarding allegations of workplace harassment filed by SSA employees and SSA contractors alleging harassment by another SSA employee, as well as allegations of workplace harassment filed by SSA employees alleging harassment by an SSA contractor.
We are establishing the Anti-Harassment system as part of our compliance efforts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); the ADA Amendments Act of 2008; the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA); and Executive Orders 11478, 11246, 13152, and 13087. These legal authorities prohibit discrimination, including harassment, based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or other protected basis.
The Anti-Harassment System will capture and house information regarding allegations of workplace harassment filed by SSA employees and SSA contractors alleging harassment by another SSA employee and any investigation, or response, we take because of the allegation. Due to the investigatory nature of information that will be maintained in this system of records, this rule adds the Anti-Harassment System to the list of SSA systems that are exempt from specific provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
We provided 30 days for the public to comment on the NPRM. The comment period ran from December 2, 2016 through January 3, 2016. We received one comment, but did not publish it as part of the regulatory record because it was not within the subject matter of the proposed rule.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not review it.
We also determined that this final rule meets the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and SSA determined that the rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. SSA also determined that this final rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this final rule.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Privacy and disclosure of official records and information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending subpart B of part 401 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and 1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b-11); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) Anti-Harassment & Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and Records System, SSA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the National Cherry Blossom Festival fireworks display taking place over the Washington Channel, Washington, DC, on April 15, 2017. The safety zone will include all waters within a 100 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′43.67″ N., longitude 077°01′28.39″ W. This date and location is a change to those listed for the annually scheduled event, as indicated in U.S. Coast Guard regulations, because the event sponsor changed the scheduled date and location of this annual fireworks display. During the enforcement period, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506, listed as event (b.) 1, Washington Channel, Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC; Safety Zone, in the table to 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on April 15, 2017; and in the case of inclement weather enforcement will be from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on April 16, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-576-2674, email
On February 22, 2017, and March 8, 2017, the Coast Guard was notified by the National Cherry Blossom Festival firework display sponsor that a change of date and location was necessary to those previously listed for the annually scheduled event, as indicated in 33 CFR 165.506. The location of the annual fireworks display is changed to approximately 550 yards upstream and its size is reduced, to include all waters of the Washington Channel within 100 yards radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′43.67″ N., longitude 077°01′28.39″ W., located in Washington, DC. The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.506 from 7:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on April 15, 2017, for the National Cherry Blossom Festival fireworks display. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone as a circular shaped area that includes all waters of the Upper Potomac River, within 170 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′20.3″ N., longitude 077°01′17.5″ W., located within the Washington Channel, at Washington Harbor, DC. As specified in § 165.506(d), during the enforcement period, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP, Coast Guard Patrol Commander or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. Other Federal, State and local agencies may assist these personnel in the enforcement of the safety zone. If the COTP or his designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification.
The Coast Guard published a document on March 14, 2016, that announced the availability of the final report issued by the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) workgroup. In addition, the Coast Guard requested comments concerning the final report. After a review of the comments received, the Coast Guard has determined that it is not necessary to revise the final report, and therefore considers it to be complete as published.
April 5, 2017.
If you have questions on this notification, contact George Detweiler, Coast Guard, telephone (202) 372-1566 or email
Comments were submitted by representatives of the maritime community, wind energy developers, non-government organizations, Federal and State government agencies, academic institutions and private citizens.
Topics covered by the comments included the Coast Guard's role and relationship with the Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Coast Guard-developed Marine Planning Guidelines and navigation corridors, protection of right whales and continued public outreach.
Some commenters urged the Coast Guard to coordinate and consult more closely with the other agencies associated with the development of offshore wind, particularly the BOEM to finalize the ACPARS report, and to utilize the Regional Planning Bodies to obtain broad feedback in evaluating navigation safety issues. We generally agree with these comments, but must state that throughout the ACPARS process, we have worked closely with BOEM in conducting this study and developing the final report. Additionally, broad stakeholder consultation must still be conducted on a case-by-case basis for each particular project proposed, as each will present unique circumstances and navigational risks.
The Coast Guard has participated and will continue to participate in a lead permitting agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process as a subject matter expert for navigation safety, maritime security, maritime mobility (management of maritime traffic, commerce, and navigation), national defense, and protection of the marine environment. In the case of wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), BOEM is the NEPA lead permitting agency and is responsible for the evaluation of environmental impacts and preparation of associated environmental documentation. BOEM and the Coast Guard have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify their respective roles and responsibilities as members of BOEM/State Renewable Energy Task Forces for Wind Energy Area (WEA) identification, the issuance of leases and approval of Site Assessment Plans (SAPs), General Activity Plans (GAPs) and Construction and Operations Plans (COPs) for offshore renewable energy installations (OREIs). The Coast Guard will continue to work closely with BOEM in support of their Offshore Renewable Energy Program.
Many commenters stated the Coast Guard premised its Marine Planning Guidelines (MP Guidelines) on Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 371, a United Kingdom (U.K.) publication that had been superseded, and further commented that the Coast Guard had misapplied MGN 371 in developing the MP Guidelines. Additionally, some of these comments suggested that the Coast Guard should revise the MP Guidelines to be consistent with MGN 543, which superseded MGN 371. As discussed below, we disagree with these comments.
The United Kingdom's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published MGN 371 in August of 2008, well before we began the ACPARS process. Through the study, we determined that there was no single international standard for establishing safe navigation distances from permanent structures in the marine environment. With the development of European offshore wind farms, several different standards or guidelines evolved, and we considered each in development of the Coast Guard's MP Guidelines. In particular, we considered the guidance prepared by the Shipping Advisory Board Northsea, which was endorsed by the Confederation of European Shipmasters' Associations and used a formulaic approach that produces a 1.9 Nautical Mile (NM) distance from the side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for a 400 meter vessel. The World Shipping Council recommended a minimum 2 NM safe distance from side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). We also considered the guidance prepared by the German Waterways and Shipping Directorate North West and North, which calls for a 2 NM setback to the side of a TSS, plus a 500 meter safety zone for each turbine. Last, we considered MGN 371, which throughout the study period reflected the current guidance of the U.K.'s MCA. Under MGN 371, the MCA considered a navigation buffer of 1 NM to 2 NM from the edge of a TSS to be medium risk, and greater than 2 NM to be low risk.
In January of 2016, after our work on the ACPARS was complete but before we released our final report for comment, the MCA published MGN 543, which superseded MGN 371. Through MGN 543, the MCA intended to simplify the Wind Farm Shipping Route Template (table, p. 13), which contained four columns and twelve defined distances associated with unique considerations (“Factors”) and degrees of risk ranging from very high to very low. The shipping route template in MGN 543 (p. 21) essentially consolidated the twelve safety distances to three, with less than 0.5 NM being “intolerable” and a range from 0.5 NM to 3.5 NM being “tolerable” if risks have been mitigated to a point termed “as low as reasonably possible” or ALARP. Last, the MGN 543 template considers distances beyond 3.5 NM to be “broadly acceptable.”
Although some commenters may view MGN 543's revised template to have relaxed the recommended safe distances in MGN 371, we do not agree. Through MGN 543, the MCA sought to both simplify the template, and also make clear that generally there is a range of possible safe setback distances, and that a particular distance for any given wind farm would be determined by the unique circumstances of the project, which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Similarly, our MP Guidelines state that the Coast Guard will be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process wherein we will evaluate the Navigation Safety Risk Assessment unique to each proposed project,
It is important to note that the distances set forth in MGN 371, MNG 543 and our MP Guidelines are not standards, regulations or requirements of any type, but rather are guidance for developers to consider at the outset of a proposal. For example, both MGN 371 and MGN 543 state “[t]his Guidance Note, as the name implies, is intended for the guidance of developers and others.” See p. 3 of both Notes. In similar language, the MP Guidelines states on p. 1 “[t]hese guidelines are provided to assist offshore developers and marine planners with their evaluation of the navigational impacts of any projects with multiple permanent fixed structures.” Furthermore, on p. 6 of the MP Guidelines, we state “[t]hese recommendations are based on generic deep draft vessel maneuvering characteristics and are consistent with existing European guidelines.”
As discussed above, the Coast Guard will evaluate each proposed project based upon the actual risks identified in the Navigation Safety Risk Assessment, and not by rigidly applying recommended distances from the MP Guidelines or any other similar guidance. Because our guidelines are neither regulations nor standards that must be applied, and because we view MGN 543 as a simplification of its predecessor, MGN 371, we do not believe it is necessary or prudent to revise our MP Guidelines at this time.
Various comments were received concerning navigation corridors. Some commenters said the navigation corridors were too large, or simply not necessary, whereas others said they were essential to preserve clear shipping lanes. Prior to the advent of offshore wind development, there was no need for a coordinated routing system along the entire Atlantic seaboard, and existing traffic separation schemes at the entrances to major ports were adequate to manage collision risks for commercial vessel traffic. As the potential for conflicting uses of the Atlantic Ocean has increased, the Coast Guard must evaluate options to reduce associated risks to navigation and the environment. The ACPARS identified the routes typically used by tug and barge traffic and deep draft ocean-going vessels. The identified navigation corridors in the final report simply reflect areas historically used by commercial vessels. The ACPARS report recommends that the navigation corridors should be considered during marine planning activities and incorporated into Regional Ocean Plans to ensure appropriate consideration is given to shipping early in the project siting process. Some commenters have also suggested the Coast Guard apply the data and recommendations from the ACPARS to the marine planning process, and we agree with those comments.
The ACPARS report also recommended that the Coast Guard use the identified navigation corridors to establish shipping safety fairways (areas where permanent structures are not permitted) or other appropriate ships' routing measures. The Coast Guard is considering these recommendations, but has not yet determined if or how it may move forward on such routing measures. In the event the Coast Guard determines that shipping safety fairways or other routing measures must be further explored, it will engage all relevant stakeholders and ultimately commence a formal rulemaking process that will provide ample notice and opportunity for public and other stakeholder comment, and a thorough environmental review.
The Coast Guard received comments suggesting that offshore navigation corridors for deep draft traffic could endanger North Atlantic right whales if the corridors divert vessel traffic around wind farms into areas where these endangered whales tend to migrate. Although the offshore navigation corridors identified simply reflect existing vessel traffic patterns already in use, the Coast Guard would consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, interagency partners and other stakeholders through the NEPA and marine planning processes as a necessary part of any action to formally establish routing measures associated with the ACPARS or particular wind farm proposals.
Some commenters recommended that the Coast Guard continue outreach efforts with affected states and federal agencies, the marine shipping industry, the wind energy industry and the general public, which could include participation in stakeholder outreach activities, public meetings, workshops and industry meetings and conferences. The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation and will continue its outreach program through the Regional Planning Bodies.
For the foregoing reasons, the Coast Guard considers the ACPARS report to be complete and will not make changes to it at this time.
This notification is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule to update the table of outboard engine weights used in calculating safe loading capacities and required amounts of flotation material. The engine weight table was last updated in 1984, and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 requires that we update the table to reflect a specific standard.
This interim rule is effective on June 1, 2018. Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-1012 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document call or email Mr. Jeffrey Ludwig, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1061, email
Section 308 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-120, 130 Stat. 27) (CGAA) requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations, not later than 180 days after enactment, updating Table 4 of subpart H in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 183 to reflect the American Boat and Yacht Council S-30—Outboard Engines and Related Equipment Weights (ABYC S-30) standard.
Additionally, 46 U.S.C. 4302(b), which provides authority for 33 CFR part 183, requires the effective date for rules issued under that provision be delayed at least 180 days after publication, but not more than 2 years for cases involving major product design, retooling, or changes in the manufacturing process. It also requires consultation with the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC).
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking before this interim rule. The Coast Guard finds good cause to forgo prior notice and opportunity to comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because section 308 of CGAA provides the Coast Guard no discretion in adopting the specific industry standard for engine weights. The Coast Guard may not decline to update the engine weight standards, choose to adopt a different standard, or respond to public comments by modifying the substance of the rule. Because the Act does not allow for alternatives; the Coast Guard may not adopt a different standard or modify the substance of the rule in response to public comments. Therefore, it was unnecessary and impracticable to provide the public with notice and opportunity to comment before publishing this interim rule.
This rule also relocates the relevant table within the CFR, and makes similar administrative changes that have no substantive effect on the public. Because these changes do not create or change any rights or responsibilities for the public, prior notice and opportunity to comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). However, the Coast Guard is interested in the public's views on these changes.
In addition, we are delaying the effective date of this rule until June 1, 2018, for two reasons: (1) To meet the intent of 46 U.S.C. 4302(b), as described earlier in this rule, and (2) to align with the recreational boat model year so that requirements do not change during a model year production run. The delay in effective date allows time for a post-publication comment period and for non-substantive changes if needed.
Therefore, even though 5 U.S.C. 553 allows the Coast Guard to forgo notice and opportunity for comment prior to issuing this rule, we invite public comment on the interim rule. We will not have the authority to change the substance of the rule—for example, the specific weight standard used—in response to public comment, because that requirement is set in statute. However, we invite public comment on other aspects of the rule, such as changes we have made to cross-references, and we may make changes after considering those comments. We believe this strikes the best balance between satisfying the statute, putting a rule in place soon so that manufacturers can plan ahead, and allowing public comment to the extent we are permitted by CGAA.
Congress has authorized the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations establishing minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment. In 1977, the Coast Guard established flotation requirements for boats less than 20 feet in length, and established a weight table (Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183) used to assist the boat manufacturer in determining the amount of flotation to be included in a boat's design and construction.
Table 4 was last updated in 1984, but the size and weight of outboard engines has evolved over the years to the point that Table 4 no longer accurately represents the weights of outboard engines available on the market.
The American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) is a non-profit organization that develops voluntary safety standards for the design, construction, maintenance, and repair of recreational boats. Among the voluntary safety standards that ABYC develops and updates on a regular basis is S-30—Outboard Engines and Related Equipment Weights (ABYC S-30). This standard reflects the current state of marine outboard engine weights.
This rulemaking adopts the current ABYC S-30 to replace Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183. The current ABYC S-30 is dated July 2012, and was the standard in effect on the date of enactment of the Act.
In the CFR, Table 4 applies to monohull outboard boats that are less than 20 feet in length, which includes recreational vessels as well as some commercial fishing vessels. It is also used indirectly for flotation requirements for survival craft covered by 46 CFR part 25 (uninspected vessels), 46 CFR part 117 (small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers), 46 CFR part 141 (towing vessels) and 46 CFR part 180 (small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons). Changing the figures in Table 4, as required by the Act, will require more flotation in each new boat, to support the weight of heavier engines.
This rule removes Table 4 and replaces it with a new section in subpart E of part 183. That section contains the table of the ABYC S-30 standard and its corresponding footnotes. We made minor edits to the footnotes developed
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this interim rule. The Coast Guard is issuing an interim rule to implement section 308 of the CGAA. The CGAA mandates that the Coast Guard issue regulations to amend Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183 to reflect the standards in ABYC S-30. Consequently, 100% of the costs of this rule are due to a Congressional mandate and the Coast Guard has no discretion to adopt a different standard that would lower the cost of this rule. Changes in the design and construction of modern outboard engines necessitate a change in the table of outboard engine weights used in calculating safe loading capacities and required amounts of flotation material in the Safe Loading and Flotation Standards found in 33 CFR part 183, subparts G and H.
Table 1 of this document provides a summary of the affected population, costs, and benefits of this rule.
This interim rule will adopt the current ABYC S-30 to replace Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183. Table 4 applies to monohull outboard boats that are less than 20 feet in length, including recreational vessels and some commercial fishing vessels.
Table 4 is also used indirectly for flotation requirements for survival craft covered by 46 CFR part 25 (uninspected vessels), 46 CFR part 117 (small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers), 46 CFR part 141 (towing vessels), and 46 CFR part 180 (small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons). Small passenger vessels are required to carry certain survival craft, depending on their route and construction, in order to have the capacity to evacuate a certain percentage of the number of people on board. These survival craft are generally life rafts or floats, which do not have engines and are not impacted by this interim rule. However, small passenger vessels could voluntarily carry a small boat that can be used to carry some of the passengers, thereby reducing the number of other survival craft they are required to carry (46 CFR 117.200(b) and 46 CFR 180.200(b)). Because this is a voluntary option available for these vessels, we do not include them in our analysis. However, we do note that if the uninspected vessels, small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers, towing vessels, or small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons choose to carry a small boat on board that does not meet ABYC S-30 standard, they could be indirectly affected by this interim rule. Because this interim rule applies only to new boats manufactured after June 1, 2018, any small passenger vessels already carrying small boats subject to Table 4 of subpart H will not be affected. If they choose to replace their small boat with a boat built after June 1, 2018, they may be indirectly affected if the manufacturer passes the costs of this interim rule on to the consumers. We account for the direct costs to manufacturers in this analysis.
The interim rule will affect manufacturers that produce monohull outboard boats that are less than 20 feet in length and that are not currently building boats to ABYC S-30 standard. The Coast Guard used the list of active Manufacturer Identification Code (MIC) holders, as required by 33 CFR part 181, subpart C, to determine the affected population. This list represents all recreational boat MICs that are currently active. We then removed any MICs that will not be affected by this rule from the list of manufacturers. This includes: (1) Manufacturers with multiple MICs; (2) MICs belonging to manufacturers that only build boats greater than 20 feet in length; (3) MICs belonging to manufacturers that do not build monohull outboard boats; and (4) MICs belonging to manufacturers that only produce boats exempted from this regulation by 33 CFR 183.201(b), including sailboats, canoes, kayaks, inflatable boats, submersibles, surface effect vessels, amphibious vessels, and raceboats. We found there are no more
Some of these 1,519 monohull manufacturers are currently in compliance with ABYC S-30 standard, and therefore will not incur additional costs because of this rule. The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) requires its members to build boats to the ABYC standard.
This interim rule will adopt the current ABYC S-30, to replace Table 4 of subpart H. This change will increase costs to 1,427 monohull manufacturers that are assumed to be not in compliance. The increase in the weight table figures will require an additional 1 to 2 cubic feet of flotation to be added to each boat manufactured after the implementation date of June 1, 2018. We estimate the foam for the additional flotation will cost an average of $10 per boat.
To estimate the total cost to industry, we then estimated the total number of outboard boats less than 20 feet in length manufactured per year by the monohull manufacturers that are not in compliance. The Coast Guard used data from the NMMA's 2015 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract
The total 85,023 outboard boats less than 20 feet that were sold in 2015 were produced by a mix of manufacturers that are already in compliance with the ABYC S-30 standard and manufacturers that are not in compliance and will be impacted by this rule. The NMMA estimates that around 85 percent of the boats sold in the United States are already in compliance with the ABYC S-30 standard. Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates 15 percent of the total outboard boats less than 20 feet sold were produced by manufacturers not in compliance with the ABYC standard. These 12,753 boats (15 percent of the 85,023 outboard boats less than 20 feet, rounded) will require $50 of additional flotation materials to align with the new standard.
To estimate the affected outboard boats over our 10-year period of analysis, we used NMMA data to forecast future boat building production.
As this interim rule will be effective June 1, 2018, any outboard boats manufactured after this date will need to be in compliance with ABYC S-30 standard. The Coast Guard anticipates most manufacturers will begin making the necessary changes at the beginning of 2018. All manufacturers will be in compliance by June 1, 2018 of Year 1, which corresponds with the 2018 estimated affected outboard boats in Table 3. We estimate there will be 17,916 affected outboard boats in Year 1 and 19,009 affected outboard boats in Years 2 through 10. Table 4 summarizes the estimated affected population of outboard boats that we used to estimate the 10-year costs of this interim rule.
This rule does not provide any quantitative benefits. However, it does have qualitative benefits. This rule will create uniformity by aligning all boats to the same standard. The ABYC S-30 provides a higher level of safety than that provided by the standard currently in the regulation. Requiring all boats less than 20 feet in length that currently do not meet ABYC S-30 standard weights to comply with that standard
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impacts of the interim rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601
A small entity may be: a small independent business, defined as independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field per the Small Business Act (5 U.S.C. 632); a small not-for-profit organization (any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field); or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people) per the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
An IRFA addresses the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
Congress has authorized the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations establishing minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment. In 1977, the Coast Guard established flotation requirements for boats less than 20 feet in length, and established a weight table (Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183) used to assist the boat manufacturer in determining the amount of flotation to be included in a boat's design and construction.
Table 4 was last updated in 1984, but the size and weight of outboard engines has evolved over the years to the point where Table 4 no longer accurately represents the weights of outboard engines available on the market. Changes in the design and construction of modern outboard engines necessitate a change in the table of outboard engine weights used in calculating safe loading capacities and required amounts of flotation material in the Safe Loading and Flotation Standards found in 33 CFR part 183, subparts G and H.
Congress has authorized the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations establishing minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment. Section 308 of the CGAA requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations updating Table 4 of subpart H in 33 CFR part 183 with ABYC S-30 not later than 180 days after enactment. This rulemaking will adopt the current ABYC S-30 to replace Table 4. The current ABYC S-30 is dated July 2012. Table 4 of subpart H applies to monohull outboard boats that are less than 20 feet in length, which includes recreational vessels as well as some commercial fishing vessels. It is also used indirectly for flotation requirements for survival craft covered by 46 CFR part 25 (uninspected vessels), 46 CFR part 117 (small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers), 46 CFR part 141 (towing vessels), and 46 CFR part 180 (small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons).
This interim rule will affect manufacturers that produce monohull outboard boats that are less than 20 feet in length that are not currently building boats to ABYC S-30 standard.
Based on Coast Guard's list of active MIC holders, we estimate this interim rule will affect 1,427 U.S. companies. We researched the number of employees and revenue of these companies using proprietary and public business databases.
Using a random sample of companies out of the total population of 1,427 affected U.S. companies, we researched 749 companies and found company-specific revenue and employment information and data on 388 of them.
Our analysis of the available company information revealed 64 primary NAICS codes. Table 7 displays the NAICS codes of the small entities found in our sample.
As discussed in the “Cost to Industry” section of the RA, we estimate that there are 17,916 outboard boats less than 20 feet produced by manufacturers annually that will require additional flotation materials to align with this interim rule in Year 1. Coast Guard does not have information on the market share of the small entity manufacturers and the number of boats they produce each year. Therefore, we assume each manufacturer consistently produces the same number of boats each year and that each manufacturer has the same market share. With 1,427 affected U.S. companies, this is an average of about 13 outboard boats per manufacturer (rounded). In Years 2 through 10, the Coast Guard estimates there are 19,009 outboard boats affected, at an average of about 13 outboard boats per manufacturer (19,009 boats divided by 1,427 manufacturers, rounded). At an estimated cost of $50 per outboard boat, the average total cost per manufacturer is $650 in Years 1 through 10. Table 8 summarizes the average costs per manufacturer of the interim rule by year.
Next, we compared the average cost per manufacturer to the revenue of the manufacturers in our sample. As shown in Table 6, we found revenue or company data for 385 small entities. We found revenue information for 371 of these small entities, and we were only able to find employee data for 14 entities. Therefore, we could not compare the cost per manufacturer to the revenues for the 14 entities with only employee data. Table 9 summarizes the results. In Years 1 through 10, 94.6 percent of the affected manufacturers will incur a cost of 1 percent or less of revenue in any given year, while 0.3 percent will incur a cost impact of greater than 10 percent of revenue.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this interim rule.
This interim rule implements section 308 of CGAA. The CGAA mandates the update of Table 4 in 33 CFR part 183. As such, the Coast Guard has no discretion to offer alternatives that minimize the impact on small entities while accomplishing the stated objective of the statute. To ease implementation of this requirement, the Coast Guard is delaying the effective date until June 1, 2018, so that the new requirements will apply only to boat manufacturers who build boats after that date.
We are interested in the potential impacts from this interim rule on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential impacts. If you think that this interim rule will have a significant economic impact on you, your business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the docket at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
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).
This rule calls for no 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 E.O. 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to “establish minimum safety standards for recreational vessels” (46 U.S.C. 4302). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 4306. Under 46 U.S.C. 4306, “a State or political subdivision of a State may not establish, continue in effect, or enforce a law or regulation establishing a recreational vessel or associated or equipment performance or other safety standard . . . that is not identical to a regulation prescribed under” 46 U.S.C. 4302. As a result, States or local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
This rule uses a voluntary consensus standard: the current ABYC S-30.
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 concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination supporting this determination are available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. This rule involves the safe loading capacity and required amount of flotation material for certain recreational boats, which concerns equipping of vessels, equipment and vessel operation safety standards. As such, this action is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2 and figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) and (e) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002).
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Marine safety.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 183 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 4302; Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2439; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b). Subpart E is also authorized by Pub. L. 114-120, 130 Stat. 27.
Manufacturers of vessels to which this subpart applies must use test weights that are not less than the recommended weights set forth in Table 183.75. Table 183.75 details the weight (in pounds) of gasoline outboard engines and related equipment for various rated power (horsepower) ranges.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the scarlet-chested parrot
This rule becomes effective May 5, 2017.
Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone, 703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
This document contains a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
The scarlet-chested and the turquoise parakeets of the genus
On September 22, 2000, we announced a review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order Psittaciformes (parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatoos, and others; also known as psittacine birds) listed under the Act (65 FR 57363). Section 4(c)(2) of the Act requires such a review at least once every 5 years. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List), found in 50 CFR 17.11, accurately reflects the most current status information for each listed species. We requested comments and the most current scientific or commercial information available on these species, as well as information on other species that may warrant future consideration for listing. If the current classification of a species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial information available at the conclusion of a review, we may propose changes to the List accordingly. Based on the 2000 review, one commenter suggested that we reevaluate the listing of the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and provided enough scientific information, including information and correspondence with Australian Government officials, to merit our further review of these species.
On September 2, 2003, we published a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under the Act because the endangered designation no longer correctly reflected the current conservation status of these birds. On January 21, 2016, we announced the reopening of the public comment period on our September 2, 2003, proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions to determine whether removing these species from the List is still warranted, and to ensure that we sought, received, and made our decision based on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding these species and their status and threats.
This is a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This final rule contains updated information from the information presented in the proposed rule to remove these species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003) and is based on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding these species and their status and threats.
This final rule includes information summarized from status reviews we conducted in 2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise parrots. These status reviews are available on the Internet at
Sections from the status reviews were added (in part or entirely) to the preamble to this final rule. These new sections in the preamble are updates or additions to information that was presented in the 2003 proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the list (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003). We made changes to Previous Federal Actions, Summary of Status Review, and Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis. More detailed information about both parrots is in our 2016-2017 status reviews.
In earlier rulemaking documents we used the common names “scarlet-chested parakeet” and “turquoise parakeet” for
When these two species were included in the Approved List of Captive-bred Bird Species under the WBCA, the Service footnoted the species that require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17 for importation or other prohibited acts to avoid any confusion for the public (59 FR 62255, 62261-63; December 2, 1994). With this final rule, these two species will no longer require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17. Accordingly, in order to avoid confusion, in this final rule we are also amending 50 CFR 15.33(a) simply to make technical corrections to delete the informational footnote superscripts from the entries for these two species and to reflect that the informational footnote now applies to only one species on the WBCA Approved List. These changes are being made with this final rule because they are noncontroversial actions necessary for clarity and consistency that are in the best interest of the public and should be undertaken in as timely a manner as possible.
Both the scarlet-chested (
The scarlet-chested parrot is a relatively small, very colorful parrot found in the dry central portions of southern Australia. Adult size is approximately 19-21 centimeters (cm) (7.5-8.3 inches (in)) in length (Higgins 1999, p. 585). The male scarlet-chested parrot is bright green above with yellow below. The face, throat, and cheeks are blue, and flight feathers are also edged in blue (BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Males are easily distinguished from females by their scarlet chest; the chest of the female is light green (BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Juvenile birds are similar in appearance to the female (del Hoyo
The scarlet-chested parrot inhabits open woodlands or shrublands among sand plains of the dry inland portions of the Australian “outback” or “rangelands.” Typical vegetation in these shrublands includes
The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to country that is usually waterless, with average annual rainfall less than 25 cm (10 in) (Jarman 1968, p. 111). It is frequently found far from water and is thought to obtain moisture by drinking dew or eating succulent (water-storing) plants (NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; Jarman 1968, p. 111). The species feeds primarily on grass seeds (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 367; del Hoyo
The species is described as nomadic—birds will appear in an area, nest for several years, and then disappear again (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Rowden
The scarlet-chested parrot is typically seen in isolated pairs or small groups of fewer than 10 birds (Forshaw 1989, p. 288), but larger flocks have been reported outside of the breeding season (NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 588; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). Age at maturity is about 3 years (Garnett & Crowley 2000a, p. 346), and generation time is estimated at 4.9 years (BLI 2012a, p. 8). The species breeds mostly from August through January, but timing likely depends on rain events and resultant food availability (BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288).
Woodland and shrubland tree hollows (
This species once had a wide distribution (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366) within the drier portions of southern Australia from the west coast of Australia to the western portions of New South Wales (Higgins, 1999, pp. 585-586).
Today, the population is sparsely distributed across the arid interior of southern Australia, ranging from approximately Kalgoorlie (Western Australia) to western portions of New South Wales in the east and as far north as southern portions of the Northern Territory (NSW 2014a, unpaginated). The species is primarily concentrated in the better vegetated areas of the Great Victoria Desert located in southwestern Australia (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366).
The estimated distribution of the scarlet-chested parrot is very large (262,000 km
The scarlet-chested parrot at one point historically was thought to have gone extinct, as a result of no sightings of this species for upwards of 20 to 60 years (Jarman 1968, p. 111; Anon. 1932, p. 538). The current population has not been quantified, but it is estimated to be larger than 10,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012a, p. 1); and population trends appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in the last 20 years (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; BLI 2012a, p. 4). The population does not appear to be fragmented, and subpopulations can travel great distances (Snyder
The scarlet-chested parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade and may number between 10,000 and 25,000 held in captivity in Australia alone (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384), although estimates of the size of the captive population after the late 1990s could not be found.
The scarlet-chested parrot was listed in CITES Appendix I in 1975, but transferred to Appendix II in 1977 (UNEP 2011a, unpaginated). The Order Psittaciformes was listed as a whole in Appendix II in 1981 (UNEP 2011a, unpaginated). Listing in CITES Appendix II allows for regulated international commercial trade based on certain findings.
Commercial exports of the scarlet-chested parrot from Australia have been prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The scarlet-chested parrot is not included in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated). Inclusion on EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery via: (1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC Act's assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The scarlet-chested parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346) listed the scarlet-chested parrot nationally as “Least Concern,” but this designation was removed in the 2010 Action Plan (Garnett
At the state level, the scarlet-chested parrot is listed as “Near threatened” in the Northern Territory (NT GOV 2016, unpaginated), and “Rare” in South Australia (South Australia 2016, unpaginated). It does not appear on the list of threatened fauna in Western Australia (WAG 2015, unpaginated). Although sightings are rare in New South Wales, the State has listed the scarlet-chested parrot as “Vulnerable” and has identified management actions for its conservation (NSW 2014a, unpaginated). The species is currently listed as “Threatened” in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act 2016, p. 3; Vic DSE 2013, p. 12), although there have been no confirmed records there since 1995 (Clarke
Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the scarlet-chested parrot are protected. For example, nearly 30 percent of the state of South Australia is now in the Natural Reserve System, which includes government reserves, indigenous protected areas, private protected areas, and jointly managed protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Reserve lands in South Australia include portions of the Great Victoria Desert, a primary concentration area for the scarlet-chested parrot. Also, nearly 22 percent of Western Australia, 19 percent of the Northern Territory, 9 percent of New South Wales, and 18 percent of Victoria are part of the Natural Reserve System (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the degree to which the Natural Reserve System protects the scarlet-chested parrot and its habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our determination of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of threatened or endangered.
The following paragraphs provide a summary of the past, current, and potential future stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot and its habitats. In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both parrot species for efficiency.
In this section, we consider the term “land clearing” to mean the removal of Australian native vegetation for agriculture, development, or other purposes (COAG 2012, p. 2). Thus, we consider clearing of the native habitats occupied by both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots as “land clearing,” including clearing of forests, woodlands, scrub- or shrublands, and grasslands. When Europeans began colonizing Australia in the late 18th century, approximately 30 percent of the continent was covered in forest (Barson
Although land clearing is listed as a “key threatening process” under the EPBC Act (Australian DEE 2016a, unpaginated), the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over state actions (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 233). Throughout this document, the term “key threatening process” means a “threatening process that threatens or
Europeans settled Australia's semi-arid or arid landscapes (
Fire is an essential component of Australia's natural environment. The indigenous people of Australia learned to live in a fire-prone environment and used fire as a primary land management tool (Whelan
Frequency, extent, and intensity of wildfires appear to be increasing across most of the scarlet-chested parrot's range (see
Long fire-free periods are important in the formation of tree hollows (Haslem
In summary, although habitat loss and degradation has occurred in the arid and semi-arid habitat occupied by the scarlet-chested parrot over the last 150 years, the degree to which land clearing for agriculture, overgrazing by introduced herbivores and altered fire regimes have acted on, are presently acting on, or will act on the scarlet-chested parrot in the foreseeable future, is difficult to assess. Mallee shrublands in southern South Australia and northwestern Victoria have been lost, but large fragments remain (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). Availability of nest hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over the long term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Although habitat destruction and modification is a likely stressor for the scarlet-chested parrot, we do not consider it to be a major stressor to the species throughout its entire range now or in the foreseeable future because the scarlet-chested parrot has evolved in dynamic environmental conditions, the area available to the parrot is large, and the parrot is capable of traveling great distances.
Trapping or nest robbing of scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots for the caged bird industry may have been a significant stressor in the past (NSW 2014a&b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, pp. 587 & 576), but current rates of trapping are unknown. It may no longer be much of a stressor because these species are readily captive-bred and kept in large numbers (Garnett 1992 as cited in Snyder
Legislation by the states within these species' range prohibits, or limits by permit, the capture of these species from the wild (See
International trade in wild-caught specimens is strictly limited by domestic regulation (in Australia) and through additional national and international treaties and laws (See
Despite domestic and international protections for wild birds, captive-bred scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are widely available, and their market value is relatively low compared to other species of parrots, especially for birds sold in Australia. Scarlet-chested parrots sold in Australia are valued at approximately $20 to $50 AUS ($15 to $38 US) (
Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild scarlet-chested parrots in trade. There were 22,612 recorded exports of the species in international trade (19,337 recorded as imports). Of these, only 32 specimens were recorded as exports from Australia (7 recorded as imported). With few exceptions, specimens in trade were captive-bred for the pet trade. Within this same time period there were 295 recorded imports (and 168 recorded exports) to the United States. Of those imports, 23 specimens were confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UNEP 2016a).
In summary, poaching for the pet trade may be occurring at a low level that is not likely to affect wild populations. Small, possibly resident, subpopulations may face some risk from poaching, but we are not aware of any significant poaching since the 1970s. Nor are we aware of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a stressor to the scarlet-chested parrot.
Information regarding diseases and their potential effect to wild scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots is limited. Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) is a viral disease that occurs in a fatal form and a chronic form in both old and new world parrots (Fogell
The virus particularly affects juveniles or young adults, but all ages are susceptible (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). The chronic form of PBFD results in feather, beak, and skin abnormalities, with most birds eventually dying (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). Symptoms of the acute form of PBFD include feather abnormalities and diarrhea, with death likely within 1 to 2 weeks (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). PBFD is readily transmitted through contact with contaminated feces, feather dust, crop secretions, surfaces, or objects (Gerlach 1994 as cited in Ritchie
PBFD can probably survive for many years in tree hollows and other nest sites (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). To date, the disease has not been reported for the scarlet-chested or turquoise parrots (Fogell
Nonnative cats (
The non-native European red fox (
Predation by feral cats and European red foxes could be a stressor for the scarlet-chested parrot, but the degree of predation is not known. Both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot were assessed as “high risk” from these predators within the rangeland environment in the Western Division of New South Wales based on variables such as predator density, body weight, habitat use, and behavior (Dickman et al. 1996, p. 249). The Western Division of New South Wales represents the eastern edge of the current distribution of the scarlet-chested parrot. Additionally, the night parrot (
Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit reproductive success by limiting the number of pairs that can breed, or by causing nest mortality as a result of competitive interactions. All but four species of Australian parrots are dependent on tree hollows for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58), and at least 14 species of parrots are known to use mallee shrublands (Schodde, 1990, p. 61). Availability of nest hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over the long term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Additionally, the provisioning of water for livestock in semi-arid and arid rangelands may have caused increases and competitive advantage (
In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot. Although PBFD has not been confirmed in the scarlet-chested parrot, it is likely susceptible to the disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or pathogens that affect the wild population. Predation and competition may be occurring at low levels. Disease, predation, and competition do not appear to be significant stressors to the species because populations of the scarlet-chested parrot appear to be stable with an estimated 10,000 individuals and no evidence of decline in the past 20 years.
In Australia, legislation from all states within these species' range prohibits, or limits by permit, the capture of the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots from the wild. Commercial exports of these species from Australia have been banned since 1962. The prohibition is now codified under the EPBC Act. Individuals who violate this act, for example to export native species for commercial reasons, can face serious penalties, such as lengthy imprisonment and hefty fines.
These species are listed in Appendix II of CITES (50 CFR 23.91). CITES, an international agreement between governments, ensures that the international trade of CITES-listed plants and animals does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plants and animals (CITES 2016, unpaginated). Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2016, unpaginated). The United States implements CITES through the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any specimens contrary to the provisions of CITES, or to possess any specimens traded contrary to the provisions of CITES, the Act, or part 23. Protections for CITES-listed species are provided independently of whether a species is a threatened species or endangered species under the Act.
In the United States, the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are currently listed as endangered and protected by the Act. Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or upon the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be listed or is listed as endangered or threatened. Specifically, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure those actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. However, because foreign species are not native to the United States, critical habitat is not designated. Regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
Section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever, in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Under section 10 of the Act, permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United States: the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the Lacey Act. The WBCA was passed in 1992 to ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade and to encourage wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United States any exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain circumstances. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue permits to allow import of listed birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25). All
(a) All specimens of the species known to be in trade (legal or illegal) must be captive bred;
(b) No specimens of the species may be removed from the wild for commercial purposes;
(c) Any importation of the species must not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; and
(d) Adequate enforcement controls must be in place to ensure compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c).
The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900 and was the first Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold: (1) In violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law, or (2) in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. Therefore, for example, because the take of wild-caught Australian parrots would be in violation of Australia's EPBC Act, the subsequent import of such parrots would be in violation of the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase specimens of these species traded contrary to CITES.
In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms governing collection and trade of wild scarlet-chested parrots. While we note the conservation measures that would no longer be in place under the Act as a result of a delisting, such as the prohibitions on take within the United States or on the high seas, and import, export, or re-export into or out of the United States, we did not rely on the conservation measures provided by a listing under the Act in reaching our determination of whether or not the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered. As described above, the EPBC Act (which controls commercial export), Lacey Act, CITES, and WBCA all provide protection to scarlet-chested parrots that minimize or eliminate threats from trade to the species independently of the listing of the species under the Act. Thus, we do not expect declines in the species due to the removal of the protections of the Act. As discussed under the other sections in Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, we do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulatory mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at protecting the species at a domestic and global level.
We discussed the nomadic behavior and the irruptive species population ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot in the
Species that naturally occur in low densities, however, are not necessarily in danger of extinction merely by virtue of their rarity. Many naturally rare species have persisted for long periods, and many naturally rare species exhibit traits (
We considered specific potential stressors that may affect or exacerbate rarity or small population size for the scarlet-chested parrot. Although low genetic diversity could occur with some small populations, the scarlet-chested parrot population is not known to be fragmented (Snyder
In summary, the best available information does not indicate that lack of genetic variability and reduced fitness is acting on the scarlet-chested parrot now or will do so in the future.
Described in general terms, “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over a long period of time, which may be reported as decades, centuries, or thousands of years. The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (
Over the last century, Australia has experienced an average increase of 1.0 °C (1.8 °F), with the most pronounced and rapid warming occurring in eastern Australia from the 1950s to the present (Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). Along with this warming, there has been an increased frequency of hot days and nights, and a decrease in cold days and nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). Rainfall patterns have shifted over this period, with decreased rainfall in the southeastern and southwestern regions and increases in the northwest (Nicholls
Climate change projections for Australia show significant vulnerability to changes in temperature and rainfall. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report identified agriculture and natural resources as two key sectors likely to be strongly affected (Stokes
Rainfall projections for Australia are less reliable with some dryer and wetter trends predicted within a large range of uncertainty (Stokes
Based on the information for Australia above, climate patterns over the last century within the known range of the scarlet-chested parrot included: (1) Increased average temperature of 1.0 °C (1.8 °F) (Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (2) increased frequency of hot days and warm nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (3) decreased rainfall in the southeastern and southwestern regions (Nicholls and Lavery 1992 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); and (4) increased annual total rainfall of approximately 15 percent in South Australia, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Victoria (Hughes 2003, p. 424). Similarly, a summary of climate projections for areas within the known range of the scarlet-chested parrot includes: (1) Temperature increase of 1-5 °C (1.8-9 °F) with most warming in the dry interior (Stokes
Habitats used by the scarlet-chested parrot will respond differently to projected warmer and drier conditions and the variable rain predictions. Habitats such as woodland areas used by the scarlet-chested parrot that do not receive adequate rain to produce needed fuels may actually see a decrease in fire frequency (Bradstock 2010, p. 145). However, fire frequency is likely to increase in areas with ample fuel and connectivity, such as hummock grasses interspersed with shrubs including mallee shrubland (Garnett
Although there is still some variability in climate change predictions for Australia, the increased warming and frequency and/or intensity of droughts are of concern for the scarlet-chested parrot and its habitats; however, the information at this time is too speculative for us to draw conclusions as to the scale and timing of any effects. Two recent studies analyzed the capacity of woodland birds in dry woodlands and riparian areas in southeastern Australia to resist the pressures of extended drought and then recover once drought conditions abated (Selwood
A recent climate-change-adaptation model using a “Business as Usual” projection (
The scarlet-chested parrot has evolved in a landscape where environmental conditions are dynamic, and its nomadic strategies may help it to recover from periods of range contraction and low numbers (Runge
In summary, effects from past and predicted climate change are difficult to assess for the scarlet-chested parrot. Because it is adapted to dry habitat, the parrot would likely fare better than more water-dependent birds in times of drought. However, within areas of increased rainfall, vegetation shifts may occur, fuel loads and wildfire risk may be altered, and competition with water-dependent species may increase. Although long-term range contraction was indicated in the climate-change-adaptation model (Garnett
The turquoise parrot is a relatively small, colorful parrot found in eastern and southeastern Australia. Adult size is approximately 20-22 cm (7.9-8.7 in) in length (Higgins 1999, p. 573). Adult coloration is primarily bright green
The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of eastern and southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the Great Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). Typical habitat is hill country including woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar 2016b, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Within this habitat, the parrot prefers the transition zones between open and closed areas, such as the edges of woodland adjoining grasslands and tree-lined creeks (Collar 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286).
The turquoise parrot tends to feed on or near the ground (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999b, p. 574; Quin and Reid 1996, p. 250), usually under the cover of trees (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999b, p. 574). The species also feeds in farmland, mainly pasture with remnant trees (Higgins 1999, p. 574). The turquoise parrot must have access to drinking water (Jarman 1973, p. 239), and its habitat usually receives more than 38 cm (15 in) of annual rainfall (Jarman 1973, p. 240). The species feeds on a generalized diet of seeds from grasses, herbaceous plants, and shrubs; it also feeds on flowers, nectar, fruit, leaves, and scale-insects (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 15). Turquoise parrots can exploit disturbed environments and use a variety of colonizing plants as food sources (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 27). The turquoise parrot eats from both native and non-native plants, and researchers credit its ability to partially adapt to modified habitats as contributing to its recovery (Quin 1990 as cited in Quin and Reid 1996, p. 253).
Type and quality of the pasture land used for food is important. Although the species can use partially modified habitats, use of highly modified habitats, such as “highly improved” pasture, is less likely. Improved pastures, in general, are sown with a proportion of non-native plant species to promote productive growth of both the pasture and grazing animals. Introduced non-native pasture species are usually grasses, in combination with legumes. In a study of the species near Chiltern, a town bordering the hill country in northeast Victoria, almost all habitat types in forest and unimproved pasture were potentially useful for feeding in at least one season. However, use of highly improved pasture and cropped land was rare (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 15).
The turquoise parrot is usually seen in pairs, in small groups, or, in flocks of up to 30 birds (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 574; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16). Rarer sightings of larger flocks of 100 to 200 birds have also been reported (Higgins 1999, p. 574; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16).The species is described as mainly sedentary or resident with some post-breeding movement from woodland to pastures (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366), and some sporadic local movement, likely related to rainfall (del Hoyo
The species breeds in pairs primarily from August to January with some nesting noted in February, and even from April to May (Collar 2016b, unpaginated; Quin
A little more than a century ago, the turquoise parrot was common through many parts of eastern Australia, ranging from eastern Queensland to south-central Victoria (Higgins 1999, p. 575; Jarman 1973, p. 239), though it is unknown whether the historical range was continuous (Jarman 1973, p. 240). Between 1880 and 1920, the species went through a major population crash with associated contractions in its range (Quin and Reid 1966, p. 250; see below).
Although the turquoise parrot is still not found in central Queensland, it is now distributed through much of its former range, from southeastern Queensland through eastern New South Wales and into Victoria (west to Bendigo, Victoria) (del Hoyo
The reasons for the turquoise parrot population crash between 1880 and 1920 are not fully understood. Likely contributing factors included: (1) Habitat loss from European settlement, including competition for food (grasses) from grazing livestock and rabbits, (2) an intense period of drought from 1895 to 1902, and (3) trapping for the pet trade (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; del Hoyo 1997, p. 383; Juniper and Parr 1989, p. 365). Some have also suggested that disease may have played a role because of the steep decline in numbers (Collar 2016b, unpaginated, Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3; Morse and Sullivan 1930, p. 289), but there is no evidence that disease was a factor. Other potential factors were predation by the non-native European red fox (
The return of the turquoise parrot to portions of its former range was reported by the 1930s and 1940s (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 575), though it did not reappear in Victoria until the 1950s (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). By the time we listed the species as endangered under the Act in 1970, recovery was continuing and the
The turquoise parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade with about 8,000 held in captivity in Australia (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366); estimates of the size of the captive population after the late 1990s could not be found.
The turquoise parrot was listed in CITES Appendix III in 1976, as part of a listing for the Family Psittacidae, and was later listed in Appendix II in 1981, along with all Psittaciformes (UNEP 2011b, unpaginated; see
Commercial exports of the turquoise parrot from Australia have been prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in Australia's EPBC Act. The turquoise parrot is not included in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated). Inclusion on the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery via: (1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC Act's assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The turquoise parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345) listed it nationally as “Near Threatened,” but this designation was removed in the 2010 Action Plan for Australian Birds, which noted that the population was too large to be considered “near threatened” and that there was no evidence of a recent decline (Garnett
At the state level, the species is currently listed as “Rare” in Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and “Threatened” in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG; FFG 2016, p. 3). It was subsequently recommended for downlisting to “Near Threatened” by an FFG Scientific Advisory Committee in 2013; however, it is still officially “Threatened” in Victoria (Vic DSE 2013, p. 13; NSW 2009, unpaginated). In 2009, the New South Wales Scientific Committee determined that the turquoise parrot met criteria for listing as “Vulnerable” under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW 2009, unpaginated), and this classification is still in place (BLA 2016b, unpaginated).
Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the turquoise parrot are protected. For example, about 8 percent of Queensland is now in the Natural Reserve System that includes government reserves, indigenous protected areas, private protected areas, and jointly managed protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Approximately 9 percent of New South Wales and 18 percent of Victoria are also part of this Natural Reserve System (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the degree to which the Natural Reserve System protects the turquoise parrot and its habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our determination of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of threatened or endangered.
The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and potential future stressors for the turquoise parrot and its habitats. In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both parrot species in the section for the scarlet-chested parrot for the sake of efficiency.
Typical turquoise parrot habitat is hill country including woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar 2016b, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Since the 1970s, southeastern Queensland and northern New South Wales have experienced the greatest rates of deforestation in Australia, and Victoria is now the most deforested state or territory in Australia (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109).
Unlike New South Wales and Victoria, most of the land clearing in Queensland has occurred in the last 50 years (Bradshaw 2012, p. 113; McAlpine
Victoria is heavily cleared (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114), having lost an estimated 66 percent of its native vegetation (Victoria Department of Sustainability and the Environment 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, pp. 113-114). Most of the clearance occurred prior to the 1890s when the wheat and livestock industries were developing (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114). Land clearance was estimated to have continued at a slow, steady rate of about 1 percent per year until 1987, when anti-clearing legislation was introduced (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114). Despite this legislation, proportional clearance rates from 1995-2005 remained high and even increased near the end of this decade (Bradshaw 2012, p. 114). Although Victoria is now the most cleared of the three states, it also contains the highest proportion of protected land. As of 2014, about 17.63 percent of Victoria's jurisdiction was in
New South Wales was one of the first regions settled by Europeans and generally has a higher human population than other parts of Australia. Most of the land clearing and damage to forest ecosystems happened during the nineteenth century (Bradshaw 2012, p. 112). More than 50 percent of the forest and woodland in New South Wales has been cleared (Lunney 2004, Olsen
Forest fragmentation as a result of land clearing can also affect the turquoise parrot, which is mostly sedentary but capable of short-distance dispersal (generally less than 10 km (6.2 mi)) along treed corridors) (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16). Therefore, gaps between forest remnants may cause fragmentation of turquoise parrot populations in heavily cleared landscapes (NSW 2009, unpaginated).
Prescribed fire and timber-cutting have negatively affected the turquoise parrot and its habitat (NSW 2009, unpaginated). Both practices have the potential to cause the loss of hollow-bearing trees, which can be a limiting habitat feature for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2014b). Similarly, firewood collection and selective removal of dead wood and dead trees reduce the availability of nest hollows (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; NSW 2009, unpaginated).
In summary, land clearing for agriculture in combination with other stressors (
The advent of anti-clearing legislation since approximately the 1990s (Bradshaw 2012, p. 116) and the growing proportion of lands in protected areas are positive signs for further turquoise parrot recovery, but researchers caution that conservation efforts such as reforestation should be carefully planned and implemented at the local level. The turquoise parrot population has continued to recover since the historic crash and through periods of subsequent deforestation, with no evidence of recent decline (Garnett
About a century ago, turquoise parrots were shot for food for pie-filling (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Seth-Smith 1909 as cited in Higgins 1999, p. 576) and, in some cases, were indiscriminately shot (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). These are no longer reported as stressors for the turquoise parrot.
Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild turquoise parrots in trade. There were 44,244 turquoise parrot specimens exported in international trade (27,248 recorded imports). More than 99 percent of these were captive-bred live parrots (UNEP 2016b).
In summary, use as food and poaching for the pet trade were noted as stressors in the past. Presently, poaching may be occurring at a low level that is not likely to affect wild populations. We are not aware of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes are current stressors to the turquoise parrot.
The turquoise parrot nests in tree hollows close to the ground, making it vulnerable to predation from introduced terrestrial predators such as feral cats and European red foxes (Rowden
Foxes dig at active turquoise parrot nests and usually take the female and the nestlings, if they can be reached. Some predation of turquoise parrots by foxes can be mitigated by physically reinforcing degraded natural nest hollows to avoid digging out of these nests by foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). Similarly, placement of artificial nesting material higher in the host tree can generally keep them out of reach of foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). There are ongoing efforts to improve turquoise parrot nesting habitat, particularly in Victoria (see
Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit reproductive success of the turquoise parrot by limiting the number of pairs that can breed, or by causing nest mortality as a result of competitive interactions. All but four species of Australian parrots are dependent on tree hollows for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58). Competition for nest hollows (both intraspecific and interspecific) was noted at Chiltern in Victoria, where limited nest hollows likely limited reproductive success of the turquoise parrot (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 12). National legislation, policy, and strategic management plans are in place to protect hollow-bearing trees in Australia; however, prioritization and implementation of actions at the local level may be limited or lacking (Treby
Placing artificial nest hollows in areas that appear to be nest-hollow limited seems to be successful, and programs that construct and strategically place artificial nests are supported at the State level and appear to be ongoing. For example, early experimental efforts to hollow-out naturally occurring stumps in the Warby Ranges (in Victoria, near Chiltern) were successful but ended in the 1990s (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). In 2010, Monash University researchers placed artificial nests around the Warby-Ovens State Park (also near Chiltern), and the hollows were readily occupied by turquoise parrots (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). More recent efforts to improve habitat for turquoise parrots include those of two land-care networks in northeastern Victoria. The Broken Boosey Conservation Management Network has made and installed 200 potential nest sites for the species (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated), and the Ovens Land-care Network received a $4,600 AUS ($3,525 US) grant that aims to raise awareness of the increasing risk to hollow-dependent species by the non-native Indian (common) myna bird (
Grazing by livestock can directly affect available food resources for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2009, unpaginated). As livestock grazing ended in some protected areas of Victoria, numbers of turquoise parrots in those areas increased (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 7; Juniper and Parr 1989, p. 366; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), indicating that a reduction in grazing may benefit the species' recovery.
Competition for food by grazing sheep, cattle, and European wild rabbits (
In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential stressors for the turquoise parrot. Although PBFD has not been confirmed in the turquoise parrot, it is likely susceptible to the disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or pathogens that affect the wild population. Predation and competition may be occurring at low levels, but there are active plans in place to control feral cats, foxes, and rabbits. Use of artificial nests may be helping to mitigate fox predation and competition for nest hollows where this is a limiting habitat feature. While disease, predation, and competition may be affecting the turquoise parrot at low levels, they do not appear to be significant stressors to the species because populations of the turquoise parrot are stable with an estimated 20,000 individuals and may be increasing in some areas.
In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms governing collection and trade of wild turquoise parrots. As described above, the EPBC Act (which controls commercial export), the Lacey Act, CITES, and the WBCA all provide protection to turquoies parrots that minimize or eliminate threats from trade to the species. As discussed under the other sections in Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot, we do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulating mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at protecting the species at a domestic and global level.
Based on the information presented in
Climate change is projected to affect pasture habitat used by the turquoise parrot. Rainfall is expected to be the dominant influence on pasture growth; fewer, more intense rain events are anticipated as well as (from year to year) more frequent droughts (Stokes
Increases in carbon dioxide (CO
Projections for more droughts could also negatively affect the turquoise parrot. A recent study analyzed the capacity of woodland bird species in north-central Victoria to resist the pressures of extended drought (
Additionally, a recent climate-change-adaptation model using a “Business as Usual” projection (
Potential responses and adaptability of the parrot to the projected effects from climate change are difficult to predict. Since the parrot is mainly resident, it is not known if it would relocate if local conditions degrade (
In summary, other than the projected increases in temperature and CO
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information. All substantive information was incorporated into the status reviews for each species and into this final rule, as appropriate. The following section summarizes issues and information we consider to be substantive from peer review and public comments, and provides our responses.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and their habitats, biological needs, and threats. In all, we contacted eight individuals seeking peer review for the scarlet-chested parrot and five individuals for the turquoise parrot. We found that there were a limited number of individuals who had worked with these parrot species because: (1) They are not listed species in Australia and thus have not been the subject of many dedicated studies, and (2) scarlet-chested parrots are often difficult to find and study due to their nomadic behavior and irruptive species population ecology.
We received responses from three peer reviewers for the scarlet-chested parrot and two peer reviewers for the turquoise parrot. We reviewed all the peer reviewers' comments for substantive issues and information regarding the status of and threats to these species. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our summaries and conclusions regarding these species and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions. We incorporated all peer reviewer information into the status reviews for each species, and the majority of the information provided in the peer review is also incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate. Status reviews and peer reviewer comments for the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot are available on the Internet at
The same peer reviewer provided the following observations regarding the population of turquoise parrots near Chiltern in northeastern Victoria: (1) The numbers of turquoise parrots currently in this area appear significantly fewer than the numbers that were there during the late 1980s to the early 1990s; (2) the decrease in numbers is likely due to a decrease in grass abundance either from the Millennium drought or an increase in herbivore abundance, or both; and (3) more fox control was likely needed in this area in the late 1980s.
Lastly, this peer reviewer provided information on two ongoing land-care networks that are working to improve turquoise parrot habitat in northeastern Victoria and commented that more intensive surveys are needed to determine population size of the turquoise parrot in all the regions of Victoria where the turquoise parrot is found.
We published a proposed rule to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52169), and we requested that all interested parties submit written comments at that time. Additionally, because considerable time had passed since the 2003 proposal, we published a reopening of the public comment period in January 2016, which closed on February 22, 2016 (81 FR 3373, January 21, 2016). We took this action to ensure that we sought, received, and made our decision based on the best scientific and commercial information available on these species and their status and threats, in order to determine whether removing these species from the List is warranted. Comments summarized below are from our reopening of the public comment period in January 2016 (81 FR 3373).
We received 18 public comments relating to the proposed delisting of scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets during the public comment period. More detailed information about the comments we received and our responses are below.
On September 2, 2003, we published our review of the status of these species and a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under the Act because the endangered designation no longer correctly reflected the current conservation status of these birds, as the best available information indicated that they had recovered. We explained that our review of the best available information showed that the wild populations of these species were stable with more than 20,000 turquoise parakeets and 10,000 scarlet-chested parakeets found throughout their range. Furthermore, trade in wild-caught specimens was strictly limited, and the species were protected through domestic regulation within the range
On January 21, 2016, because considerable time had passed since the 2003 proposal, we published the reopening of the public comment period on our proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions to determine whether removing these species from the List is still warranted, and to ensure that we sought, received, and made our final decision based on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding these species and their status and threats. This final rule is based on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding these species and includes information summarized from status reviews we conducted in 2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise parrots. These status reviews are available on the Internet at
Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the five threat factors identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed information available in our files and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized species and habitat experts and representatives of the range country (Australia).
We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (
The Australian Government does not include the scarlet-chested parrot in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017, unpaginated) either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed it nationally as “Least Concern” and then did not list it in the 2010 Action Plan for Australian Birds. As such, there is no national recovery plan for the scarlet-chested parrot.
The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as “Least Concern.” Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic regulation in Australia and through additional national and international treaties and laws.
As with all species, the scarlet-chested parrot is subject to some stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not having a significant impact on the species. This determination is evidenced by the apparent stability of the population of the species for the last 20 years. Therefore we conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that the scarlet-chested parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any of the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (
The Australian Government does not include the turquoise parrot in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017, unpaginated), either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed it nationally as “Near Threatened” but then did not list it in the 2010 Action Plan for Australian Birds because the population was too large to be considered “near threatened” and there was no evidence of a recent decline (Garnett
The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as “Least Concern.” Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic regulation in
As with all species, the turquoise parrot is subject to some stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not having a significant impact on the species. This is evidenced by the apparent stable population of approximately 20,000 individuals with increases reported in some areas. Therefore, we conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that the turquoise parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any of the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available and determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all their respective ranges, nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Having examined the status of the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots throughout all of their ranges, we next examine whether these species are in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in a significant portion of their respective ranges. 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. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis is required. If the species is neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and 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 applies only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (
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.”
Applying the process described above, we evaluated portions of the scarlet-chested parrot's range that may be significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The range available to the scarlet-chested parrot is very large (262,000 km
We next examined whether any stressors are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in this portion. We examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species, competition for food and nest hollows, small population size, and effects from climate change. All these stressors appeared to be uniform across the range of the species, with the exception of potential effects from climate change (See
All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the species. The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to arid landscapes and able to travel great distances. The population is not known to be fragmented (Snyder
We evaluated portions of the turquoise parrot's range that may be significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of eastern and southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the Great Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). The Great Dividing Range is formed from multiple mountain ranges that dominate the eastern Australia landmass. The species' distribution is not continuous but rather occurs in patches of suitable habitat throughout this broader range (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), and about 90 percent of the population is thought to occur in New South Wales (NSW 2009, unpaginated). We did not identify any natural divisions within the range that may be of biological or conservation importance with the exception that the central portion of the parrot's current range (in New South Wales) could be considered significant based on the concentration of parrots there.
We next examined whether any stressors are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species competition for food and nest hollows, and effects from climate change. All these stressors appeared to be uniform across the range of the species, with the exception of potential effects from climate change (See
A recent climate-change-adaptation model indicated a long-term range contraction by about one half to the southern part of its current range (
All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the species. The population of the turquoise parrot now numbers more than 20,000 individuals. The population appears to be stable and may be increasing in some areas. Therefore, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available and have determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portions of their respective ranges, nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future. As a consequence of this determination, we are removing these species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. As of the effective date of this rule (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing or reclassification of a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
This final rule was authored by staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 15 and part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.
(a) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 3, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 5,197 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017.
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the B season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 4,697 mt and is setting aside the remaining 500 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 30, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify its calculations for hourly pilotage rates on the Great Lakes by accounting for the “weighting factor,” which is a multiplier that can increase the pilotage costs for larger vessels traversing areas in the Great Lakes by a factor of up to 1.45. While the weighting factor has existed for decades, it has never been included in any of the previous ratemaking calculations. We propose to add steps to our rate-setting methodology to adjust hourly rates downwards by an amount equal to the average weighting factor, so that when the weighting factor is applied, the cost to the shippers and the corresponding revenue generated for the pilot associations will adjust to what was originally intended. We note that until a final rule is produced, the 2016 rates will stay in effect, even if a final rule is not published by the start of the 2017 season.
Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0268 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We note that, in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), we are only soliciting comments regarding the addition of the weighting factor adjustment into the Coast Guard's Great Lakes pilotage methodology. The Coast Guard is neither soliciting, nor are we considering, comments relating to any other part of the Great Lakes Pilotage rate setting methodology. Although we left all other items in the proposed October 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) as if they were unchanged, we note that those items are still under consideration by the Coast Guard and may be amended in the final rule. Any changes in the final rule will be based only on (1) comments submitted prior to the December 19, 2016 deadline for the NPRM comment period, and (2) comments submitted in response to this SNPRM regarding the weighting factor adjustment.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes changes in its methodology to adjust for the weighting factor charged for larger vessels. The result of the adjustment would be a reduction in the hourly pilotage rates in the Great Lakes region from amounts proposed in the NPRM, published in October 2016 (81 FR 72011, October 19, 2016). This
We note that until a final rule is produced, the 2016 rates will stay in effect, even if a final rule is not published by the start of the 2017 season.
Pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act, the Coast Guard sets hourly rates for pilot services on the Great Lakes. While all vessels must pay these base rates, larger vessels pay a higher rate, as a “weighting factor” multiplies the base rates they pay by a factor of 1.15 to 1.45. In past rate-settings, the methodology used to calculate hourly rates on the Great Lakes did not adjust the rates for the weighting factor. During the 2016 shipping season, under the revised methodology, preliminary estimates of actual revenues exceeded the projected revenues, even when adjusted for increased shipping traffic.
Based on the 2016 data, we believe it is necessary to account for the weighting factors in the hourly rate calculation in the methodology in order for the U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations to more accurately generate total revenues. Our projections for total revenues are intended to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. One goal of our methodology is to produce revenues that reflect the level of actual pilotage demand. While we recognize that traffic varies from year to year, in years where traffic is higher than the 10-year rolling average, the rates should generate more revenue than our projections. In years where traffic is lower than the 10-year rolling average, the rates should generate less than our projections. The variance in actual demand for pilotage services should align with the variance in actual revenues.
The preliminary information we have available to us after 1 year under the revised methodology indicates that not adjusting for the weighting factor in the calculation of hourly rates has contributed to actual revenues exceeding our projected revenues. We believe that revising the methodology to adjust hourly rates for the weighting factors would improve the ability of the methodology to more closely match projections of total revenue with the actual revenue generated.
Table 1 shows the proposed changes in the pilotage charges per hour. The first column lists the current pilotage charges in force, the second column shows the rate increase that the Coast Guard proposed in October of 2016, and the third column shows the revised rates, which incorporate an adjustment for the weighting factors into the ratemaking methodology. We note that this rule does not change the weighting factors themselves, only the methodology used to calculate base hourly pilotage rates. Additionally, this does not change the overall revenue we project as necessary to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. As this action does not change the amount of projected revenue we deem necessary for the pilot associations, the Regulatory Analyses remains unchanged from the NPRM.
The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”), which requires U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels to use U.S. or Canadian registered pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system. For the U.S. registered Great Lakes pilots, the Act requires the Secretary to “prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.” The Act requires that rates be established or reviewed and adjusted each year, not later than March 1. Also, the Act requires the establishment of a full ratemaking at least once every 5 years, and in years when base rates are not established, they must be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted. The Secretary's duties and authority under the Act have been delegated to the Coast Guard.
In this SNPRM, the Coast Guard proposes to incorporate the weighting factor into its method of calculating pilotage rates set forth in the previously-published NPRM (81 FR 72011, October 19, 2016). This SNPRM does not propose to make any other adjustments to the methodology proposed in that NPRM.
Because the Coast Guard is charged by statute with setting pilotage rates by regulation, taking into account the public interest and the cost of providing services, we have in the past used a methodology that attempts to determine the amount of traffic, the number of pilots needed to handle that traffic, allowable operating expenses, and a fair pilot compensation. It uses these calculations to set a mandatory cost of pilotage for each of six areas in the Great Lakes region.
Because the Coast Guard sets pilotage rates on a yearly basis, we proposed changes to the 2016 methodology for 2017, issuing an NPRM in October 2016 that proposed various modifications to the 2016 methodology for the 2017 shipping season. In our NPRM, we proposed a substantial number of changes in how to determine operating expenses and the number of pilots needed. The proposed methodology is carried out in an eight-step process, separately for each area, as described briefly below. For a fuller explanation of the process, please refer to the NPRM, at 81 FR 72011 beginning on page 72013.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Step 6:
Step 7:
Step 8:
Using this process, the Coast Guard produced the following proposed changes to the hourly pilotage rates, as summarized in Table 2. As shown by the figures in the table, the NPRM proposed increases of varying sizes for rates in each of the six regions.
While we believe that the ratemaking calculations proposed in the NPRM are fairly comprehensive, there is one item that is currently not captured by that methodology. This item is the “weighting factor.” The weighting factor is a multiplier of between 1.0 and 1.45, which is applied to the total pilot costs for larger vessels. The weighting factor has been used to ensure that larger vessels, which can absorb more in pilotage costs than smaller ones, pay a larger percentage of the total costs of pilotage in the Great Lakes. However, while the weighting factor increases the total pilotage revenue generated, it is not used in the calculation of pilotage rates. Instead, as shown earlier in Step 7 of the rate-setting process, we use only the total number of hours to set pilotage rates, which is not adjusted to include additional revenues brought in due to the weighting factor.
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard did not propose to incorporate the weighting factors into the rate-setting methodology. We stated that we did not have sufficient data at the time of the NPRM to incorporate them into the calculations. While we discussed three options on how to proceed, we specifically stated that “we request public comment on which of three options should be implemented for future ratemakings.” The three options were as follows: (1) Maintain the status quo, by continuing to mandate the weighting factors while leaving them out of the ratemaking calculation; (2) remove the weighting factors completely and charge each vessel equally for pilotage service; and (3) incorporate weighting factors into the rulemaking through an additional step that examines and projects their impact on the revenues of the pilot associations. We note that this third option “might enable us to better forecast revenue, but it would add another variable to the projections in the rate methodology.” (81 FR at 72027)
In the comments to the NPRM, the Coast Guard received data and commentary from both shippers and pilots regarding the weighting factors. One commenter, representing the pilots, stated that the Coast Guard has “correctly explained that the weighting factors are separate from the ratemaking calculation.”
Shippers, on the other hand, argued that the weighting factors should be included in the revenue calculations. The shipping industry commenters stated that revenue projections in the Coast Guard's regulations will not be accurate if they do not include some value reflecting vessel size, and that it is an “arithmetic certainty” that the revenue projections in the NPRM would overstate the rates needed to generate a given level of pilotage revenue.
Because the weighting factors were adjusted in 2014, we propose using the measured average of weighting factors from the years 2014 through 2016 to calculate an average weighting factor to use in the ratemaking calculations. We calculated the average multiplier by weighting each class of vessels according to the number of transits, for each district, and for designated and undesignated areas. We note this is a different method than used by the shipping industry in their comments, which we averaged by the number of ships. We believe our methodology is more accurate as some ships will transit multiple times per year, paying the weighted pilotage cost each time. The following tables show the calculations we used to determine proposed average weighting factors in both designated and undesignated waters for each district.
Using preliminary data from the pilot associations for the entire 2016 season with regard to revenues and surcharges, as well as internal Coast Guard systems, we examined disparities between the revenue raised from pilotage services and the total number of hours worked. We expect a relatively simple relationship between hours billed and total revenue raised.
Furthermore, the disparities between revenue and demand substantially correlate with the average weighting factors. Table 5 demonstrates this disparity.
For example, for District Two, actual pilot demand was above the pilot demand that the Coast Guard projected in the 2016 ratemaking at a ratio of 120 percent (12,022/10,016). Actual revenue generated was above projected revenue by 155 percent (9,181,265/5,929,641). The ratio of the increase in revenues to the increase in pilot demand is 1.29, compared to the average weighting factor of 1.32.
Based on this analysis, we believe that there is a likelihood that the weighting factors are a factor in the difference between projected and a preliminary review of actual revenue experienced in 2016 under the revised methodology. In this SNPRM, we propose to incorporate the weighting factors into the ratemaking model. The practical result of this would be substantial net reductions in hourly pilotage fees, producing reductions of 28 to 32 percent, depending on the area. We request comments on both the new data introduced by the Coast Guard, as well as this specific proposal.
We note that, given the above calculations (more detailed figures underpinning these calculations are available in the docket for this rulemaking), the proposed weighting factors are higher—particularly in the case of District Three
Because the weighting factors were adjusted in 2014, we propose using the measured average of weighting factors from the years 2014 to 2016 to calculate an average weighting factor to use in the ratemaking calculations. We calculated the average multiplier by weighting each class of vessel according to the number of transits. We note this is a different method than used by the shipping industry in their comments, which averaged by number of ships. We believe our methodology is more accurate as some ships will transit multiple times per year, paying the weighted pilotage cost each time.
Using these weighting factor averages, the Coast Guard proposes to add two additional steps to our rate making procedure. We propose renumbering existing step 8, the Director's discretion, to step 10, and adding new steps 8 and 9 to account for the influence the weighting factors have on total generated revenues.
In Step 8, which would be codified as 404.108, “Calculate average weighting factors by Area,” the Coast Guard proposes to calculate the rolling average of the weighting factors for the designated and undesignated waters of each pilotage district. We propose using the same 10-year rolling average standard for this calculation as we use for historic pilotage demand. Since the current weighting factors came into place in 2013, we propose using the data between 2014 and 2016 and expand this data set until we reach our 10-year goal. Tables 3a through 3f featured earlier, show the data used in these calculations for this SNPRM.
In Step 9, which would be codified as 404.109, “Calculation of Revised Base Rates,” the Coast Guard proposes to divide the initial rate calculation, from Step 7 (calculation of the initial base rates), by the average weighting factor calculated in Step 8.
Finally, we propose renaming the Director's Discretion as Step 10, but otherwise leave it unchanged.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
As this action does not change the amount of projected revenue we deem necessary for the pilot associations, the Regulatory Planning and Review remains unchanged from the NPRM.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).
We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the NPRM to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. We consider all estimates and analysis in that Regulatory Analysis (RA) to be subject to change in consideration of public comments. As this SNPRM does not change the total required revenue or any other items that would alter the analysis of the impact of the proposed rule we have not included a separate regulatory analysis in this document. Instead, we refer you to the previously published NPRM to see the analysis of the costs and benefit of the proposed rule.
As this action does not change the amount of projected revenue we deem necessary for the pilot associations, the Small Entities analysis remains unchanged from the NPRM.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether the proposed rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 people.
Based on the analysis in the NPRM, we found this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
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).
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.
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 proposed rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.” 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of state law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a “State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.” As a result, States or local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272, note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. This proposed rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This proposed rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Uniform System of Accounts.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 401, 403, and 404 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).
To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior public comment and may not be authorized for more than 1 year. Once the approved amount has been received, the pilot association is not authorized to collect any additional funds under the surcharge authority and must cease such collections for the remainder of that shipping season.
(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on—
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $592;
(2) Lake Ontario is $402;
(3) Lake Erie is $408;
(4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $546;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $215; and
(6) The St. Mary's River is $508.
(b) When an order for a U.S. pilot's service is cancelled, the vessel can be charged for the pilot's reasonable travel expenses for travel that occurred to and from the pilot's base, and the greater of—
(1) Four hours; or
(2) The time of cancellation and the time of the pilot's scheduled arrival, or the pilot's reporting for duty as ordered, whichever is later.
(b) The Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY beginning January 31, 2017;
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(c) By January 24 of each year, each association must obtain an unqualified audit report for the preceding year that is audited and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by an independent certified public accountant. Each association must electronically submit that report with any associated settlement statements and all accompanying notes to the Director by January 31.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(b) Pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based on available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a multi-year base period. The multi-year period is the 10 most recent full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under 46 CFR 403.300. Where such data are not available or reliable, the Director also may use data, from additional past full shipping seasons or other sources, that the Director determines to be available and reliable.
At least once every 10 years, the Director will set a base target pilot compensation benchmark using the most relevant available non-proprietary information. In years in which a base compensation benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation will be adjusted for inflation using the CPI for the Midwest region or a published predetermined amount. The Director determines each pilotage association's total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot compensation by the number of pilots projected under § 404.103(d) of this part.
The Director initially calculates base hourly rates by dividing the projected needed revenue from § 404.106 of this part by averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in accordance with § 404.103(b) of this part.
The Director calculates the average weighting factor for each area by computing the 10-year rolling average of weighting factors applied in that area, beginning with the year 2014. If less than 10 years of data are available, the Director calculates the average weighting factor using data from each year beginning with 2014.
The Director calculates revised base rates for each area by dividing the initial base rate (from Step 7) by the average weighting factor (from Step 8) to produce a revised base rate for each area.
The Director reviews the base pilotage rates calculated in § 404.109 of this part to ensure they meet the goal set in § 404.1(a) of this part, and either finalizes them or first makes necessary and reasonable adjustments to them based on requirements of Great Lakes pilotage agreements between the United States and Canada, or other supportable circumstances.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to Section 11 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (STB Reauthorization Act), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) is proposing changes to its rules pertaining to its rate case procedures to help improve and expedite the rate review process.
Comments are due by May 15, 2017. Reply comments are due June 14, 2017.
Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on the Board's Web site, at “
Sarah Fancher, (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
Section 11 of the STB Reauthorization Act, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) directs the Board to “initiate a proceeding to assess procedures that are available to parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation and the potential application of any such procedures to rate cases.” In addition, Section 11 requires the Board to comply with a new timeline in Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) cases.
In advance of initiating this proceeding, Board staff held informal meetings with stakeholders
The Board received comments on the
Based on the comments, the Board is now proposing specific changes intended to help improve the rate review process and expedite rate cases.
Several railroad and shipper interests generally support the requirement of a pre-filing notice. (CSXT Comments 7, AAR Comments 6, Joint Carload Shippers Comments 4-5.) CSXT and Joint Carload Shippers comment that the filing would provide early notice of impending discovery obligations. (CSXT Comments 7-10, Joint Carload Shippers Comments 4-5.) CSXT also comments that a pre-filing notice could allow the parties to agree on a protective order that could be in place at the outset of the case. (CSXT Comments 8.)
Conversely, NSR and Coal Shippers/NARUC comment that a pre-filing notice in and of itself likely would not do much to expedite rate cases. (NSR Comments 35, Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 33.) NSR argues that, even with such a notice, the railroad can only begin to gather the necessary documents and data once the shipper has filed its case, indicating whether it is a SAC, Simplified-SAC, or Three-Benchmark case, and the shipper has served its discovery requests, informing the railroad of the time frame for discovery materials and identified the segments of the railroad for which discovery is sought. (NSR Comments 35.) Coal Shippers/NARUC comment that once a shipper has decided to file a SAC case, it is ready to do so immediately, and because of the negotiations between the shipper and rail carriers where a potential SAC case is in play, many rail carriers start gathering the necessary SAC information without any pre-filing requirement. (Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 33-34.) Coal Shippers/NARUC comment that the only potential benefit of a pre-filing requirement is one that includes a response deadline—
Regarding whether mediation should be conducted during a pre-complaint period, CSXT and Joint Carload Shippers comment that doing so would be beneficial in that it would allow parties to focus exclusively on litigation after the complaint has been filed. (CSXT Comments 9-10, Joint Carload Shippers Comments 4-5.) AAR comments that mediation at the outset of the process could allow the parties to avoid litigation altogether, though it would not actually expedite the rate case itself once it is filed. (AAR
With respect to the timing of the pre-filing notice, both CSXT and Joint Carload Shippers argue that 60 days prior to the filing of a SAC complaint probably would be optimal, and Joint Carload Shippers assert that this would afford sufficient time for scheduling and conducting mediation. (CSXT Comments 10, Joint Carload Shippers Comments 5.) Although Coal Shippers/NARUC oppose the requirement of a pre-filing notice, they argue that, if one is mandated by the Board, it should be filed no later than 30 days prior to the date the complaint is filed. (Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 38-39.)
Concerning the content of the pre-filing notice, parties suggest that the pre-filing notice could include: (1) The rate that will be challenged; (2) the origin-destination pair(s) being challenged; (3) the commodities at issue; (4) the states the shipper expects its SARR may traverse; and (5) other pertinent information. (
The Board is persuaded that establishing a pre-complaint period, during which parties engage in mediation without the burden of simultaneous litigation and discovery, outweighs any burden the pre-complaint period may add. The Board believes that such a requirement would help the case proceed more efficiently and quickly once the complaint is filed because the pre-filing notice would put the parties on notice as to what they likely will need to produce in discovery. When the Board first codified mandatory mediation in SAC cases in
With respect to the timing of the pre-filing notice, the Board believes that a longer period of 70 days is appropriate to accommodate the full schedule of mediation so that parties will have the time to focus on resolutions before litigation begins. The Board welcomes comment on this proposed longer period. With respect to the contents of the notice, the Board believes that the most useful elements are: (1) The rate to be challenged; (2) the origin/destination pair(s) to be challenged; and (3) the commodities at issue. The Board also sees the benefit of having a protective order in place as early as possible, and thus requiring the shipper to include with its pre-filing notice a motion for protective order. Accordingly, as discussed in Section II, the Board proposes to require a complainant to submit a pre-filing notice and motion for protective order 70 days before filing a SAC complaint.
The Board recognizes Coal Shippers/NARUC's concerns that, once shippers have considered filing a SAC case, they may wish to litigate immediately, but the Board believes that the benefits of engaging in early mediation, establishing a protective order, and providing early notice of impending discovery obligations outweigh that delay. The Board does not agree with the Coal Shippers/NARUC's suggestion that the Board eliminate mandatory mediation of SAC disputes altogether, given the potential benefit of mediation in SAC cases. Contrary to Coal Shippers/NARUC's claim, mandatory mediation did result in a settlement in a rate case involving coal.
a.
CSXT does not take a position on standardizing discovery requests, but cautions that discovery requests, while relatively consistent from case to case, evolve over time. (CSXT Comments 23-24.) Coal Shippers/NARUC do not support standardized discovery requests, and comment that SAC discovery questions have evolved over time, and should continue to do so to meet shippers' discovery needs and to address the technological changes in how rail carriers collect, store, and maintain data. (Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 43.) Coal Shippers/NARUC also do not support the use of standardized disclosures. (Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 43.) They note that while the specific categories of information that shippers need—what they term “Core SAC Data”—generally remains the same from case to case, the exact set of responsive information coal shippers need can change over time based on case-specific needs and changes in how rail carriers maintain and update their internal databases. (Coal Shippers/NARUC 43.) Thus, instead of standardized disclosures, Coal Shippers/NARUC suggest the following process: (1) Require the complainant shipper to file its initial discovery requests along with its complaint; (2) require Board staff to hold a technical discovery conference with the parties no later than 15 days after the initial discovery requests are filed, at which the complainant shipper will identify those questions seeking Core SAC Data, and discuss logistical issues about producing this data; and (3) require that, following the conference, the Board issue an order directing the defendant rail carrier to respond to the complainant shipper's specific requests seeking Core SAC Data no later than 60 days after the initial discovery requests
The Board is persuaded that the value of allowing discovery requests and information disclosed in SAC cases to evolve outweighs the potential time saved by standardizing discovery requests or standardized disclosures. Accordingly, the Board will not propose to change the SAC case regulations in this manner. However, the Board agrees with the general consensus among commenters that beginning discovery as soon as possible will help expedite SAC cases. Therefore, the Board proposes requiring a complainant to certify that it has served its initial discovery requests with its complaint and requiring a defendant to certify that it has served its initial discovery requests with its answer.
We do not see the need to adopt Coal Shippers/NARUC's proposed process involving a technical conference at which the shipper would identify the discovery requests seeking Core SAC Data in discovery served with the complaint at this time. The Board believes this should be evident from the discovery itself. However, as discussed further below, the Board encourages additional use of conferences between the parties and Board staff to promptly resolve any disputes that arise and parties could request a conference early in the discovery process if necessary in a particular case.
b.
Railroad and shipper interests generally support such a meet and confer requirement. (CSXT Comments 28-29, Coal Shippers/NARUC Comments 51, NSR Comments 41-42, Joint Carload Shippers Comments 16.) Coal Shippers/NARUC suggest that any such rule also address what they claim is continuing confusion over the Board's procedural rule that requires the filing of motions to compel in certain instances no later than 10 days after an insufficient response is received.
The Board agrees with the majority of comments that adding a meet-and-confer requirement would help to reduce the number of disputes that reach the Board and thus expedite rate cases. The Board acknowledges Joint Carload Shippers' concern that there are situations where consultation may be difficult due to time constraints, but does not believe that the best way of handling those instances is to create an exception to the rule. Instead, the Board proposes a requirement modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which requires that the movant certify that it has in good faith met and conferred or attempted to meet and confer with the person or party failing to answer discovery to resolve the issue without Board intervention.
The Board is not convinced that it needs to extend its 10-day rule if it adopts a meet-and-confer requirement. The Board believes that 10 days is sufficient time to confer or attempt to confer with an unresponsive party, and extending that period any further would unnecessarily delay discovery.
a.
CSXT also recommends that the Board create a standard rule for identifying highly confidential and confidential materials in parties' pleadings. (CSXT Comments 40.) CSXT asserts that it and other parties have used the convention of double braces for
The Board acknowledges CSXT's concern that delaying the submission of public filings delays the ability of in-house personnel to review and respond to the filings. However, the Board believes the appropriate remedy is to set a delay of three business days, as suggested by Coal Shippers/NARUC, rather than have parties identify the information in filings that can be shared with in-house personnel simultaneously with the highly confidential submission. The Board believes that the evolution of rate case practice makes this change appropriate now, even though the Board rejected such a proposal in
The Board also agrees with CSXT's comment that standardizing the identification of public, confidential, and highly confidential material will reduce confusion. Therefore, in Section II, the Board proposes creating standard identifying markers that would be applied in all rate case proceedings. The Board also proposes standard markers for sensitive security information.
b.
The Board believes that selection of the topics for final briefs could be beneficial, however, it would require a Board decision following the close of evidence. The Board is concerned that this additional step would curtail the already shortened period available to the Board for issuing a decision on the merits in SAC cases. More importantly, the Board believes that the better approach for encouraging parties to focus on the most important issues in SAC and Simplified-SAC cases is to limit the length of final briefs. The Board has on occasion, in individual cases, imposed page limits on final briefs.
Several railroads and shipper interests supported the idea of increased staff involvement. (AAR Comments 8; CSXT Comments 40-41; NSR Comments 12; Joint Carload Shippers Comments 26-28.) Coal Shippers/NARUC agree that increased staff involvement, as outlined by the Board in the
The Board is convinced that increased staff involvement at all stages of a rate case, both through technical conferences/written questions and a Board-appointed liaison to the parties, would reduce the number of disputes between the parties and thus expedite the rate case process.
The proposed rules contain changes to the Board's regulations at 49 CFR parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130, which are set out below. In proposing these changes, the Board has considered the suggestions from commenters on the
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
The Board seeks comments from all interested persons on these proposed rules. Importantly, the Board encourages interested persons to propose and discuss potential modifications or alternatives to the proposed rule. The Board will consider all recommended proposals in an effort to establish the most useful changes to improve and expedite the rate review process.
The Board's proposed changes to its regulations here are intended to improve and expedite its rate case procedures and do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a “small business” as only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
1. Comments are due by May 15, 2017. Reply comments are due by June 14, 2017.
2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend title 49, chapter X, parts 1104, 1109, 1111, 1114, and 1130 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5.U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 1321.
(c)
49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 5 U.S.C. 571
(a)
(b)
(g)
49 U.S.C. 10704, 11701, and 1321.
(a)
(i) Identify the rate to be challenged;
(ii) Identify the origin/destination pair(s) to be challenged;
(iii) Identify the affected commodities; and
(iv) Include a motion for protective order as set forth at 49 CFR 1104.14(c).
(b)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(f)
(a) * * *
(1) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology:
In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 business days of the filing of the complaint.
(2) In cases relying upon the Three-Benchmark methodology:
In addition, the Board will appoint a liaison within 10 business days of the filing of the complaint.
(b)
(2) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology, final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
Day 0—Complaint filed, discovery period begins.
Day 7 or before—Conference of the parties convened pursuant to § 1111.11(b).
Day 20—Defendant's answer to complaint due.
(b)
(2) Final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
(b)
(2) In cases relying upon the Simplified-SAC methodology, final briefs are limited to 30 pages, inclusive of exhibits.
(b)
5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.
The revisions read as follows:
(d)
(f)
(a)
49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), 14709.
(a)
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list a mussel species, the yellow lance (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 5, 2017. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520; or facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the yellow lance. The SSA team was composed of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the yellow lance. The SSA report underwent independent peer review by scientists with expertise in mussel biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species) to the species. The SSA report and other materials relating to this proposal can be found on the Southeast Region Web site at
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of this species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for this species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of the species.
(5) Information on activities which might warrant being exempted under section 4(d) of the ESA. The Service is considering proposing such measures before the final listing determination is published, and will evaluate ideas provided by the public in considering whether such exemptions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the dates specified above in
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We identified the yellow lance as a Category 2 candidate species in our November 21, 1991, Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804). Category 2 candidates were defined as taxa for which we had information that listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at that time. The species remained a Category 2 candidate in a subsequent Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 58982; November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of species as Category 2 candidates; therefore, the yellow lance was no longer a candidate species.
On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned to list 404 aquatic species, including yellow lance, in the southeastern United States. In response to the petition, we completed a partial 90-day finding on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we announced our finding that the petition contained substantial information that listing may be warranted for the yellow lance. On April 15, 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a complaint against the Service (1:15-CV-00229-EGS) for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the yellow lance in accordance with statutory deadlines. On September 9, 2015 the Service and the CBD filed stipulated settlements in the District of Columbia, agreeing that the Service would submit to the
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the yellow lance is presented in the Species Status Assessment Report for the yellow lance (
The yellow lance is a bright yellow, elongate mussel with a shell over twice as long as tall, usually no more than 86 millimeters (mm) (3.4 inches (in)) in length. They are omnivores that primarily filter feed on a wide variety of microscopic particulate matter suspended in the water column, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and dissolved organic matter (Haag 2012, p. 26). Juveniles likely pedal feed in the sediment, whereas adults filter feed from the water column. Like most freshwater mussels, they have a unique life cycle that relies on fish hosts for successful reproduction. Following release from the female mussel, floating glochidia (larvae) attach to the gills and scales of host minnows.
The yellow lance is a sand-loving species (Alderman 2003, p. 6) often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand and sometimes migrating with shifting sands (NatureServe 2015, p. 6), although it has also been found in gravel substrates. The species is dependent on clean (
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its continued existence. The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological status review for the yellow lance, including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the yellow lance should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The SSA report, however, provides the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision, which involves the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found on the Southeast Region Web site at
To assess yellow lance viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); representation supports the ability of
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs) to evaluate the yellow lance's life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the yellow lance arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' response to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of the yellow lance to sustain populations in the wild over time. We utilize this information to inform our regulatory decision in this 12-month finding and proposed rule.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the yellow lance, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the eight river basins that yellow lance mussels have historically occupied (
To assess resiliency, we analyzed occurrence, recruitment, and abundance data (“population factors”) as well as four habitat elements that influence the species: Water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity (“habitat elements”). We then assessed the overall condition of each population. Overall population condition rankings were determined by combining the three population factors and four habitat elements. For a more detailed explanation of the condition categories, see Table 1, below.
Representation for the yellow lance can be described in terms of river basin variability (known from eight historical river basins), physiographic variability (Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), and latitudinal variability (Maryland south to North Carolina). High redundancy for yellow lance is defined as multiple resilient populations (inclusive of multiple, resilient MUs) distributed throughout the species' historical range. That is, highly resilient populations, coupled with a relatively broad distribution, have a positive relationship to species-level redundancy.
The historical range of the yellow lance included streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Patuxent River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented historical distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The yellow lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (
Once known to occupy streams in three physiographic regions (Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), the species has lost occurrences in each physiographic region compared with historical occurrences, although it is still represented by at least one population in each region. We estimated that the yellow lance currently has reduced adaptive potential relative to historical potential due to decreased representation in seven river basins and three physiographic regions. The species retains most of its known river basin variability, but its distribution has been greatly reduced in the Rappahannock, York, Chowan, and Neuse River populations. In addition, compared to historical distribution, the species has declined by 70 percent in the Coastal Plain region and by approximately 50 percent in both the Piedmont and the Mountain regions. Latitudinal variability is also reduced,
While the overall range of the yellow lance has not changed significantly, the remaining occupied portions of the range have become constricted within each basin and the species is largely limited to the southern portions of its historical range. One population (the Tar population, the southernmost population) was estimated to be moderately resilient, but all other extant populations exhibit low resiliency. Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied MUs that remain currently occupied. The species retains redundancy (albeit in low condition) within the Rappahannock, Chowan, and Neuse River populations, and one population (Tar) has multiple moderate or highly resilient management units. Overall, the species has decreased redundancy across its range due to an estimated 57 percent reduction in occupancy compared to historical levels.
Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and anthropogenic factors that may impact the status of species within those systems (Neves et al., 1997, p. 44). Generally, these factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors (
Impervious surfaces associated with development negatively affect water quality when pollutants that accumulate on impervious surfaces are washed directly into the streams during storm events. Storm water runoff affects water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity, which in turn alters the water chemistry and could it make it unsuitable for the yellow lance. Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development (Giddings et al., 2009, p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1311).
Urban development can lead to increased variability in streamflow, typically increasing the amount of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to travel over the land before entering the stream (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 1). Stream habitat is altered either directly via channelization or clearing of riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the channel and cause sediment erosion (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2). Impervious surfaces associated with increased development cause rain water to accumulate and flow rapidly into storm drains, thereby becoming superheated, which can stress or kill these mussel species when the superheated water enters streams. Pollutants like gasoline, oil, and fertilizers are also washed directly into streams and can kill mussels and other aquatic organisms. The large volumes and velocity of water combined with the extra debris and sediment entering streams following a storm can stress, displace, or kill the yellow lance, and the host fish species that it depends on.
A further risk of urbanization is the accompanying road development that often results in improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either as flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream, or if the culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, and host fish (and, therefore, the yellow lance) cannot pass through them. This leads to loss of access to quality habitat, as well as fragmented habitat and a loss of connectivity between populations of the yellow lance. This can limit both genetic exchange and recolonization opportunities.
All of the river basins within the range of the yellow lance are affected by development, from 7 percent in the Tar River basin to 25 percent in the Patuxent River basin (based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data). The Neuse River basin in North Carolina contains one-sixth of the entire State's population, indicating heavy development pressure on the watershed. The Nottoway MU (in the Chowan population) contains 155 impaired stream miles, 4 major discharges, 32 minor discharges, and over 3,000 road crossings, affecting the quality of the habitat for the yellow lance. The Potomac River basin is currently made up of 12.7 percent impervious surfaces, changing natural streamflow, reducing appropriate stream habitat, and decreasing water quality throughout the population. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to appendix D of the SSA report.
It is common practice to pump water for irrigation from adjacent streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or to spray the stream or river water directly onto crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive or done illegally, this may cause impacts to the amount of water available to downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and stranding of mussels, leading to desiccation and death. In the Rappahannock River basin, for example, the upper watershed supports largely agricultural land uses. Sedimentation is a problem in the upper watershed, as stormwater runoff from the major tributaries (Rapidan and Hazel rivers) leaves the Rappahannock River muddy even after minor storm events. According to the 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of the watersheds within the range of the yellow lance are affected by agricultural land uses, most with 20 percent or more of the
Further, many forestry activities do not require a permit for wetland or stream fill, as many silviculture activities are exempted from permit requirements (USACE 2016, entire; USEPA 2017, p. 1). Forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, and this can directly degrade nearby stream environments (Aust et al. 2011, p. 123). Roads can cause point source pollution and sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling downstream into more sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress and mortality for the yellow lance, as discussed in
Hydrilla (
In addition to the impacts on the yellow lance individually, it is likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on the species. The combined impact of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. For example, in the Meherrin River MU, there are four stream reaches with 34 miles of impaired streams. The stream reaches have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and contain
The Service and State wildlife agencies are working with numerous partners to make ecosystem management a reality, primarily by providing technical guidance and offering development of conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems from Maryland to North Carolina. There are ongoing efforts to work with agriculture producers through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service to install riparian buffers along streams. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition, Federal and State biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences, and recently there has been a concerted effort to ramp up captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts.
In 2014, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff and partners began a concerted effort to propagate the yellow lance in hopes of augmenting existing populations in the Tar and Neuse River basins. In July 2015, 270 yellow lances were stocked into Sandy Creek, a tributary of the Tar River. Annual monitoring to evaluate growth and survival is planned, and additional propagation and stocking efforts will continue in upcoming years.
For a more-detailed discussion of our evaluation of the biological status of the yellow lance and the factors that may affect its continued existence, please see the SSA report for the yellow lance (
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time (in this case, 50 years). To help address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on species' requirements, the 3Rs were assessed using four plausible future scenarios. These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of urbanization (Terando et al. 2014) and climate models (International Panel on Climate Change 2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the yellow lance. To forecast the biological conditions of the yellow lance into the future, we devised plausible future scenarios by eliciting expert information on the primary stressors anticipated to affect the species into the future: Habitat loss and degradation due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. The models that were used to forecast urbanization into the future projected out 50 years, and climate change models included that timeframe as well. For more detailed information on these models and their projections, please see the SSA report for the yellow lance (Service, 2017).
In scenario one, the “Status Quo” scenario, factors that influence current populations of the yellow lance were assumed to remain constant over the 50-year time horizon. Climate models predict that, if emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast will experience an increase in low flow (drought) events (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Likewise, this scenario assumed the `business as usual' pattern of urban growth, which predicts that urbanization will continue to increase rapidly (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1). This continued growth in development means increases in impervious surfaces, increased variability in streamflow, channelization of streams or clearing of riparian areas, and other negative effects explained above under “
In scenario two, the “Pessimistic” scenario, factors that negatively influence yellow lance populations get worse; reflecting Climate Model RCP8.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), effects of climate change are expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the “Status Quo” scenario. Effects are predicted to result in extreme heat, more storms and flooding, and exacerbated drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Based on the results of the SLEUTH BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, entire), urbanization in yellow lance watersheds could expand to triple the amount of developed area, resulting in large increases of impervious surface cover and, potentially, consumptive water use. Increased urbanization and climate change effects are likely to result in increased impacts to water quality, water flow, and habitat connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species restoration under this scenario.
Scenario three is labeled the “Optimistic” scenario, under which factors that influence population and habitat conditions of the yellow lance are expected to be somewhat improved. Reflecting Climate Model RCP2.6 (Wayne 2013, p.11), climate change effects are predicted to be minimal under this scenario, so effects of increased temperatures, storms, and droughts are not reflected in “Optimistic” scenario predictions, as they were in “Status Quo” and “Pessimistic” scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted to have less impact in this scenario as reflected by effects that are slightly lower than BAU model predictions (Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Because water quality, water flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to be less severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the yellow lance will
In scenario four, the “Opportunistic” scenario, those landscape-level factors (
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the yellow lance. The historical range of the yellow lance included streams and rivers in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Patuxent River Basin south to the Neuse River Basin, with the documented historical distribution in 12 MUs within eight former populations. The yellow lance is presumed extirpated from 25 percent (3) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the remaining nine occupied MUs, 17 percent are estimated to have high resiliency, 8 percent moderate resiliency, and 67 percent low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one of eight former populations (the Tar population) was estimated to have moderate resiliency, while the remaining six extant populations (Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, and Neuse populations) were characterized by low resiliency. The Potomac population is presumed to be extirpated, thus eliminating 13 percent of the species' historical range. Eighty-six percent of streams that remain part of the current species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition. Known to historically occupy streams in three physiographic regions, the species continues to maintain physiographic representation in all three regions, although occupancy has decreased in each region. An estimated 50 percent loss has occurred in the Mountain region's watersheds, an estimated 56 percent loss has occurred in the Piedmont region's watersheds, and an estimated 70 percent loss has occurred in the Coastal Plain region's watersheds.
The yellow lance faces threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E), were important factors in our assessment of the future viability of the yellow lance. Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future scenarios of yellow lance habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in as many as five of seven currently extant populations. The most optimistic model predicted that only two populations will remain extant in 50 years and those populations are expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We considered whether the yellow lance meets either of these definitions, and we find that the yellow lance meets the definition of a threatened species. Our analysis of the species' current and future conditions, as well as the conservation efforts discussed above, show that the population and habitat factors used to determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the yellow lance will continue to decline so that it is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the yellow lance as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
We considered whether the yellow lance is currently in danger of extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the yellow lance SSA report show that 12 MUs over seven (of eight) different populations (river systems) occur over a majority (87 percent) of the species' historical range. The yellow lance still exhibits representation across all three physiographic regions and extant populations remain from the Patuxent River south to the Neuse River. While threats are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. According to our assessment of plausible future scenarios, the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the yellow lance is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations in 50 CFR 424.12, require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The regulations also provide that, in determining whether a designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species, the factors that the Services may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat” (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(ii)).
We do not know of any imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism for the yellow lance. The available information does not indicate that identification and mapping of critical habitat is likely to initiate any threat of collection or vandalism for the yellow lance. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the species, if there are benefits to the species from a critical habitat designation, a finding that designation is prudent is appropriate.
The potential benefits of designation may include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the protected species. Because designation of critical habitat would not likely increase the degree of threat to the yellow lance and may provide some measure of benefit, designation of critical habitat may be prudent for the yellow lance.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. A careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of working with the States and other partners in acquiring the complex information needed to perform that assessment. The information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, and, therefore, we find designation of critical habitat for the yellow lance to be not determinable at this time.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries, and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or Plants (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan for the yellow lance will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Although the yellow lance is only proposed for listing under the Act at
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the yellow lance and result in “take” include, but are not limited to:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of fill material, dredging, snagging, impounding, channelization, or modification of stream channels or banks;
(3) Destruction of riparian habitat directly adjacent to stream channels that causes significant increases in sedimentation and destruction of natural stream banks or channels;
(4) Discharge of pollutants into a stream or into areas hydrologically connected to a stream occupied by the species;
(5) Diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow; and
(6) Pesticide/herbicide applications in violation of label restrictions.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office (see
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Unified Listing Team and the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new collection for the purpose of learning about the types of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) related fraud activity observed by large retailers and the methods they use to prevent fraud and minimize their losses. The goal of the information collection is to learn more about the types of SNAP fraud that occur in large retailer settings; document retailer practices to detect, deter, and deal with fraud (collectively known as loss prevention or loss prevention practices); and determine which practices could provide information that would help FNS in detecting and preventing SNAP fraud.
Written comments must be received by June 5, 2017.
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 time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the reporting burden on those who are asked to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Eric Sean Williams, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22312. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Eric Sean Williams at (703) 305-2576 or via email to
Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of FNS during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22312.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collected should be directed to Eric Williams, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Requests for additional information or copies of the information collected may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Eric Williams at (703) 305-2576 or by email to
Research has consistently demonstrated that fraud rates are lowest among large retailers. There are several theories for why this may be true, one of which is that large regional or national retail chains of stores have sophisticated loss prevention systems that prevent or detect numerous types of fraud. Thus, a loss prevention system built to discover an employee engaging in credit card fraud could easily be modified to detect an employee engaging in SNAP benefit fraud. Similarly, a system built to prevent internal theft may be able to detect the sale of ineligible items.
Despite theories as to why large stores have low SNAP fraud rates, there is limited understanding of how they prevent SNAP fraud. If internal loss prevention systems prevent SNAP fraud, then it is possible that a better understanding of large store procedures could help FNS refine its procedures for detecting and reducing retailer-level fraud. Thus, FNS desires to understand more about the steps large retailers take to protect themselves from fraud in general and SNAP fraud specifically.
The information collection activities to be undertaken subject to this notice include: Survey of Companies that own/franchise large SNAP authorized retail chains: Surveys will be administered to company SNAP representatives in companies that own, franchise and/or have cooperative agreements with the largest chains of SNAP-authorized stores. These include super store chains, large supermarket chains, convenience store chains, and other chain stores that sell a combination of food and other products, such as household products, pharmaceuticals, or gasoline. The surveys will address the loss prevention systems used by these companies.
Survey of SNAP Authorized Stores owned/franchised/affiliated with large retail chains: Surveys will be administered to managers of super stores, large supermarkets, convenience stores and other chain stores that sell a combination of food and other products. The surveys will address fraud detection and prevention policies and practices. This study does not seek to represent all SNAP retailers. It targets the practices of one segment of the
Company SNAP representatives and store managers will be asked questions regarding organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, and tactics used to limit or eliminate fraud in general and SNAP fraud in particular. At a minimum the following fraud abatement methods will be studied at the corporate and store levels: Point of sale systems, analytics, training, surveillance, investigation, and liaison with law enforcement. The surveys will be administered using a web-based survey tool.
Companies and SNAP authorized stores that do not respond to the web-based surveys will receive internet reminders. Those that still do not respond will receive a telephone call through a Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system where trained interviewers will prompt the participant to respond to the survey online or to complete the survey by telephone via CATI.
There is no recordkeeping burden involved in this data collect. The reporting burden identified below reflects the total number of respondents who will participate fully and total number of non-respondents who take in part or chose not to participate fully in this study.
A total of 45 large companies with stores participating in SNAP, and 4,000 SNAP authorized company owned and operate stores, franchised stores or affiliated stores and 5 pretest companies.
Pretesting the company surveys will take a total of 4 hours (two 2-hour interviews), and pretesting the store surveys will take 4 hours (two 2-hour interviews).
FNS plans to contact 45 companies. We anticipate the SNAP representative at 35 companies will respond and spend 0.75 hours identifying key informants and compiling information from various organizational units involved in SNAP. They are likely to include human resources (for training), loss prevention (for loss prevention management and loss prevention procedures used), point of sale management and analytics. The company SNAP representative will spend between 0.75 (web-based response or CATI survey response) hours completing the survey, including time to report on SNAP-specific activities and policies carried out by the SNAP representative and information compiled from other units involved in SNAP. Managers of 2,000 stores will spend an average of 0.75 hours each to respond to the Store Manager Survey.
See the burden table (Table 1) below for estimated total burden for each type of business respondent and non-respondents.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 16, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (“CCRs”) and intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and the AD order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan (collectively the “
Effective April 5, 2017.
Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On February 18, 2015, the Department published the
On November 10, 2016, the Department published the
Because no party submitted comments opposing the Department's
(1) Less than 300,000 mm
The merchandise covered by these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. For purposes of these orders, subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in a customs territory other than the PRC.
Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction
Excluded from the scope of these orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.
Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in Taiwan are covered by this order. However, modules, laminates, and panels produced in Taiwan from cells produced in third-country are not covered by this order.
Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Because we determine that there are changed circumstances that warrant the revocation of the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and revocation, in part, and notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting and webinar/conference call.
NMFS will hold a 3-day Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) meeting in May 2017. The intent of the meeting is to consider options for the conservation and management of Atlantic HMS. The meeting is open to the public.
The AP meeting and webinar will be held from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10, and from 9 a.m. to Noon on Thursday, May 11.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The meeting presentations will also be available via WebEx webinar/conference call.
The meeting on Tuesday, May 9, Wednesday, May 10, and Thursday, May 11, 2017, will also be accessible via conference call and webinar. Conference call and webinar access information are available at:
Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.
Peter Cooper or Margo Schulze-Haugen at (301) 427-8503.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The AP has previously consulted with NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April 1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003); the Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006); and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008, February and September 2009, May and September 2010, April and September 2011, March and September 2012, January and September 2013, April and September 2014, March and September 2015, and March, September, and December 2016), among other things.
The intent of this meeting is to consider alternatives for the conservation and management of all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries. We anticipate discussing:
• Amendment 5b on dusky sharks;
• Draft Amendment 10 on Essential Fish Habitat;
• Implementation of Final Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna management, including the upcoming three-year review;
• Progress updates on various other rulemakings, including individual bluefin quota transfer criteria effective dates, and requests for regulatory changes received to date;
• Domestic implementation of recommendations from the 2016 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and issues for 2017;
• Progress updates regarding the exempted fishing permit request to conduct research in pelagic longline closed areas and white shark research; and
• Updates on shark stock assessments.
We also anticipate discussing recreational and commercial fishing topics in specific breakout group sessions, including a detailed discussion of permitting, reporting, and compliance with recreational and commercial vessel requirements in response to several requests. Finally, we intend to invite other NMFS offices and the United States Coast Guard to provide updates on their activities relevant to HMS fisheries.
Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Peter Cooper at (301) 427-8503 at least 7 days prior to the meeting.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and
The meeting will be held on May 4, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held at the National Association of Broadcasters, 1771 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Public comments may be mailed to the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to
David J. Reed, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-5955 or
This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. § 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit:
Council on Environmental Quality.
Notice.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is withdrawing its “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews,” for which a Notice of Availability was published on August 5, 2016. 81 FR 51866.
This withdrawal is effective April 5, 2017.
This Notice also will be made available on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site (
Council on Environmental Quality (ATTN: Ted Boling, Associate Director for the National Environmental Policy Act), 730 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 395-5750.
Enacted by Congress in 1969, NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
DoD Chief Information Officer, DoD.
Notice of meeting.
DoD is hosting an “Industry Information Day” to present a briefing, and receive and address industry feedback on the implementation of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Case 2013-D018, “
The public meeting will be held on Friday, June 23, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., EDT. Registration to attend this meeting must be received by Monday, June 12, 2017.
The public meeting will be held at the Mark Center Auditorium, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3603. The auditorium is located on level B-1 of the building.
Ms. Vicki Michetti, at (703) 604-3167.
DoD is hosting an “Industry Information Day” to present a briefing on the implementation of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Case 2013-D018, “
(1) Company or organization name; and
(2) Names and email addresses of persons planning to attend.
One valid government-issued photo identification card will be required in order to enter the building. Non-U.S. citizens must bring their Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Card and original Social Security card as identification. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least one hour early to accommodate security procedures. Accommodations for parking at the Mark Center will not be available, but may be found in the surrounding areas. Transportation information for the Mark Center may be obtained at
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 2017.
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 NCES Information Collections 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
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 2017.
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 Sarah Martinez, 202-260-1334.
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 Department is requesting a revision to this currently approved information collection in order to address changes to MEP eligibility made
There was an overall reduction in SEA burden and responses. The reduction in burden and responses was achieved not as a result of deliberate Federal government action, but rather due to decreases in the number of eligible migratory children, the number of SEAs participating in the MEP, and the number of SEAs that the Department expects will be required to implement retrospective re-interviewing. The burden per respondent for the COE as described in 34 CFR 200.89(c) remains the same because although some additional burden is incurred as a result of the added questions (needed to demonstrate compliance with the new statutory language in ESSA), there was an equivalent reduction in burden achieved by the removal of previously included questions (which were needed to demonstrate compliance with the statute, prior to its amendment by ESSA). The annualized burden of 34 CFR 200.83, 200.84, and 200.88 was changed due to those costs occurring at least once per ESEA authorization period of four years (previously six years).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; public comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a revision of a currently approved collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a revision and three-year extension of its State Energy Program.
Comments regarding this revision to an approved information collection must be received on or before May 5, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to: Sallie Glaize, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Gregory Davoren, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 287-1706; Fax: (412) 386-5835; Email:
Additional information and reporting guidance concerning the State Energy Program (SEP) is available for review at the following Web site:
The proposed action will continue the collection of information on the status of grantee activities, expenditures, and results, to ensure that program funds are being used appropriately, effectively and expeditiously.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the revision of the currently approved 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 pertaining to the approved collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to further enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (d) ways to further minimize the burden regarding the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5126; (2) Information Collection Request Title: State Energy Program; (3) Type of Review: Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; (4) Purpose: To collect information on the status of grantee activities, expenditures, and results, to ensure that program funds are being used appropriately, effectively and expeditiously; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 56; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 224; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 7,600; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $304,000.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
DTE Energy Trading, Inc. (Applicant or DTE Energy Trading) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 5, 2017.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On July 13, 2012, DOE issued Order No. EA-211-C to DTE Energy Trading, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing
In its application, DTE Energy Trading states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that DTE Energy Trading proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by TPS have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning DTE Energy Trading's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-211-D. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Cynthia Klots, DTE Energy Trading, Inc., 414 S. Main Street, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 and Jane E. Rueger, White & Case LLP, 701 13th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Decision and order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of a decision and order (Case No. BC-001) that grants to Dyson, Inc. (Dyson) a waiver from the DOE test procedure for determining the energy consumption of battery chargers. Under this decision and order, Dyson is required to test and rate the battery charger used in its robotic vacuum cleaner model RB01, marketed as the Dyson 360-Eye (Robot) using an alternate test procedure to turn off functions not associated with the battery charging process during the charge and maintenance mode test by isolating a terminal of the battery pack using isolating tape when measuring energy consumption.
This Decision and Order is effective April 5, 2017.
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its decision and order as set forth below. The decision and order grants Dyson a waiver from the applicable battery charger test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y for the battery charger used in their robotic vacuum cleaner model RB01, marketed as the Dyson 360-Eye (“Robot”), provided that Dyson tests and rates such products using the alternate test procedure described in this notice. Dyson's representations concerning the energy efficiency of this product must be based on testing consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the decision and order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c))
Not later than June 5, 2017, any manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States a product employing a technology or characteristic that results in the same need for a waiver from the battery charger test procedure must submit a petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(j). Manufacturers not currently distributing such products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to distribution in commerce in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.
Title III, Part B
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that: (1) Prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).
On April 7, 2016, Dyson filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for battery chargers under 10 CFR 430.27 for the battery charger used in their robotic vacuum cleaner model RB01, marketed as the Dyson 360-Eye (Robot), which is required to be tested using the DOE battery charger test procedure at 10 CFR 430.23(aa) and detailed at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y. In its petition, Dyson asks that the requirement contained in the DOE test procedure for battery chargers provided in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, section 4.4,
Dyson asserts that in order to provide the user with the advanced setting and management features of the Robot, the relevant functionalities and circuitry have to be powered at all times. Accordingly, Dyson does not believe it appropriate to make these functions, which are not associated with the battery charging process, user controllable because they are an integral part of the Robot itself. Therefore, in order to ascertain the true energy consumption characteristics of the battery charger during the test, Dyson seeks permission to switch off these functions by a means that is not controlled by the user.
Dyson also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure, which DOE granted. See 81 FR at 62489. After reviewing the alternate procedure suggested by Dyson, DOE granted the interim waiver because DOE determined that Dyson's petition for waiver will likely be granted and decided that it was desirable for public policy reasons to grant Dyson immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. Dyson's petition was published in the
On May 20, 2016, DOE published a test procedure final rule that adopted amendments to the battery charger test procedure found in Appendix Y. 81 FR 31827. Subsequently, on December 12, 2016, DOE issued a separate final rule to add a discrete test method for uninterruptible power supplies to the battery charger test procedure. 81 FR 89806. Neither of these final rules amended the provisions of the battery charger test procedure from which Dyson sought a waiver. Since the amendments in these final rules did not address the issues presented in the waiver petition, Dyson's interim waiver has remained in effect while DOE has evaluated the waiver petition. 10 CFR 430.27(h).
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Dyson petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Dyson.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Dyson and consultation with the FTC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is
(1) The petition for waiver submitted by the Dyson Inc. (Case No. BC-001) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) Dyson must test and rate the Dyson basic models specified in paragraph (3) on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, except that Dyson, notwithstanding the instructions in Appendix Y sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.6, may disable power to functions not associated with the battery charging process by isolating a terminal of the battery pack using isolating tape, as shown in the Appendices to the petition for waiver.
(3) This order applies only to the following basic model: RB01, marketed as the Dyson 360-Eye (“Robot”), battery charger.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Order.
In this Order, EPA denies a petition requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos under section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and cancel all chlorpyrifos registrations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The petition was filed in September 2007 by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
This Order is effective April 5, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 5, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005, is available at
Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0206; email address:
In this document EPA denies a petition by PANNA and the NRDC to revoke pesticide tolerances and cancel pesticide registrations. This action may also be of interest to agricultural producers, food manufacturers, or pesticide manufacturers. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:
• Crop production (North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 111),
• Animal production (NAICS code 112),
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311),
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532),
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assists you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005. Additional information relevant to this action is located in the chlorpyrifos registration review docket under Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850 and the chlorpyrifos tolerance rulemaking docket under Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653. To access the electronic docket, go to
Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a(g)), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this order and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this order in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 5, 2017, and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in I.B.1 above. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
The objection stage is the second stage in the petition process under FFDCA section 408. This multi-stage process is initiated by a petition requesting establishment, modification, or revocation of a tolerance. Once EPA makes a decision on a petition, and publishes its decision in the
In this document, EPA denies a petition by PANNA and the NRDC. In a petition dated September 12, 2007, PANNA and NRDC (the petitioners) requested that EPA revoke all tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos established under section 408 of the FFDCA. (Ref. 1) The petition also sought the cancellation of all chlorpyrifos pesticide product registrations under section 6 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136d. The PANNA and NRDC petition (the Petition) raised the following claims regarding EPA's reregistration and active registrations of chlorpyrifos in support of the request for tolerance revocation and product cancellation:
1. EPA has ignored genetic evidence of vulnerable populations.
2. EPA has needlessly delayed a decision regarding endocrine disrupting effects.
3. EPA has ignored data regarding cancer risks.
4. EPA's 2006 cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for the organophosphates misrepresented risks and failed to apply FQPA 10X safety factor. [For convenience's sake, the legal requirements regarding the additional safety margin for infants and children in section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA are referred to throughout this response as the “FQPA 10X safety factor” or simply the “FQPA safety factor.” Due to Congress' focus on both pre- and post-natal toxicity, EPA has interpreted this additional safety factor as pertaining to risks to infants and children that arise due to pre-natal exposure as well as to exposure during childhood years.]
5. EPA has over-relied on registrant data.
6. EPA has failed to properly address the exporting hazard in foreign countries from chlorpyrifos.
7. EPA has failed to quantitatively incorporate data demonstrating long-lasting effects from early life exposure to chlorpyrifos in children.
8. EPA has disregarded data demonstrating that there is no evidence of a safe level of exposure during pre-birth and early life stages.
9. EPA has failed to cite or quantitatively incorporate studies and clinical reports suggesting potential adverse effects below 10% cholinesterase inhibition.
10. EPA has failed to incorporate inhalation routes of exposure.
In this order EPA is denying the Petition in full. EPA provided the petitioners with two interim responses on July 16, 2012, and July 15, 2014, respectively. The July 16, 2012, response denied claim 6 (export hazard) completely and that portion of the response was a final agency action. The remainder of the July 16, 2012, response and the July 15, 2014, response expressed EPA's intention to deny six other petition claims (1-5 and 10). [In the 2012 response, EPA did, however, inform petitioners of its approval of label mitigation (in the form of rate reductions and spray drift buffers) to reduce bystander risks, including risks from inhalation exposure, which in effect partially granted petition claim 10.] EPA made clear in both the 2012 and 2014 responses that, absent a request from petitioners, EPA's denial of those six claims would not be made final until EPA finalized its response to the entire Petition. Petitioners made no such request. EPA is finalizing its denial of those six claims in this order.
The remaining claims (7-9) all related to same issue: Whether the potential exists for chlorpyrifos to cause neurodevelopmental effects in children at exposure levels below EPA's existing regulatory standard (10% cholinesterase inhibition). While these claims raised novel, highly complex and unresolved scientific issues, EPA decided it would nonetheless expedite the registration review of chlorpyrifos under FIFRA section 3(g), and attempt to address these issues several years in advance of the October 1, 2022 deadline for completing that review. Accordingly, EPA also decided as a policy matter that it would address the Petition claims raising these matters on a similar timeframe. Although EPA had expedited its registration review to address these issues, the petitioners were not satisfied with EPA's progress in responding to the Petition and they brought legal action in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to compel EPA to either issue an order denying the Petition or to grant the Petition by initiating the tolerance revocation process. In August 2015, the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in favor of the petitioners and ordered EPA to respond to the Petition by either denying the Petition or issuing a proposed or final rule revoking chlorpyrifos tolerances.
On November 6, 2015, pursuant to the 9th Circuit's order, EPA proposed to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances based in part on uncertainty surrounding the potential for chlorpyrifos to cause neurodevelopmental effects—the issue raised in petition claims 7-9. Following publication of the proposal, the 9th Circuit announced that it would retain jurisdiction over this matter and on August 12, 2016, the court further ordered EPA to complete a final petition response by March 31, 2017 and made clear that no further extensions would be granted. On November 17, 2016, EPA published a notice of data availability that released for public comment EPA's revised risk assessment that proposed a new regulatory point of departure based on the potential for chlorpyrifos to result in adverse neurodevelopmental effects.
Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the 9th Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims.
Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408(d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the Petition.
1.
While the FFDCA authorizes the establishment of legal limits for pesticide residues in food, section 3(a) of FIFRA requires the approval of pesticides prior to their sale and distribution, and establishes a registration regime for regulating the use of pesticides. FIFRA regulates pesticide use in conjunction with its registration scheme by requiring EPA review and approval of pesticide labels and specifying that use of a pesticide inconsistent with its label is a violation of federal law. In the FQPA, Congress integrated action under the two statutes by requiring that the safety standard under the FFDCA be used as a criterion in FIFRA registration actions as to pesticide uses which result in dietary risk from residues in or on food, (
2.
Once EPA takes final action on the petition by establishing, amending, or revoking the tolerance or denying the petition, section 408(g)(2) allows any party to file objections with EPA and seek an evidentiary hearing on those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed within 60 days. Section 408(g)(2)(B) provides that EPA shall “hold a public evidentiary hearing if and to the extent the Administrator determines that such a public hearing is necessary to receive factual evidence relevant to material issues of fact raised by the objections.” EPA regulations make clear that hearings will only be granted where it is shown that there is “a genuine and substantial issue of fact,” the requestor has identified evidence `which “would, if established, resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor,” and the issue is “determinative” with regard to the relief requested. (40 CFR 178.32(b).) Further, a party may not raise issues in objections unless they were part of the petition and an objecting party must state objections to the EPA decision and not just repeat the allegations in its petition.
Chlorpyrifos (0,0-diethyl-0-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl phosphorothioate) is a broad-spectrum, chlorinated organophosphate (OP) insecticide that has been registered for use in the United States since 1965. By pounds of active ingredient, it is the most widely used conventional insecticide in the country. Currently registered use sites include a large variety of food crops (including tree fruits and nuts, many types of small fruits and vegetables, including vegetable seed treatments, grain/oilseed crops, and cotton, for example), and non-food use settings (
In 2006, EPA completed FIFRA section 4 reregistration and FFDCA tolerance reassessment for chlorpyrifos and the OP class of pesticides. Having completed reregistration and tolerance reassessment, EPA is required to complete the next re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos under the FIFRA section 3(g) registration review program by October 1, 2022. Given ongoing scientific developments in the study of the OPs generally, in March 2009 EPA announced its decision to prioritize the FIFRA section 3(g) registration review of chlorpyrifos by opening a public docket and releasing a preliminary work plan to complete the chlorpyrifos registration review by 2015—7 years in advance of the date required by law.
The registration review of chlorpyrifos and the OPs has presented EPA with numerous novel scientific issues that the agency has taken to multiple FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meetings since the completion of reregistration. [The SAP is a federal advisory committee created by section 25(d) of FIFRA, that serves as EPA's primary source of peer review for significant regulatory and policy matters involving pesticides.] Many of these complex scientific issues formed the basis of the 2007 petition filed by PANNA and NRDC and EPA therefore decided to address the Petition on a similar timeframe to EPA's expedited registration review schedule.
Although EPA expedited the chlorpyrifos registration review in an attempt to address the novel scientific issues raised by the Petition in advance of the statutory deadline, the petitioners were dissatisfied with the pace of EPA's response efforts and have sued EPA in federal court on three separate occasions to compel a faster response to the Petition. As explained in Unit V., EPA had addressed 7 of the 10 claims asserted in the Petition by either
On October 30, 2015, EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances which it published in the
This order denies the Petition on the nine remaining grounds for which EPA has not issued a final denial that can be the subject of objections under section 408(g)(2) of the FFDCA. As noted in Unit II, on July 16, 2012, EPA denied as final agency action petitioners' claim 6 that the registration of chlorpyrifos created an export hazard for workers in foreign countries. That response and the response of July 15, 2014, also included EPA's preliminary denial of petition claims 1-5 and 10 (except to the extent EPA granted that claim) and EPA's responses to those claims are now incorporated into this order as set forth below. This unit also includes EPA's basis for denying petition claims 7-9. Each specific petition claim is summarized in this Unit V. immediately prior to EPA's response to the claim.
Addressing human variability and sensitive populations is an important aspect of the Agency's risk assessment process. The Agency is well aware of the issue of PON1 and has examined the scientific evidence on this source of genetic variability. PON1 is one of the key detoxification enzymes of chlorpyrifos and is included as part of the PBPK model used by EPA in the 2014 human health risk assessment (HHRA) and 2016 revised risk assessment. Specifically, PON1 is an A-esterase which can metabolize chlorpyrifos-oxon without inactivating the enzyme. (Ref. 4) Indeed, as part of the 2008 SAP, EPA performed a literature review of PON1 and its possible use in informing the intra-species (
The Agency focused on the PON1-192 polymorphism since it has been linked to chlorpyrifos-oxon sensitivity in experimental toxicology studies and, has been evaluated in epidemiology studies attempting to associate PON1 status with health outcomes following OP pesticide exposure in adults and children (Holland et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2003. (Ref. 6). [Note, Holland et al. (2006) and Furlong et al. (2006) report findings from the same cohort. The Holland reference provides enzymes activities for specific polymorphisms in Table 4; the Furlong paper does not report such values and provides
Based on a detailed review of the literature and the comments from the SAP, the Agency has determined that such data are not appropriate for use alone in deriving an intra-species uncertainty factor for use in human health risk assessment. As indicated by the SAP report, multiple factors (
Since the 2008 SAP, several epidemiological studies have been published that considered the association between PON status/genotype and health outcome. Hofmann et al. (2009) recently reported associations between PON1 status and inhibition of butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE) in a group of pesticide handlers in Washington. The authors note that this study requires replication with larger sample size(s) and more blood samples. (Ref. 8) Given the limitations of Hofmann et al., the Agency has not drawn any conclusions from this study. The Q/R-192 and/or C/T-108 polymorphism at the promoter site have been evaluated recently as a factor affecting birth or neurobehavioral outcomes following gestational exposure to OPs. (Refs. 9, 10, 11) These studies (Eskanazi., et al., 2010 (Ref. 9); Harley et al., 2011 (Ref. 10); Engel et al., 2011 (Ref. 11)) were evaluated by EPA in preparation for the April 2012 SAP review.
Petitioners further emphasize that the Furlong et al. study supports an intra-species uncertainty factor of over 164X given the range of variability seen in that study. The 164X value is derived from sensitivity observed in transgenic mice expressing human PON1Q-192 compared with mice expressing human PON1R-192 combined with the range of plasma arylesterase (AREase) from the newborn with the lowest PON1 level compared with the mother with the highest PON1 level from a group of 130 maternal-newborn pairs from the CHAMACOS (Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) cohort.
EPA believes it is fundamentally at odds with international risk assessment practices to combine values from both mouse and human data to determine the potential range of variability within a single species—regardless of whether the test animals express a human PON1 enzyme. As the 2008 FIFRA SAP explained, PON1 is but a single enzyme that should not be considered in isolation to predict the overall level of enzyme activity that may affect human sensitivity to a substance. Using a 164X intra-species uncertainty factor derived from the Furlong et al. study would take this practice one step further by relying upon combined PON1 values from different species with differing overall metabolic activity to derive the intra-species factor. EPA does not believe this approach is an appropriate means of determining the potential range of intra-species variability.
Finally, petitioners' assertion that the Furlong study supports an intra-species uncertainty factor of at least 150X is based on an analysis of that study that is inconsistent with EPA policy and widely-accepted international guidance on the development of intra-species uncertainty factors. In deriving the intra-species uncertainty factor in its risk assessments, EPA is guided by the principles of the 2005 IPCS (Ref. 12) guidance on chemical specific adjustment factors (CSAFs) and the EPA's 2014 Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation. (Ref. 13) These guidances recommend that intra-species factors should be extrapolated from a measure of central tendency in the population to a measure in the sensitive population (
In summary, the Agency has carefully considered the issue of PON1 variability and determined that data addressing PON1 in isolation are not appropriate for use alone in deriving an intra-species uncertainty factor and that the issue is more appropriately handled using a PBPK model. Further, the derivation of the 164X value advocated by the petitioners is based on combining values from humanized mice with human measured values with a range from highest to lowest; the Furlong et al. derivation is inappropriate and inconsistent with international risk assessment practice. (Ref. 2) The 2008 FIFRA SAP did not support the PON1 data used in isolation. Finally, petitioners' statement that the Furlong et al. study supports an intra-species uncertainty factor of at least 150X likely overstates potential variability. EPA therefore denies this aspect of the Petition.
To the extent that petitioners are seeking tolerance revocation on these grounds, the Petition fails to provide a sufficient basis for revocation because, in addition to the preceding defects, the cited data do not provide quantitative data (
Consequently, the Petition does not support a conclusion that existing tolerances are unsafe due to potential endocrine effects. This portion of the Petition is therefore denied.
As petitioners may be aware, since the filing of the petition, EPA has completed the evaluation of chlorpyrifos under EPA's EDSP, as required under FFDCA section 408(p) that confirms EPA's conclusions. On April 15, 2009, a
On November 5, 2009, EPA issued Tier 1 test orders to the registrants of chlorpyrifos, requiring a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormonal systems. (Ref. 15)
The agency received and reviewed all 11 EDSP Tier 1 screening assays for chlorpyrifos. On June 29, 2015, the agency completed the EDSP weight of evidence (WoE) conclusions for the Tier 1 screening assays for List 1 chemicals, including chlorpyrifos. In addition to the Tier 1 data, the WoE evaluations considered other scientifically relevant information (OSRI), including general toxicity data and open literature studies of sufficient quality. In determining whether chlorpyrifos interacts with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways, the agency considered the number and type of effects induced, the magnitude and pattern of responses observed across studies, taxa, and sexes. Additionally, the agency also considered the conditions under which effects occurred, in particular whether or not endocrine-related responses occurred at dose(s) that also resulted in general systemic or overt toxicity. The agency concluded that, based on weight of evidence considerations, EDSP Tier 2 testing is not recommended for chlorpyrifos since there was no evidence of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen and thyroid pathways. The EDSP Tier 1 WoE assessment and associated data evaluation records for chlorpyrifos are available online. (Ref. 16) This assessment further supports EPA's denial of this portion of the Petition.
Despite the inadequacy of petitioners' cancer claims, in the course of the Agency's review of chlorpyrifos, EPA has examined the Lee et al. study cited by petitioners (Ref. 17) among other lines of evidence. EPA has concluded that the Lee et al. investigation does not alter the Agency's weight of evidence determination concerning chlorpyrifos' carcinogenic potential, and therefore does not alter the Agency's current cancer classification for chlorpyrifos. Specifically, the Agency does not believe this evidence raises sufficient grounds for concern regarding chlorpyrifos that EPA should consider initiating action based upon this information that might lead to revocation of the chlorpyrifos tolerances or cancellation of the chlorpyrifos registrations.
The Agency was aware of the December 2004 study cited by petitioners. While Lee et al. observed a possible association between chlorpyrifos use and the incidence of lung cancer, the authors also stressed that further evaluation was necessary before concluding the association was causal in nature. (Ref. 17) Additional evaluation is necessary because of
EPA has been a collaborating agency with the AHS since 1993, and continues to closely monitor the AHS literature. The Agency is working closely with the AHS researchers to clearly understand the results of their research efforts to ensure the Agency appropriately interprets these data as future studies are published. Between 2003 and 2009 there have been six nested case-control analyses within the AHS which evaluated the use of a number of agricultural pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, in association with specific anatomical cancer sites, in addition to the previously published cohort study (Ref. 17) cited by the petitioners. As noted below, both the Agency and Health Canada have comprehensively reviewed these data.
In accordance with the Agency's 2005 Guideline for Cancer Risk Assessment (Ref. 18), chlorpyrifos is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in male or female mice and male or female rats. In chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies, animals received chlorpyrifos in their feed every day of their lives (78 weeks for mice and 104 weeks for rats) at doses thousands of times greater than any anticipated exposure to humans from authorized uses. There was no evidence of cancer in the experimental animal studies. Additionally, available evidence from
Recently, the Agency conducted its own review of the six nested case-control analyses and one cohort study within the AHS concerning the carcinogenic potential of chlorpyrifos. (Ref. 19) EPA concluded with respect to the AHS lung cancer results that the findings are useful for generating hypotheses, but require confirmation in future studies. This conclusion is consistent with that of researchers from Health Canada. Specifically, Weichenthal et al. (2010) (Ref. 20) published a review article in Environmental Health Perspectives on pesticide exposure and cancer incidence in the AHS cohort. Their review of these same studies concluded that the weight of experimental toxicological evidence does not suggest that chlorpyrifos is carcinogenic, and that epidemiologic results currently available from the AHS are inconsistent, lack replication, and lack a coherent biologically plausible carcinogenic mode of action. The authors did note positive exposure-response associations for chlorpyrifos and lung cancer in two separate evaluations.
In summary, while there is initial suggestive epidemiological evidence of an association between chlorpyrifos and lung cancer to only form a hypothesis as to a carcinogenic mode of action, additional research (including follow-up AHS research) is needed to test the hypothesis. Consequently, at this time it is reasonable to conclude chlorpyrifos is not a carcinogen in view of the lack of carcinogenicity in the rodent bioassays and the lack of a genotoxic or mutagenic potential. The Agency concludes that existing epidemiological data (including Lee et al.) do not change the current weight of the evidence conclusions. The Agency continues to believe there is not a sufficient basis to alter its assessment of chlorpyrifos as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when multiple lines of evidence are considered (
Despite the inadequacy of petitioners' FQPA safety factor claims, EPA examined the evidence cited by petitioners for the purpose of evaluating whether the evidence raises sufficient grounds for concern regarding chlorpyrifos that EPA should consider initiating the actions sought by the petitioners.
In general, when the Agency conducts a cumulative assessment, the scope of cumulative risk is limited to the common mechanism endpoint—which in this case of the 2006 OP CRA, was cholinesterase inhibition, the primary toxicity mode of action for the OPs. As such, for the OP CRA, experimental toxicology data on AChE inhibition were used for developing relative potency estimates, points of departure, and informing the FQPA safety factor used in the OP CRA. EPA relied on brain AChE data from adult female rats dosed for 21 days or longer for estimating relative potency and points of departure. At approximately three weeks of oral exposure to OPs, AChE inhibition reaches steady state in the adult rat such that continued dosing does not result in increased inhibition. This timeframe of toxicity (21-days and longer) was selected as there was high confidence in the potency estimates derived from the steady state toxicology studies due to the stability of the AChE inhibition.
The Agency's 2006 OP CRA contained EPA's complete FQPA safety factor analysis, (Ref. 22) which involved consideration of pre-natal and post-natal experimental toxicology studies, in addition to exposure information. In the OP CRA, pre-natal exposure AChE studies in rats show that the fetus is no more sensitive than the dam to AChE inhibition and the fetus is often less sensitive than the dam. Thus, evaluating the potential for increased toxicity of juveniles from post-natal exposure was a key component in determining the magnitude of the FQPA safety factors in the OP CRA. Furthermore, because characteristics of children are directly accounted for in the cumulative exposure assessment, the Agency's methods did not underestimate exposure to OPs.
In the 2006 OP CRA, each OP was assigned a 10X FQPA safety factor unless chemical-specific AChE data on young animals were available to
The petitioners are correct that Dr. Carey Pope of Oklahoma State University provided the Agency with the raw data from the Zheng et al. study. These raw data were used to develop the plot in the 2006 OP CRA which was reproduced in the Petition. Petitioners accurately note that for other OPs a benchmark dose modeling approach was used and that no BMD values were reported for chlorpyrifos. In determining the FQPA safety factor, petitioners claim that the Agency misinterpreted the brain AChE data from Zheng et al.
As shown in the plot reproduced on page 15 of the Petition, the dose-response data in the Zheng et al. study are variable and lack a monotonic shape at the low dose end of the dose response curve. The Agency acknowledges that at the high dose, the pups appear to be more sensitive. However, at the low dose end of the response curve, relevant for human exposures and, thus, the cumulative risk assessment (
Dow AgroSciences submitted a comparative cholinesterase study (CCA) for chlorpyrifos. CCA studies are specially designed studies to compare the dose-response relationship in juvenile and adult rats. This CCA study includes two components: (1) Acute, single dosing in post-natal day 11 and young adult rats and (2) 11-days of repeating dosing in rat pups from PND11-21 and 11-days of repeated dosing in adult rats. The CCA study for chlorpyrifos is considered by EPA to be high quality and well-designed. The preliminary risk assessment for chlorpyrifos' reports BMD estimates from this CCA study. Specifically, for the repeated dosing portion of the study, the BMD
In spite of petitioners' claim, the Agency does not ignore robust, peer-reviewed data in favor of industry-sponsored data. Further, EPA has a very public and well-documented set of procedures that it applies to the use and significance accorded all data utilized to inform risk management decisions. Registrant generated data, in response to FIFRA and FFDCA requirements, are conducted and evaluated in accordance with a series of internationally harmonized and scientifically peer-reviewed study protocols designed to maintain a high standard of scientific quality and reproducibility. (Refs. 23 and 24.)
Additionally, to further inform the Agency's risk assessment, EPA is committed to the consideration of other sources of information such as data identified in the open, peer-reviewed literature and information submitted by the public as part of the regulatory evaluation of a pesticide. An important issue, when evaluating any study, is its scientific soundness and quality, and thus, the level of confidence in the study findings to contribute to the risk assessment.
The literature was searched, fully considered, and provided additional information on, chlorpyrifos mode of action, pharmacokinetics, epidemiology, neurobehavioral effects in laboratory animals, and age dependent sensitivity to cholinesterase inhibition.
Therefore, by evaluating registrant data in accordance with internationally harmonized and scientifically peer-reviewed study protocols, undertaking thorough open literature searches, and considering information provided by the public, the Agency is confident that its assessment for chlorpyrifos in 2006 was reasonably based upon the best available science at the time of the assessment. Previous sections of this response to petitioners' claims regarding the Agency's inadequate use of various data only further highlights and supports the scientifically defensible results of the Agency's assessment. Petitioners' claim that the Agency overly relies on registrant data is therefore denied.
As noted in Unit II., in EPA's July 16, 2012 interim petition response EPA issued a final denial of this claim. That denial constituted final agency action and EPA is not reopening consideration of that claim.
a.
EPA has, however, been unable to persuade the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that further inquiry into this area of unsettled science should delay EPA's response to the Petition. Faced with an order requiring EPA to respond to the Petition, in October 2015, EPA chose to issue a proposed rule to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances based in part on the uncertain science surrounding neurodevelopmental toxicity suggested by certain epidemiology studies. The comments EPA has received on that proposal and on EPA's November 17, 2016 NODA suggest that there continue to be considerable areas of uncertainty with regard to what the epidemiology data show and deep disagreement over how those data should be considered in EPA's risk assessment.
Although not a legal consideration, it is important to recognize that for many decades chlorpyrifos has been and remains one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, making any decision to retain or remove this pesticide from the market an extremely significant policy choice. In light of the significance of this decision and in light of the significant uncertainty that exists regarding the potential for chlorpyrifos to cause adverse neurodevelopmental effects, EPA's preference is to fully explore approaches raised by the SAP and commenters on the proposed rule, and possibly seek additional authoritative peer review of EPA's risk assessment prior to finalizing any regulatory action in the course of registration review. As the 9th Circuit has made clear in its August 12, 2016 order in
While EPA acknowledges its obligation to respond to the Petition as required by the court, the court's order does not and cannot compel EPA to complete the registration review of chlorpyrifos in advance of the October 1, 2022 deadline provided in section 3(g) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(g). Although past EPA administrations had chosen to attempt to complete that review several years in advance of the statutory deadline (and respond to the Petition on the same time frame), it has turned out that it is not possible to fully address these issues early in the registration review period. As a result, EPA has concluded that it should alter its priorities and adjust the schedule for chlorpyrifos so that it can complete its review of the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects prior to making a final registration review decision whether to retain, limit or remove chlorpyrifos from the market. Accordingly, EPA is denying these Petition claims and intends to complete a full and appropriate review of the neurodevelopmental data before either finalizing the proposed rule of October 30, 2015, or taking an alternative regulatory path.
EPA's denial of the Petition on the grounds provided above is wholly consistent with governing law. The petition provision in FFDCA section 408(d) does not address the timing for responding to this petition nor does it limit the extent to which EPA may coordinate its petition responses with the registration review provisions of FIFRA section 3(g). Further, provided EPA completes registration review by October 1, 2022, Congress otherwise gave the EPA Administrator the discretion to determine the schedule and timing for completing the review of the approximately over 1000 pesticide active ingredients currently subject to evaluation under section 3(g). EPA may lawfully re-prioritize the registration review schedule developed by earlier administrations provided that decision is consistent with law and an appropriate exercise of discretion.
With respect to petitioners' claim that exposures to spray drift and volatilized chlorpyrifos present a risk from cholinesterase inhibition, EPA is denying the Petition for the reasons previously identified in EPA's Spray Drift Mitigation Decision of July 16, 2012 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850] and EPA's interim response of July 15, 2014 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005] addressing chlorpyrifos volatilization. In the Spray Drift Mitigation Decision, EPA determined that the chlorpyrifos registrants' adoption of label mitigation (in the form of label use rate reductions and no spray buffer zones) eliminated risk from cholinesterase inhibition as a result of spray drift. As for risks presented by volatilized chlorpyrifos that may occur following application, EPA's July 15, 2014 interim response to the Petition explained that recent vapor phase inhalation studies for both chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon made clear that neither vapor phase chlorpyrifos nor chlorpyrifos-oxon presents a risk of cholinesterase inhibition. Specifically, those studies, as indicated in EPA's memorandum,
As indicated previously, this action announces the Agency's order denying a petition filed, in part, under section 408(d) of FFDCA. As such, this action is an adjudication and not a rule. The regulatory assessment requirements applicable to rulemaking do not, therefore, apply to this action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
7 U.S.C. 136
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
S
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 21, 2017.
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 21, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 1, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 1, 2017.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Special Interest Project (SIP) 17-002, Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-based Health Services Interventions on Student Outcomes.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Special Interest Project (SIP) 17-001, Community-based Short and Longer Term Evaluation of the Chronic Pain Self-Management Program (CPSMP).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs): IP17-001, Household Transmission of Influenza Viruses in the Community; IP17-004, Research on the Epidemiology, Prevention and Control of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses in India; and CK17-003, Using Influenza-like Illness-specific School Absenteeism as an Early Warning System for Detecting Community Influenza.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the launch of the Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge.
Million Hearts® is a national initiative to prevent one million heart attacks and strokes by 2022. Achieving this goal means 10 million more Americans must have their blood pressure under control. Million Hearts® is working to control high blood pressure through clinical approaches, such as using health information technology to its fullest potential and integrating team-based approaches to health care, and community approaches, such as strengthening tobacco control and promoting physical activity. For more information about the initiative, visit
To support improved blood pressure control, HHS/CDC is announcing the 2017 Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge. The challenge will improve understanding of successful implementation strategies at the health system level by motivating clinical practices and health systems to strengthen their hypertension control efforts. It will identify clinicians, clinical practices, and health systems that have exceptional rates of hypertension control and recognize them as Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Champions. To support improved quality of care delivered to patients with hypertension, Million Hearts® will document the systems, strategies, processes, and staffing that contribute to the exceptional blood pressure control rates achieved by Champions.
The Challenge will run from April 7, 2017 through June 2, 2017.
Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE., Mailstop F-73, Chamblee, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2424, Email:
Entrants to the Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge will be asked to provide two hypertension control rates for the practice's or health system's hypertensive population: A current rate for your most recent 12-month reporting period and a previous rate for a 12 month period 1 to 2 years before the current rate. Entrants will also be asked to provide the prevalence of hypertension in their population, describe some population characteristics that might present significant challenges and barriers in controlling hypertension. Entrants with patients presenting with these challenges, as well entrants with systems and processes in place that support hypertension control and are likely to endure, such as electronic reminder systems or team based care, will be taken into consideration in selection.
Nominations will be scored and judged separately by size and type of nominee in the categories listed below. CDC does not guarantee that a specific proportion of Champions will be selected from each category.
• Small individual providers or practices (500-49,999 covered lives)
• Large providers or practices (50,000 or more covered lives)
• Health Systems
To be eligible to be recognized as a Hypertension Champion under this challenge, an individual or entity—
(1) Shall have completed the nomination form in its entirety to participate in the competition under the rules developed by HHS/CDC;
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements in this section and;
a. Be a U.S. licensed clinician, practicing in any U.S. setting, who provides continuing care for adult patients with hypertension. The individual must be a citizen or permanent resident of the U.S.
b. Or be a U.S. incorporated clinical practice, defined as any practice with two or more U.S. licensed clinicians who by formal arrangement share responsibility for a common panel of patients, practice at the same physical location or street address, and provide continuing medical care for adult patients with hypertension;
c. Or be a health system, incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the U.S. that provides continuing medical care for adult patients with hypertension. We encourage large health systems (those that are comprised of a large number of geographically dispersed clinics and/or have multiple hospital locations) to consider having one or a few of the highest performing clinics or regional affiliates apply individually instead of the health system applying as a whole;
(3) Must treat all adult patients with hypertension in the practice seeking care, not a selected subgroup of patients;
(4) Must have a data management system (electronic or paper) that allows HHS/CDC or their contractor to check data submitted;
(5) Must treat a minimum of 500 adult patients annually and have a hypertension control rate of at least 70%;
(6) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment;
(7) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during assigned duty hours;
(8) Shall not be an employee or contractor at CDC;
(9) Must agree to participate in a data validation process to be conducted by a reputable independent contractor. Data will be kept confidential by the contractor to the extent applicable law allows and will be shared with the CDC, in aggregate form only (
(10) Must agree to sign a Business Associate Agreement with the contractor conducting the data validation.
(11) Must have a written policy in place regarding conducting periodic background checks on all providers and
(12) Must agree to be recognized if selected and agree to participate in an interview to develop a success story that describes the systems and processes that support hypertension control among patients. Champions will be recognized on the Million Hearts® Web site. Strategies used by Champions that support hypertension control may be written into a success story, placed on the Million Hearts® Web site, and attributed to Champions.
Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award and specifically requested to do so due to competition design.
Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge.
Individual nominees and individuals in a group practice must be free from convictions or pending investigations of criminal and health care fraud offenses such as felony health care fraud, patient abuse or neglect; felony convictions for other health care-related fraud, theft, or other financial misconduct; and felony convictions relating to unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescribing, or dispensing of controlled substances as verified through the Office of the Inspector General List of Excluded Individuals and Entities.
Individual nominees must be free from serious sanctions, such as those for misuse or mis-prescribing of prescription medications. Eligibility status of individual nominees with serious sanctions will be determined at the discretion of CDC. CDC's contractor may perform background checks on individual clinicians or medical practices.
Champions previously recognized through the 2013, 2014, and 2015 Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge retain their designation as a “Champion” and are not eligible to be named a Champion in the 2017 challenge.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equal basis.
By participating in this challenge, an individual or organization agrees to assume any and all risks related to participating in the challenge. Individuals or organizations also agree to waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, when participating in the challenge, including claims for injury; death; damage; or loss of property, money, or profits, and including those risks caused by negligence or other causes.
By participating in this challenge, individuals or organizations agree to protect the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to challenge activities.
Individuals or organizations are not required to hold liability insurance related to participation in this challenge.
No cash prize will be awarded. Champions will receive local and national recognition.
To participate, interested parties should go to
• The size of the nominee's adult patient population, a summary of known patient demographics (
• The number of the nominee's adult patients who were seen during the past year and had a hypertension diagnosis (
• The nominee's current hypertension control rate for their hypertensive population. In addition, the hypertension control rate during the previous year is required. In determining the hypertension control rate, CDC defines “hypertension control” as a blood pressure reading <140 mmHg systolic and <90 mmHg diastolic among patients with a diagnosis of hypertension.
The hypertension control rate should be for the provider's or health system's entire adult hypertensive patient population, not limited to a sample. Examples of ineligible data submissions include hypertension control rates that are limited to treatment cohorts from research studies or pilot studies, patients limited to a specific age range (such as 18-35), or patients enrolled in limited scale quality improvement projects.
• Completion of a checklist of sustainable clinic systems or processes that support hypertension control. These may include provider or patient incentives, dashboards, staffing characteristics, electronic record keeping systems, reminder or alert systems, clinician reporting, service modifications, etc.
The estimated burden for completing the nomination form is 30 minutes.
Up to a total of 40 of the highest scoring clinical practices or health systems will be recognized as Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Champions.
The nomination will be scored based on hypertension control rate (at least 90% of score); and sustainable systems in the practice that support hypertension control (up to 5% of score); and patient population that is high risk (up to 5% of score).
Nominees with the highest score will be required to participate in a two-phase process to verify their data. Nominees who are non-compliant or non-responsive with the data requests or timelines will be removed from further consideration. Phase 1 includes verification of the hypertension prevalence and blood pressure control rate data submitted and a background check. For nominees whose Phase 1 data is verified as accurate, phase 2 consists of a medical chart review.
A CDC-sponsored panel of three to five experts consisting of HHS/CDC staff will review the nominations that pass phase 2 to select Champions. Final selection of Champions will take into account all the information from the nomination form, the background check, and data verification. In the event of tie scores at any point in the selection process, geographic location may be taken into account to ensure a broad distribution of champions across rural or more populated areas, representing potentially underserved populations.
Some Champions will participate in a post-challenge telephone interview. The interview will include questions about the strategies employed by the individual or organization to achieve high rates of hypertension control, including barriers and facilitators for
Information received from nominees will be stored in a password protected file on a secure server. The challenge Web site may post the number of nominations received but will not include confidential or proprietary information about individual nominees, as described further below. The database of information submitted by nominees will not be posted on the Web site. Information collected from nominees will include general details, such as the business name, address, and contact information of the nominee. This type of information is generally publicly available. The nomination will collect and store only aggregate clinical data through the nomination process; no individual identifiable patient data will be collected or stored. Confidential or propriety data, clearly marked as such, will be secured to the full extent allowable by law.
Information for selected Champions, such as the provider, practice, or health system's name, location, hypertension control rate, and clinic practices that support hypertension control will be shared through press releases, the challenge Web site, and Million Hearts® and HHS/CDC resources.
Summary data on the types of systems and processes that all nominees use to control hypertension may be shared in documents or other communication products that describe generally used practices for successful hypertension control. HHS/CDC will use the summary data only as described.
Finalists and the Champions must comply with all terms and conditions of these Official Rules, and winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein. The initial finalists will be notified by email, telephone, or mail after the date of the judging.
If Contestants choose to provide HHS/CDC with personal information by registering or filling out the submission form through the Challenge.gov Web site, that information is used to respond to Contestants in matters regarding their submission, announcements of entrants, finalists, and winners of the Contest. Information is not collected for commercial marketing. Champions are permitted to cite that they were selected as Champions for the 2017 Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge.
HHS/CDC reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Challenge, or any part of it, for any reason, at HHS/CDC's sole discretion. If the Challenge is cancelled, suspended, and/or modified, HHS/CDC will inform the public through the publication of a notice in the
Participation in this Contest constitutes a contestants' full and unconditional agreement to abide by the Contest's Official Rules found at
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public workshop regarding new developments and scientific issues related to antibody mediated rejection (AMR) in kidney transplantation. This public workshop is intended to provide information for and gain perspective from individuals, industry, health care professionals, researchers, public health organizations, patients, patient care providers, and other interested persons on various aspects of clinical development of medical products for prophylaxis and/or treatment of AMR in kidney transplant recipients, including clinical trial design and endpoints. The input from this public workshop will also help in developing topics for future discussion.
The public workshop will be held on April 12, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and April 13, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by April 27, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2017. The
The public workshop will be held at the Tommy Douglas Conference Center, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903. The conference center's phone number is 240-645-4000.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Lori Benner and/or Jessica Barnes, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6221, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300.
FDA is announcing a public workshop regarding AMR in kidney transplantation. This public workshop will focus on scientific considerations in the clinical development of medical products for prophylaxis and/or treatment of AMR in kidney transplant recipients.
Among the primary goals of this workshop are the discussion of the role of immunosuppressive medication nonadherence in the development of de novo donor specific antibody (DSA) formation and subsequent AMR, new developments in transplantation and their impact on patient management (such as pretransplant sensitization not manifested by DSA, donor/recipient human leukocyte antigen (HLA) epitope matching, routine posttransplant DSA monitoring), the natural course of the acute-chronic AMR continuum and its temporal association with cellular rejection and changes in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), unmet medical needs and the potential implications of these factors on the design of clinical trials for the prevention and management of AMR.
The Agency encourages individuals, industry, health care professionals, researchers, public health organizations, patients, patient care providers, and other interested persons to attend this public workshop.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m. on April 12, 2017, and 8 a.m. on April 13, 2017. We will let registrants know if registration closes before the day of the public workshop.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Barnes or Lori Benner (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public conference.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Cincinnati District, in co-sponsorship with Xavier University, is announcing a public conference entitled “FDA/Xavier University Medical Device Conference (MedCon).” This 3-day public conference includes presentations from key FDA officials and industry experts with small group break-out sessions. The conference is intended for companies of all sizes and employees at all levels.
The public conference will be held on May 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; May 4, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and May 5, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The public conference will be held on the campus of Xavier University, 3800 Victory Pkwy., Cincinnati, OH 45207, 513-745-3016.
The public conference helps fulfill the Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to protect the public health. The conference will provide those engaged in FDA-regulated medical devices (for humans) with information on the following topics:
• Center Director Corner: Strategic Priorities for 2017 and Beyond.
• European Union (EU) Regulations—Exploring the Unknown.
• Impact of the New EU Regulations on Your Global Regulatory Strategy.
• Digital Health—Key Focus Areas for FDA and Industry.
• Office of Compliance Strategic Priorities.
• Update from the Office of Device Evaluation.
• FDA Insight on the 510(k) Modifications Guidance.
• 510(k) Modifications: To submit or not to submit?
• Your Contract Manufacturer Received a Warning Letter. What Now?
• Defending Claims for Your Device.
• The Impact of Cultural Misalignment . . . . and the Path Forward.
• The Importance of Quality and Regulatory throughout the Merger and Acquisition Lifecycle—Landmines or Opportunities.
• What to Expect with FDA's Program Alignment?
• Investigator Insights and Breaking News.
FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated drugs and devices. The conference helps to achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. The conference also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) by providing outreach activities by Government Agencies to small businesses.
Registration: There is a registration fee. The conference registration fees cover the cost of the presentations, training materials, receptions, breakfasts, and lunches for the 3 days of the conference. There will be onsite registration. The cost of registration is as follows:
To register online for the public conference, please visit the “Registration” link on the conference Web site at
To register by mail, please send your name, title, firm name, address, telephone, email, and payment information for the fee to Xavier University, Attention: Marla Phillips, 3800 Victory Pkwy., Cincinnati, OH 45207-5471. An email will be sent confirming your registration.
Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. The conference headquarter hotel is the Downtown Cincinnati Hilton Netherlands Plaza, 35 West 5th St., Cincinnati, OH, 45202, 513-421-9100. Special Conference Block rates are available through April 11, 2017. To make reservations online, please visit the “Venue/Logistics” link at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (mL) and 180 mg/5 mL, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for ceftibuten dihydrate for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Anuj Shah, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6228, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2246.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, are the subject of NDA 050686, held by Pernix Therapeutics LLC, and initially approved on December 20, 1995. CEDAX is indicated for the treatment of individuals with mild-to-moderate infections caused by susceptible strains of
CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Orchid Healthcare (a division of Orchid Pharma, Ltd.) submitted a citizen petition dated October 26, 2016 (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-3560), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these drug products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that these drug products were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list CEDAX (ceftibuten dihydrate) for oral suspension, 90 mg/5 mL and 180 mg/5 mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to these drug products may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 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, through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act at 42 U.S.C. 10801
In 2000, the PAIMI Act amendments created a 57th P&A system—the American Indian Consortium (the Navajo and Hopi Tribes in the Four Corners region of the Southwest). The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 10804(d), states that a P&A system may use its allotment to provide representation to individuals with mental illness, as defined by section 42 U.S.C. 10802(4)(B)(iii) residing in the community, including their own home,
The Children's Health Act of 2000 (CHA) also referenced the state P&A system authority to obtain information on incidents of seclusion, restraint and related deaths [see, CHA, Part H at 42 U.S.C. 290ii-1]. PAIMI Program formula grants awarded by SAMHSA go directly to each of the 57 governor-designated P&A systems. These systems are located in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the American Indian Consortium, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(7) requires that each P&A system prepare and transmit to the Secretary HHS and to the head of its State mental health agency a report on January 1. This report describes the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the most recently completed fiscal year, including a section prepared by the advisory council (the PAIMI Advisory Council or PAC) that describes the activities of the council and its independent assessment of the operations of the system.
The Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes no revisions to its annual PAIMI Program Performance Report (PPR), including the advisory council section, at this time for the following reasons: (1) The revisions revise the SAMHSA PPR, as appropriate, for consistency with the annual reporting requirements under the PAIMI Act and Rules [42 CFR part 51]; (2) The revisions simplify the electronic data entry by state PAIMI programs; (3) GPRA requirements for the PAIMI Program will be revised as appropriate to ensure that SAMHSA obtains information that closely measures actual outcomes of programs that it funds and (4) SAMHSA will reduce wherever feasible the current reporting burden by removing any information that does not facilitate evaluation of the programmatic and fiscal effectiveness of a state P&A system (5) The new electronic version will expedite SAMHSA's ability to prepare the biennial report; (6) The new electronic version will improve SAMHSA's ability to generate reports, analyze trends and more expeditiously provide feedback to PAIMI programs. The current report formats will be effective for the FY 2017 PPR reports due on January 1, 2018
The annual burden estimate is as follows:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0028 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0034 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before July 5, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1704 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed 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. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 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
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, 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.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
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). 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 Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
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.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, 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
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before July 5, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1701, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed 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. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
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). 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 Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
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.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, 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
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 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
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, 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.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of information collection for review; Form No. G-146; Non-Immigrants Checkout Letter; OMB Control No. 1653-0020.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request continued approval for the collection of information associated with surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by June 5, 2017, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically at
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783 or by email at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for renewed approval. The collection is contained in 30 CFR part 750, Requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.
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 number for Part 750 is 1029-0091. Responses are required to obtain a benefit.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Japan and Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
Effective March 30, 2017.
Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to these reviews must be served on all other parties to these reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Varidesk LLC on March 30, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain height-adjustable desk platforms and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Lumi Legend Corporation of China; Innovative Office Products LLC of Easton, PA; Ergotech Group LLC of Easton, PA; Transform Partners LLC (d/b/a Mount-It!) of San Diego, CA; Monoprice, Inc. of Rancho Cucamonga, CA; Ningbo Loctek Visual Technology Corporation of China; Zhejiang Loctek Smart Drive Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Loctek Inc. of Fremont, CA; Zoxou, Inc. of Fremont, CA; and Flexispot of Livermore CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3212”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the
By order of the Commission.
Employment and Training Administration, U. S. Department of Labor.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), notice is hereby given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and Training Council (Council), as constituted under WIOA.
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m., (Pacific Daylight Time) on Tuesday, May 23, 2017, and continue until 5:00 p.m. that day. The meeting will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 and adjourn at 12:00 p.m. that day. The period from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on May 23, 2017 is reserved for participation and comment by members of the public.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Gateway, 6101 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90045.
Athena R. Brown, DFO, Division of Indian and Native American Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4209, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number (202) 693-3737 (VOICE) (this is not a toll-free number).
The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public not present may submit a written statement on or before May 19, 2017, to be included in the record of the meeting. Statements are to be submitted to Athena R. Brown, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-4209, Washington, DC 20210. Persons who need special accommodations should contact Craig Lewis at (202) 693-3384, at least two business days before the meeting. The formal agenda will focus on the following topics: (1) Transition paper; (2) Performance Indicators; (3) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Update and follow-up on the Implementation of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 and Final Rule; (4) Training and Technical Assistance; (5) Council and Workgroup Updates and Recommendations; (6) New Business and Next Steps; and (7) Public Comment.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), requires the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to conduct reallotment of certain WIOA formula allotted funds based on ETA 9130 financial reports submitted by states as of the end of the prior program year (PY). This notice publishes the dislocated worker PY 2016 funds for recapture by state and the amount to be reallotted to eligible states.
This notice is effective April 5, 2017.
Ms. Amanda Ahlstrand, Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, Room C-4526, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Telephone (202) 693-3052 (this is not a toll-free number) or fax (202) 693-3981.
In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Appropriations Act, Congress appropriated WIOA PY 2016 funds in two portions: (1) Funds available for obligation July 1, 2016 (
WIOA regulations at 20 CFR 693.135 describe the procedures the Secretary uses for recapture and reallotment of funds. ETA will not recapture any PY 2016 funds for the Adult and Youth programs because there are no states where PY 2015 unobligated funds exceed the statutory requirements of 20 percent of state allotted funds. However, for the Dislocated Worker program, Kentucky had unobligated PY 2015 funds in excess of 20 percent of its allotment. Therefore, ETA will recapture a total of $805,082 of PY 2016 funding from Kentucky and reallot those funds to the remaining eligible states, as required by WIOA Section 132(c).
ETA will issue a Notice of Award to the states to reflect the recapture and reallotment of these funds. The adjustment of funds will be made to the FY 2017 advance portion of the PY 2016 allotments, which ETA issued in October 2016. The attached tables display the net changes to PY 2016 formula allotments and a description of the reallotment methodology.
WIOA and its implementing regulations do not provide specific requirements by which states must distribute realloted funds, so states have flexibility to determine the methodology used.
For any state subject to recapture of funds, WIOA Section 132(c)(5) requires the Governor to prescribe equitable procedures for reacquiring funds from the state and local areas.
As mentioned, the recapture/reallotment adjustments will be made to the FY 2017 advance portion of the PY 2016 allotment. Therefore, for reporting purposes, states must reflect the recapture/reallotment amount (decrease or increase) in the “Total Federal Funds Authorized” line of any affected FY 2017 ETA 9130 financial reports (State Dislocated Worker Activities, Statewide Rapid Response, Local Dislocated Worker Activities) in a manner consistent with the method of distribution of these amounts to state and local areas used by the state. The state must include an explanation of the
•
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its request for an extension of the collections of information specified in its standards on the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment Standards for Construction and General Industry.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 5, 2017.
Deliveries (
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Electrical Protective Equipment Standard (29 CFR 1926.97 and 29 CFR 1910.137) and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard (29 CFR 1926 and 29 CFR 1910.269) specify several collections of information. The following describes the collections of information contained in the standards and addresses who will use the information.
Employers must certify that the electrical protective equipment used by their workers have passed the tests specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)(D), (c)(2)(viii), (c)(2)(ix), and (c)(2)(xi) of the standards. The certification must identify the equipment that passed the tests and the dates of the tests. The two standards require testing: Periodically (generally, every 6 months for rubber insulating gloves and every 12 months for most other types of rubber insulating equipment); after any repairs; and before the equipment is returned to service after any inspection finds certain defects. In addition, the employer must test rubber insulating gloves before reuse after employees use them without protector gloves and must certify that testing. These performance-based standards ensure that employers maintain the most recent test records for equipment that passes the required tests without specifying precisely how the employer must maintain those records.
Before work begins, the host employer must inform the contract employers of: The characteristics of the host employer's installation listed; conditions listed in paragraphs of this section that are known to the host employer; information about the design and operation of the host employer's installation that the contract employer needs to make the assessments required by this section; and any other information about the design and operation of the host employer's installation that is known by the host employer, that the contract employer requests, and that is related to the protection of the contract employer's employees.
Contract employers must ensure that each of its employees is instructed in the hazardous conditions relevant to the employee's work that the contract employer is aware of as a result of information communicated to the contract employer by the host employer; before work begins, the contract employer must advise the host employer of any unique hazardous conditions presented by the contract employer's work; and the contract employer must advise the host employer of any unanticipated hazardous conditions found during the contract employer's work that the host employer did not mention. The contract employer shall provide this information to the host employer within two working days after discovering the hazardous condition.
In assigning an employee or a group of employees to perform a job, the employer must provide the employee in charge of the job with all available information that relates to the determination of existing characteristics and conditions required by (§§ 1926.950(d) and1910.269(a)(4)).
The employer must determine the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, through an engineering analysis or assume a maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, in accordance with the tables listed. When the employer uses portable protective gaps to control the maximum transient overvoltage, the value of the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, must provide for five standard deviations between the statistical sparkover voltage of the gap and the statistical withstand voltage corresponding to the electrical component of the minimum approach distance. The employer must make available upon request to employees and to the Assistant Secretary or designee for examination and copying; any engineering analysis conducted to determine maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collections of information contained in the Standards on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution for Construction and General Industry (29 CFR part 1926, subpart V and 29 CFR 1910.269) and the Electrical Protective Equipment Standards for Construction and General Industry (29 CFR 1926.97 and 29 CFR 1910.137). The Agency is proposing to decrease the burden hours in the currently approved information collection request from 452,091 hours to 365,094 hours (a total decrease of 86,997 hours). The decrease is a result of a determination that the estimated number of establishments affected has declined. Also, the decrease is due to the removal of burden hours associated with OSHA requests to access records from employers. Usually, OSHA requests access to records during an inspection. Information collected by the Agency during the investigation is not subject to the PRA under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2). Therefore, OSHA takes no burden or cost for OSHA requests to access records in this Supporting Statement. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Ethylene Oxide Standard (EtO).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 5, 2017.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The EtO Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the standard.
The information collection requirements specified in the Ethylene Oxide Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational exposure to ethylene oxide. The principal information collection requirements in the EtO Standard include conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of the exposure, implementing a written compliance program, and implementing medical surveillance of workers. Also, the examining physician must provide specific information to ensure that workers receive a copy of their medical examination results. The employer must maintain exposure-monitoring and medical records for specific periods, and provide access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the affected workers, and their authorized representatives and other designated parties.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply (for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques).
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Ethylene Oxide Standard. The Agency is requesting an overall adjustment decrease of burden hours, from 35,051 to 27,880 burden hours. The decrease in burden hours is primarily due to a decrease in the number of establishments covered by the Standard. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on April 5, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of five test standards to its scope of recognition, including one test standard that will be added to the NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted five applications, four dated July 7, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0028-0026), (OSHA-2006-0028-0027), (OSHA-2006-0028-0028), (OSHA-2006-0028-0029) and one dated August 4, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0028-0025), to expand its recognition to include five additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the MET's application, go to
OSHA staff examined MET's expansion applications, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the addition of a new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will include it in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Announcement of meeting of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (Advisory Board) for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).
The Advisory Board will meet April 19-20, 2017, in Richland, Washington. Comments, requests to speak, submissions of materials for the record, and requests for special accommodations: You must submit (postmark, send, transmit) comments, requests to address the Advisory Board, speaker presentations, and requests for special accommodations for the meetings by April 12, 2017.
The Advisory Board will meet at the Red Lion Richland Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington 99352, phone 509-946-7611.
Submission of comments, requests to speak and submissions of materials for the record: You may submit comments, materials, and requests to speak at the Advisory Board meeting, identified by the Advisory Board name and the meeting date of April 19-20, 2017, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Requests for special accommodations: Please submit requests for special accommodations to attend the Advisory Board meeting by email, telephone, or hard copy to Ms. Carrie Rhoads, OWCP, Room S-3524, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 343-5580; email
Your submissions must include the Agency name (OWCP), the committee name (the Advisory Board), and the meeting date (April 19-20, 2017). Due to security-related procedures, receipt of submissions by regular mail may experience significant delays. For additional information about submissions, see the
OWCP will make available publically, without change, any comments, requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal information that you provide. Therefore, OWCP cautions interested parties against submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
For press inquiries: Ms. Amy Louviere, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1028, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4672; email
The Advisory Board will meet: Tuesday, April 18, 2017, all day for a fact-finding site visit of the Hanford Site, accompanied by the Designated Federal Officer; Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific time; and Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific time in Richland, Washington. Some Advisory Board members may attend the meeting by teleconference. The teleconference number and other details for participating remotely will be posted on the Advisory Board's Web site,
Public comment session: Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Pacific time. Please note that the public comment session ends at the time indicated or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session (in person or remotely) at the start time listed.
The Advisory Board is mandated by Section 3687 of EEOICPA. The Secretary of Labor established the Board under this authority and Executive Order 13699 (June 26, 2015). The purpose of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary with respect to: (1) The Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) of the Department of Labor; (2) medical guidance for claims examiners for claims with the EEOICPA program, with respect to the weighing of the medical evidence of claimants; (3) evidentiary requirements for claims under Part B of EEOICPA related to lung disease; and
The Advisory Board operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3).
• Discussion by the subcommittee on the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM);
• Discussion by the subcommittee on Medical Advice re: Weighing Medical Evidence;
• Discussion by the subcommittee on Evidentiary Requirements for Part B Lung Disease;
• Discussion by the subcommittee on IH & CMC and Their Reports;
• Discussion by the Working Group on Presumptions;
• Update on Recommendations submitted after the October 2016 Advisory Board meeting;
• Consideration of any new issues;
• Administrative issues raised by Advisory Board functions and future Advisory Board activities; and
• Public comments.
OWCP transcribes and prepares detailed minutes of Advisory Board meetings. OWCP posts the transcripts and minutes on the Advisory Board Web page,
Individuals requesting special accommodations to attend the Advisory Board meeting should contact Ms. Rhoads.
Because of security-related procedures, receipt of submissions by regular mail may experience significant delays.
• The amount of time requested to speak;
• The interest you represent (
• A brief outline of the presentation.
PowerPoint presentations and other electronic materials must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010 formats. The Advisory Board Chair may grant requests to address the Board as time and circumstances permit.
Electronic copies of this
For further information, you may contact Douglas Fitzgerald, Designated Federal Officer, at
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Claim for Continuance of Compensation (CA-12). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 5, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8133. Under the Act, eligible dependents of deceased employees receive compensation benefits on account of the employee's death. OWCP has to monitor death benefits for current marital status, potential for dual benefits, and other criteria for qualifying as a survivor under the law. The CA-12 is sent annually to beneficiaries in death cases to verify that their status has not changed and that they remain entitled to benefits. The information collected is used by OWCP claims examiners to help ensure that death benefits being paid are correct, and that payments are not made to ineligible survivors. This information collection is currently approved for use through July 31, 2017.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
* enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor seeks extension of approval to collect this information collection in order to ensure that death benefits being paid are correct.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for comments.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is in the process of revising the Performance Criteria that LSC uses to evaluate the quality of legal assistance provided by its grantees. LSC is seeking comments on the proposed changes to Performance Area 4, “Effectiveness of governance, leadership, and administration.”
All comments must be received on or before the close of business on May 29, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Zoe Osterman,
As an entity created and funded by Congress, LSC has the statutory responsibility to ensure that recipients of LSC funds provide economical and effective legal assistance to eligible individuals in all parts of the country, including U.S. territories. With this goal in mind, LSC adopted the Performance Criteria in 1995. LSC last revised the Performance Criteria in 2007.
Beginning in 2016, LSC initiated a process to revise the Performance Criteria. LSC started with Performance Area 4, “Effectiveness of governance, leadership, and administration.” LSC established an internal working group and an external advisory committee comprised of board governance experts, judges, executive directors and former board members of LSC recipients, and representatives from the American Bar Association and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. These groups worked to identify criteria within Performance Area 4 in need of revisions, best practices in nonprofit governance, and the strengths and weaknesses of proposed revisions. LSC also consulted with the advisory committee to identify the best ways to ensure recipient compliance with the Performance Criteria and the best tools for monitoring recipient board governance and leadership performance. This process culminated in the creation of charts, broken down by criteria, that show the existing indicators and the areas of inquiry LSC uses to evaluate recipients' performance on each indicator the proposed new indicators and areas of inquiry, and sources of support for each proposed change.
LSC now seeks public comment on the proposed changes to Performance Area 4 described in the chart. Black font indicates language in the current performance criteria and red font indicates proposed language. The charts will be available at
LSC is following a similar process to revise Performance Criteria 1-3. Additional information and opportunity to comment on the revisions to Performance Criteria 1-3 will be provided in future
The Legal Services Corporation's Institutional Advancement Committee and Communications Sub-Committee of the Institutional Advancement Committee will meet telephonically on April 10, 2017. The meeting will commence at 3:00 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
•
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.
• Once connected to the call, your telephone line will be
• To participate in the meeting during public comment press #6 to “UNMUTE” your telephone line, once you have concluded your comments please press *6 to “MUTE” your line.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so
Open, except as noted below.
* Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b (a) (2) and (b).
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Institutional Advancement Committee meeting. The transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
1. Approval of agenda
2. Leaders Council Update
3. Communications update
4. Public comment
5. Consider and act on other business
6. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to closed session.
7. Consider and act on motion to approve Leaders Council invitees
8. Consider and act on other business
9. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Revision 1 to NUREG-1556, Volume 11, “Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance about Licenses of Broad Scope,” which updates licensing guidance for broad scope licenses. This document has been revised to include information on updated regulatory requirements, safety culture, security of radioactive materials, protection of sensitive information, and changes in regulatory policies and practices. The document is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.
NUREG-1556, Volume 11, Revision 1 is available April 5, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID number NRC-2014-0006 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:
•
•
•
Anthony McMurtray, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2746; email:
The NRC issued a revision to NUREG-1556, Volume 11, to provide guidance to existing broad scope materials licensees and to applicants preparing an application for a broad scope materials license. This NUREG volume also provides the NRC staff with criteria for evaluating these license applications. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that the NUREG-1556 volume listed in this document was issued as a Final Report.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of the Draft Report for Comment version of NUREG-1556, Volume 11, Revision 1 in the
This NUREG volume is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing additional information for a notice published in the
The due date for comments requested in the FR notice published on February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9246), is extended. Comments should be submitted by April 20, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may obtain information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by searching on
•
•
•
Jan Mazza, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-0498, email:
In a notice published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Return of import license application and reopening of comment period for export license.
The NRC is reopening the opportunity for public comment and reopening the opportunity to request a hearing or a petition to intervene for an application to export radioactive waste filed by UniTech Service Group, Inc. (UniTech).
The comment period for the “Request for a License to Export Radioactive Waste” (82 FR 10919; February 16, 2017 (as corrected in March 06, 2017; 82 FR 12641)), has been reopened. Comments should be filed no later than May 5, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0054, 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-2017-0054, 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 will post 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 into ADAMS.
On October 27, 2016, the NRC received an application for a specific import license (IW034) from UniTech to import 10,000 metric tons of byproduct material in the form of radioactive-contaminated tools, metals, and other solid materials, along with incremental amounts of special nuclear material (less than fifteen grams per shipment). On October 27, 2016, the NRC also received an associated application for a specific export license (XW023) from UniTech to export 10,000 metric tons of byproduct material, along with incremental amounts of special nuclear material (less than fifteen grams per shipment). As further explained in the March 30, 2017, letter from David Skeen (ADAMS Accession No. ML17086A272), Deputy Director, Office of International Programs, NRC, to Glenn Roberts, Corporate Health Physicist, UniTech, the NRC has returned UniTech's application for a specific import license without action because the requested import activities are authorized under an NRC general import license.
Therefore, the only regulatory action pending before the NRC is UniTech's application for a specific export license (XW023) to export low-level radioactive waste to Canada. The NRC is reopening both the public comment period and the opportunity to file a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene on XW023 for an additional 30 days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-5 is the basic financial reporting rule for brokers and dealers.
The FOCUS Report consists of: (1) Part I, which is a monthly report that must be filed by brokers or dealers that clear transactions or carry customer securities; (2) one of three alternative quarterly reports: Part II, which must be filed by brokers or dealers that clear transactions or carry customer securities; Part IIA, which must be filed by brokers or dealers that do not clear transactions or carry customer securities; and Part IIB, which must be filed by specialized broker-dealers registered with the Commission as OTC derivatives dealers;
The Commission estimates that the total hours burden under Rule 17a-5 is approximately 356,020 hours per year when annualized, and the total cost burden under Rule 17a-5 is approximately $45,133,148 per year.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on February 2, 2017 the proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-001 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Proposed Rule Change proposes several amendments to the FICC Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD Rules”)
According to FICC, a key tool it uses to manage market risk is the daily calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from its Netting Members. The Required Fund Deposit is intended to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidation of such Netting Member's accounts at GSD that are used for margining purposes (“Margin Portfolio”) in the event that FICC ceases to act for such Netting Member (referred to as a Netting Member “Default”).
A Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit consists of several components, including the VaR Charge and the Coverage Charge. The VaR Charge comprises the largest portion of a Netting Member's Required Fund
The Coverage Charge is calculated based on the Netting Member's daily backtesting results conducted by FICC. Backtesting is used to determine the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit and involves comparing the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member with actual price changes in the Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. The Coverage Charge is incorporated in the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member, and is equal to the amount necessary to increase that Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit so that the Netting Member's backtesting coverage may achieve the 99 percent confidence level required by FICC (
Under the proposal, FICC would create the Margin Proxy, a new, benchmarked volatility calculation of the VaR Charge. The Margin Proxy would act as an alternative to the Current Volatility Calculation of the VaR Charge to provide a minimum volatility calculation for each Netting Member's VaR Charge. FICC proposes to use the Margin Proxy as the VaR Charge if doing so would result in a higher Required Fund Deposit for a Netting Member than using the Current Volatility Calculation as the VaR Charge. In addition, as described in more detail below, because FICC's testing shows that the Margin Proxy would, by itself, achieve a 99 percent confidence level for Netting Members' backtesting coverage when used in lieu of the Current Volatility Charge, in the event that FICC uses the Margin Proxy as the VaR Charge for a Netting Member, it would reduce the Coverage Charge for that Netting Member by a commensurate amount, as long as the Coverage Charge does not go below zero.
According to FICC, during the fourth quarter of 2016, its Current Volatility Calculation did not respond effectively to the level of market volatility at that time, and its VaR Charge amounts (calculated using the profit and loss scenarios generated by the Current Volatility Calculation) did not achieve backtesting coverage at a 99 percent confidence level,
The Margin Proxy would be calculated per Netting Member, and each security in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio would be mapped to a respective benchmark based on the security's asset class and maturity.
FICC expresses confidence that this proposal would provide the adequate VaR Charge for each Netting Member because its calculations show that including the Margin Proxy results in backtesting coverage above the 99 percent confidence level for the past four years.
FICC further asserts that the Margin Proxy methodology would be subject to performance reviews by FICC. Specifically, FICC would monitor each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit and the aggregate FICC GSD clearing fund (“Clearing Fund”) requirements and compare them to the requirements calculated by the Margin Proxy. Consistent with the current GSD Rules,
FICC also proposes to modify the calculation of the Coverage Charge when the Margin Proxy is applied as the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC would
FICC also proposes technical corrections to the GSD Rules. Specifically, FICC proposes to: (1) Capitalize certain words in the definition of VaR Charge in Rule 1 in order to reflect existing defined terms; (2) add “Netting” before “Member” in the definition of VaR Charge to reflect the application of the VaR Charge on Netting Members; and (3) correct typographical errors in Section 1b(a) of Rule 4.
The Commission received three comment letters in response to the proposal. Two comment letters—the Ronin Letter and the ICBCFS Letter—raise concerns with respect to the proposal's design and transparency,
Ronin questions the justification for imposing the Margin Proxy, particularly: (i) The need for the VaR Charge to address idiosyncratic risk (referencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election), and (ii) if the volatility around the 2016 U.S. presidential election was sufficiently extreme to warrant the creation of the Margin Proxy.
ICBCFS disagrees with certain technical aspects of the proposal. In particular, it: (i) Questions the inclusion of ten years of pricing data in the proposed Margin Proxy calculation, including the 2007-2009 period; (ii) disagrees with the Margin Proxy's netting of both sides of a repurchase transaction; and (iii) raises concerns on how the proposed Margin Proxy groups securities in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio in a way that could increase its margin.
In response to the questions regarding the inclusion of ten years of pricing data, FICC states that using the proposed look-back period would help to ensure that the Margin Proxy, and as a result, the VaR Charge, does not either (i) decrease as quickly during intervals of low volatility, or (ii) increase as sharply in crisis periods, resulting in more stable VaR estimates that adequately reflect extreme market moves.
Ronin and ICBCFS argue that the proposal is not sufficiently transparent because it does not include sufficient information for them to determine the proposal's impact on their margin calculations.
Finally, Ronin argues that the proposal imposes a burden on competition because it may cause Ronin to pay more margin. Ronin notes that the Margin Proxy creates an “unfair competitive burden” among Netting Members with different access to capital.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change described above is consistent with the Act, in particular Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (b)(3)(I) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of the clearing agency must be designed to, among other things, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act also requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1) under the Act requires a registered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, provide for a well-founded, transparent, and enforceable legal framework for each aspect of its
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Angel Oak Funds Trust, a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management series investment company, and Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on April 1, 2016, and amended on September 30, 2016 and February 6, 2017.
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 24, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Dory S. Black, Esq., President, c/o Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC, One Buckhead Plaza, 3060 Peachtree Rd. NW., Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30305.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826 or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, 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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if 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 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 provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On January 30, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on February 2, 2017 the advance notice SR-FICC-2017-801 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
The Advance Notice proposes several amendments to the FICC Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD Rules”) designed to provide FICC with a supplemental means to calculate the VaR Charge component of its GSD Netting Members' (“Netting Members”) daily margin requirement, known as the “Required Fund Deposit.” Specifically, under the proposal, FICC would include a minimum volatility calculation for a Netting Member's VaR Charge called the “Margin Proxy.” FICC represents that the Margin Proxy would enhance the risk-based model and parameters that FICC uses to establish Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits by enabling FICC to better identify the risk posed by a Netting Member's unsettled portfolio.
According to FICC, a key tool it uses to manage market risk is the daily calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from its Netting Members. The Required Fund Deposit is intended to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidation of such Netting Member's accounts at GSD that are used for margining purposes (“Margin Portfolio”) in the event that FICC ceases to act for such Netting Member (referred to as a Netting Member “Default”).
A Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit consists of several components, including the VaR Charge and the Coverage Charge. The VaR Charge comprises the largest portion of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit amount and is calculated using a risk-based margin methodology model that is intended to cover the market price risk associated with the securities in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. That risk-based margin methodology model, which FICC refers to as the “Current Volatility Calculation,” uses historical market moves to project the potential gains or losses that could occur in connection with the liquidation of a defaulting Netting Member's Margin Portfolio.
The Coverage Charge is calculated based on the Netting Member's daily backtesting results conducted by FICC. Backtesting is used to determine the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit and involves comparing the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member with actual price changes in the Netting Member's Margin Portfolio. The Coverage Charge is incorporated in the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member, and is equal to the amount necessary to increase that Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit so that the Netting Member's backtesting coverage may achieve the 99 percent confidence level required by FICC (
Under the proposal, FICC would create the Margin Proxy, a new, benchmarked volatility calculation of the VaR Charge. The Margin Proxy would act as alternative to the Current Volatility Calculation of the VaR Charge to provide a minimum volatility calculation for each Netting Member's VaR Charge. FICC proposes to use the Margin Proxy as the VaR Charge if doing so would result in a higher Required Fund Deposit for a Netting Member than using the Current Volatility Calculation as the VaR Charge. In addition, as described in more detail below, because FICC's testing shows that the Margin Proxy would, by itself, achieve a 99 percent confidence level for Netting Members' backtesting coverage when used in lieu of the Current Volatility Charge, in the event that FICC uses the Margin Proxy as the VaR Charge for a Netting Member, it would reduce the Coverage Charge for that Netting Member by a commensurate amount, as long as the Coverage Charge does not go below zero.
According to FICC, during the fourth quarter of 2016, its Current Volatility Calculation did not respond effectively to the level of market volatility at that time, and its VaR Charge amounts (calculated using the profit and loss scenarios generated by the Current Volatility Calculation) did not achieve backtesting coverage at a 99 percent
The Margin Proxy would be calculated per Netting Member, and each security in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio would be mapped to a respective benchmark based on the security's asset class and maturity.
FICC expresses confidence that this proposal would provide the adequate VaR Charge for each Netting Member because its calculations show that including the Margin Proxy results in backtesting coverage above the 99 percent confidence level for the past four years.
FICC further asserts that the Margin Proxy methodology would be subject to performance reviews by FICC. Specifically, FICC would monitor each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit and the aggregate FICC GSD clearing fund (“Clearing Fund”) requirements and compare them to the requirements calculated by the Margin Proxy. Consistent with the current GSD Rules,
FICC also proposes to modify the calculation of the Coverage Charge when the Margin Proxy is applied as the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC would reduce the Coverage Charge by the amount that the Margin Proxy exceeds the sum of the Current Volatility Calculation and Coverage Charge, but not by an amount greater than the total Coverage Charge. FICC states that its backtesting analysis demonstrates that the Margin Proxy, on its own, achieves the 99 percent confidence level without the inclusion of the Coverage Charge
The Commission received three comment letters in response to the proposal.
Specifically, Ronin questions the justification for imposing the Margin Proxy, particularly (i) the need for the VaR Charge to address idiosyncratic risk (referencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election), and (ii) if the volatility around the 2016 U.S. presidential election was sufficiently extreme to warrant the creation of the Margin Proxy.
ICBCFS disagrees with certain technical aspects of the proposal. In particular, it: (i) Questions the inclusion of ten years of pricing data in the proposed Margin Proxy calculation, including the 2007-2009 period; (ii) disagrees with the Margin Proxy's netting of both sides of a repurchase transaction; and (iii) raises concerns on how the proposed Margin Proxy groups securities in a Netting Member's Margin Portfolio in a way that could increase its margin.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
First, the Commission believes that the proposed changes promote robust risk management by giving FICC the ability to better cover the exposure to potential default presented by GSD Netting Members' portfolios. In light of the VaR model deficiencies revealed through backtesting, FICC has taken appropriate steps to improve its ability to assess a sufficient VaR Charge for each Netting Member, and thereby help ensure that it has sufficient financial resources in its Clearing Fund. More specifically, the Margin Proxy would serve as a minimum volatility calculation, enabling FICC to adjust the GSD VaR Charge when the Margin Proxy calculation is greater than the current VaR model calculation. Such an adjustment would enable FICC to more effectively assess for the overall market risks associated with a possible default of a GSD Member.
Second, the Commission believes that each of the Margin Proxy mechanisms discussed above—the longer look back period, use of position offsets, and treatment of when-issued Treasury securities—are designed to help FICC to better manage market risk. The Commission agrees that a longer look-back period typically produces more stable VaR estimates.
Third, the Commission believes that the proposed changes promote safety and soundness at FICC, which, in turn, should reduce systemic risk and support the stability of the broader financial system. By providing for a supplemental means to calculate a Netting Member's VaR Charge, especially in light of known deficiencies with the current calculation, the proposal would help
The Commission believes that the proposed changes associated with the Margin Proxy are consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Exchange Act requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act requires a registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters at least monthly.
By the Commission.
On January 27, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees, early withdrawal charges (“EWCs”) and early repurchase fees (“Early Repurchase Fee”).
Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”) and Winton Capital US LLC (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on August 18, 2016 and amended February 22, 2017.
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, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund and Winton Capital US LLC, c/o Michael Beattie, SEI Corporation, One Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, Pennsylvania 19456.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8707, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, 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. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund's investment objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation through compound growth.
2. The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Fund to issue multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense structure, and to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees, EWCs and Early Repurchase Fees.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment company that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,
5. The Fund intends to make a continuous public offering of its Class I Shares following the effectiveness of its registration statement (File Nos. 333-201801 and 811-23028) on September 15, 2015. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Fund intends to continuously offer at least one additional class of shares (“Class A Shares”) and may also offer additional classes of shares in the future. Because of the different asset-based service and/or distribution fees, services and any other class expenses that may be attributable to a class of a Fund's shares, the net income attributable to, and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each other.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Fund may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from Class I Shares and Class A Shares in the following respects: (i) The amount of fees permitted by different distribution plans or different service fee arrangements; (ii) voting rights with respect to a distribution plan of a class; (iii) different class designations; (iv) the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular class of shares allocated on a class basis as described in the application; (v) any differences in dividends and net asset value resulting from differences in fees under a distribution plan or in class expenses; (vi) any EWC or other sales load structure; (vii) any Early Repurchase Fees; and (viii) exchange or conversion privileges of the classes as permitted under the Act.
8. Applicants state that currently no Fund intends to impose an Early Repurchase Fee. However, in the future, Funds may subject shares to an Early Repurchase Fee at a rate of 2 percent of the aggregate net asset value of a shareholder's shares repurchased by the Fund if the interval between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year. Any Repurchase Fee will apply equally to all shareholders of the applicable Fund, regardless of the class of shares held by such shareholders, consistent with Section 18 of the Act and Rule 18f-3 thereunder. To the extent a Fund determines to waive, impose scheduled variations of or eliminate the Early Repurchase Fee, the Fund will comply with the requirements of Rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Early Repurchase Fee were a CDSL (defined below) and as if the Fund were an open-ended investment company. The Fund's waiver, scheduled variation in, or elimination of, the Early Repurchase Fee will apply uniformly to all shareholders of the Fund regardless of the class of shares held by such shareholders.
9. Applicants state that the Fund may provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.
10. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and distribution fees for each class of shares will comply with the provisions of NASD Rule 2830(d) (“NASD Sales Charge Rule”).
11. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
12. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect distribution fees, service fees, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Fund allocated to a particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end investment company.
13. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that each of the Funds will apply the EWC (and any waivers, scheduled variations, or eliminations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
14. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act makes it unlawful for a closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the declaration of any distribution, upon its common stock, or the purchase of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution, or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as the case may be. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
4. Section 6(c) 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 provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent 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. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end investment company (an “interval fund”) to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSLs.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based service and/or distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based service and/or distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the NASD Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 5710 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies)).
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 amend Nasdaq Rule 5710 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies)), which allows the listing of Linked Securities.
Specifically, Nasdaq Rule 5710(e) states that for listing of a Linked Security,
The proposed rule change will also modify the $250 million minimum tangible net worth requirement with a parenthetical stating that if the Linked Securities are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by an affiliate of the company, Nasdaq will rely on such affiliate's tangible net worth for purposes of this requirement.
Nasdaq Rule 5710(e) also provides an alternative listing requirement where a company can list a Linked Security with tangible net worth requirement in excess of $150 million (instead of $250 million), provided that the original issue price of all the company's other index-linked note offerings (combined with index-linked note offerings of the company's affiliates) listed on a national securities exchange does not exceed 25% of the company's tangible net worth.
This alternative listing requirement also will be modified to be substantively identical to the Arca provision. Thus, while a company's listing of a Linked Security under the Nasdaq provision must currently also meet the requirement that the company also exceed by at least 20% the earnings requirements set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5405(b)(1)(A), that earnings test will likewise be deleted.
The proposed rule change will both delete the Nasdaq language discussed above, as well as add the following substantively identical language from the Arca provision, to substantially conform the Nasdaq language to the Arca language. First, that the original issue price of the Linked Securities, combined with all of the company's other Linked Securities listed on a national securities exchange or otherwise publicly traded in the United States, must not be greater than 25 percent of the company's tangible net worth at the time of issuance. Second, a parenthetical will be added following this to say that if the Linked Securities are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by an affiliate of the Company, Nasdaq will apply the provisions of this paragraph to such affiliate instead of the Company and will include in its calculation all Linked Securities that are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by such affiliate. Third, as with the Arca provision, a sentence at the end of this listing standard will state that Government issuers and supranational entities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The Exchange believes that conforming Nasdaq's listing standards to Arca's does not impact investor protections and will enhance competition by establishing an equivalent listing standard across Arca and Nasdaq for Linked Securities. Although Nasdaq will be deleting the earnings test, investors will not be adversely affected since a Company will still be required to have at least either (i) $250 million, or (ii) $150 million in tangible net worth and subject to a maximum issuance threshold
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to conform Nasdaq Rule 5710(e) so that it is substantially similar to Arca Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A)(e) will promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general protect investors and the public interest since it will promote the application of consistent listing standards for Linked Securities. Specifically, although Nasdaq will be deleting the earnings test, investors will not be adversely affected since a Company will still be required to have at least either (i) $250 million, or (ii) $150 million in tangible net worth and subject to a maximum issuance threshold (depending on which requirement the Company is able to satisfy). Nasdaq will also take into consideration whether the Linked Securities are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by an affiliate of the Company. The continuing minimum tangible net worth requirements coupled with the conforming changes will provide a strong indication of the company's ability to make necessary payments on the Linked Security.
For these reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) 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. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to conform Nasdaq Rule 5710(e) so that it is substantially similar to Arca Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A)(e) may enhance competition since Nasdaq and Arca
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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
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.
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 Sami Bashur Bouras, also known as Wakrici, also known as Khadim, 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
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 El Shafee Elsheikh, also known as Shaf, also known as Shafee, 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
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 person known as Anjem Choudary, also known as Abu Luqman, 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
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations and the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative identified in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor, issued March 4, 2016, prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA). The decision allows for the production of tritium using TVA reactors at both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites in eastern Tennessee and continues an interagency agreement with DOE/NNSA under The Economy Act to provide irradiation services for producing tritium in TVA light water reactors.
Matthew Higdon, Tennessee Valley Authority, NEPA Specialist, 400 West Summit Hill Drive (WT11D), Knoxville,
TVA adopted the Final SEIS on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11557-11558) in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3. As a cooperating agency, TVA provided subject matter expertise, independent review and evaluation, and close coordination with DOE/NNSA during the environmental review process, including preparation of the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS. DOE/NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) based on the Final SEIS on June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40685). By this notice, TVA is providing notification of its decision and agency reasoning.
The DOE is responsible for supplying nuclear materials for national security needs and ensuring that the nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe and reliable. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of every weapon in the current and projected U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Unlike other nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent per year. Accordingly, as long as the Nation relies on a nuclear deterrent, the tritium in each nuclear weapon must be replenished periodically.
In March 1999, DOE/NNSA published the Final EIS for Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor, which addressed the proposed interagency agreement with TVA to produce tritium at TVA reactors using tritium-producing burnable absorber rods (TPBARs). In May 1999, DOE published the ROD for the 1999 EIS, identifying its decision to implement the agreement for tritium production at the Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor (Watts Bar 1) in Rhea County, Tennessee, and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 reactors (Sequoyah 1 and 2) in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Under the proposal, TVA would irradiate up to 3,400 TPBARs per reactor per fuel cycle, which lasts about 18 months. The agreement was needed by DOE/NNSA because at the time the U.S. nuclear weapons complex did not have the capability to produce the amounts of tritium that were needed to support the Nation's current and future nuclear weapons stockpile.
Following the environmental review, an agreement with DOE/NNSA was approved by the TVA Board of Directors in late 1999 and, in May 2000, TVA issued a ROD and adopted the DOE/NNSA's EIS (65 FR 26259). In 2000, TVA entered into an interagency agreement with DOE/NNSA under The Economy Act to provide irradiation services for producing tritium in TVA light water reactors through November 2035.
In explaining its decision in the ROD, TVA noted that the preamble to the TVA Act of 1933 identifies national defense as one of the purposes for its enactment, that Sections 15d(h) and 31 of the TVA Act declare that the Act should be liberally construed to aid TVA in discharging its responsibilities for the advancement of national defense, and that there have been numerous occasions on which TVA supported the Nation's defense efforts. In the ROD, TVA stated that this mandate to support the national defense was among the factors for consideration in approving the production of tritium.
TVA received license amendments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2002 to produce tritium in Watts Bar 1 reactor and both Sequoyah reactors and has been producing tritium at the Watts Bar 1 reactor since 2003 (TVA has not produced tritium in Sequoyah 1 or 2; that has remained a viable option). Since 2003, irradiation experience at Watts Bar has shown that the permeation rate per TPBAR per year has been higher than the estimate that was included and analyzed in the 1999 EIS by DOE/NNSA. In the 1999 EIS, DOE/NNSA estimated that tritium permeated through the wall of the TPBARs into the reactor coolant at a rate of one curie per TPBAR per year. However, experience at Watts Bar has shown that the actual permeation rate is 3-4 curies per TPBAR per year (there are approximately 10,000 curies of tritium produced by a TPBAR). The higher-than-expected permeation rate has resulted in limitations on the number of TPBARs that TVA can irradiate in its reactors to meet DOE/NNSA's projected tritium requirements. Watts Bar Unit 2 (Watts Bar 2), which began commercial operation in late 2016, is not currently licensed for tritium production.
DOE/NNSA initiated the SEIS in 2011 to supplement its previous analysis to address the higher rates of permeation of tritium from TPBARs at TVA sites and to evaluate increasing tritium production quantities to meet requirements. In the SEIS analysis, DOE/NNSA used a conservative (
Six alternatives were analyzed in the SEIS, including alternatives to utilize Watts Bar 2.
In its Final SEIS, DOE/NNSA identified
In the SEIS, DOE/NNSA provided supplemental analysis of the potential impacts of each alternative on land use, aesthetics, climate and air quality, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, transportation, infrastructure and utilities, socioeconomics and environmental justice, and human health and safety. Also addressed were impacts associated with potential accidents and intentional destructive acts and those associated with waste and spent nuclear fuel management. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are summarized for
The key findings of the SEIS are (1) Tritium releases from normal operations with TPBAR irradiation would have an insignificant impact on the health of workers and the public; (2) tritium releases from TPBAR irradiation would increase tritium concentrations in the Tennessee River in comparison with not irradiating TPBARs; however, the tritium concentration at any drinking water intake would remain well below the maximum permissible Environmental Protection Agency drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter; (3) TPBAR irradiation would not have a significant adverse impact on the operation and safety of TVA reactor facilities, and the potential risks from accidents would remain essentially the same whether TPBARs were irradiated in a TVA reactor or not; and (4) irradiation of 2,500 TPBARs in a single reactor would increase spent nuclear fuel generation by about 24 percent per fuel cycle and irradiation of 5,000 TPBARs at a single site would increase spent nuclear fuel generation at either Watts Bar or Sequoyah by about 48 percent per fuel cycle; however, TVA has a plan to manage the increased volume of spent nuclear fuel assemblies.
In its June 2016 ROD, DOE/NNSA identified the No Action Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative after considering the potential impacts to each resource area by alternative. TVA concurs with this determination. Fewer environmental impacts would result from the No Action Alternative because the alternative would have the lowest limiting value considered for the total number of TPBARs proposed to be irradiated (no more than 2,040 TPBARs every 18 months).
In its June 2016 ROD, DOE/NNSA stated its intent to implement the preferred alternative, Alternative 6, under the terms of the existing interagency agreement with TVA. TVA has decided to implement Alternative 6 as well, which allows for the irradiation of a total of 5,000 TPBARs every 18 months using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites. Because TVA could irradiate a maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one reactor, one or both reactors at each of the sites could be used. In the SEIS, DOE/NNSA assumed for Alternative 6 that each site would irradiate 2,500 TPBARs every 18 months. However, because the SEIS analyzes the impacts of irradiating up to 5,000 TPBARs at a single site, Alternative 6 is not intended to limit the number of TPBARs irradiated at either the Watts Bar or Sequoyah site, so long as no more than a total of 5,000 TPBARs is irradiated every 18 months, with no more than 2,500 TPBARs in any reactor core. This decision allows for irradiation of TPBARs at the Sequoyah site in the future; however, TVA does not currently have plans to irradiate TPBARs at the Sequoyah site in the near term.
In June 2016, TVA agreed to assess the potential for tritium production at Watts Bar 2. As a result of that assessment, TVA is planning to submit a license amendment to the NRC in late 2017 to authorize irradiation of up to 1,792 TPBARs in Watts Bar 2. Subject to approval of the license agreement, tritium production in Watts Bar 2 is currently projected to start in the fall of 2020 with the loading of approximately 600 to 704 TPBARs. Plans further call for Watts Bar 2 to be irradiating approximately 1,500 to 1,792 TPBARs by December 2025.
The basis for TVA's decision is its commitment to provide irradiation services for producing tritium for DOE/NNSA based on the interagency agreement established in 2000 between the two agencies. TVA concurs that the proposal reflects responsible planning on the part of DOE/NNSA and provides the greatest flexibility for DOE/NNSA to meet future tritium production requirements through the potential availability of up to four reactors (
The SEIS identified several mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts from tritium releases. In the event that TVA decides to irradiate TPBARs at Sequoyah site or facilitate routine tritium management, TVA would construct and operate a 500,000-gallon tritiated water tank system (similar to the system at the Watts Bar site) at Sequoyah to mitigate potential impacts from tritium releases. TVA would use the respective tank systems at both sites to store tritiated water after it passed through the liquid radioactive waste processing system. TVA would release the stored tritiated water to the Tennessee River by the existing pathways at the site. The tank systems would have sufficient capacity to store and release the water to the Tennessee River at appropriate times (that is, TVA will release stored tritiated water from the tank during times of higher river flows for better dilution), and it will enable TVA to minimize the potential impacts of tritiated water releases. The systems would enable TVA to plan fewer releases each year and to ensure that site effluents would continue to remain well below regulatory concentration limits. Additionally, TVA will continue to monitor its operations for emissions to air and water in accordance with NRC licensing requirements. TVA has adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property; correction.
The FAA published a document in the
Anthony Mekhail, 817-222-5663.
In the
1. On page 13918, in the second column, the subject heading is corrected to “Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property at Sweetwater Municipal Airport in Sweetwater, Texas,” as set out in the subject heading of this document.
2. On page 13918, in the third column, in the first sentence of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 25, 2017.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2016-3324 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 683-7788, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
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 renew a previously approved information collection. The “Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage)” final rule amended FAA regulation pertaining to certification and operation of transport category airplanes to preclude widespread fatigue damage in those airplanes.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal 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 renew a previously approved information collection.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
The FAA is collecting safety-related data regarding the voluntary implementation of Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) safety enhancements (SEs) from certificate holders conducting operations under 14 CFR part 121 and Parts 121/135.
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 renew a previously approved information collection. FAA regulations require performance requirements for certain avionics equipment on aircraft operating in specified classes of airspace within the United States national Airspace System. This facilitates the use of ADS-B for aircraft surveillance by FAA air traffic controllers to accommodate the expected increase in demand for air transportation.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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 by email at:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is publishing this notice of a pending action required by statute. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 requires the FAA to release the City of St. Marys, Georgia, from all restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Marys Airport. On March 6, 2017, the City of St. Marys provided written notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of its intent to permanently close the St. Marys Airport (4J6), in St. Marys, Georgia on July 14, 2017. The City of St. Marys provided this notice to the FAA in excess of 30 days before the permanent closure. The FAA hereby publishes the City of St. Marys' notice of permanent closure of the St. Marys Airport.
The permanent closure of the airport is effective as of July 14, 2017.
Rob Rau, Georgia Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-6748.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) requires the FAA to release the City of St. Marys, Georgia, from all restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Marys Airport (4J6). This non-towered, general aviation airport consists of approximately 285-acres and 15 based aircraft. Title 49 United States Code 46319 states that a public agency (as defined in section 47102) may not permanently close an airport listed in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems under section 47103 without providing written notice to the Administrator of the FAA at least 30 days before the date of the closure. The FAA recognizes that the City of St. Marys met this requirement on March 6, 2017.
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 renew a previously approved information collection. National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Web Portal forms are used to collect aeronautical information, detailing the physical description and operational status of all components of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Written comments should be submitted by June 5, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
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 renew a previously approved information collection. The FAA Aviation Research and Development Grants Program establishes uniform policies and procedures for the award and administration of research grants to colleges, universities, not for profit organizations, and profit organizations for security research. The collection of data is required from prospective grantees in order to adhere to applicable statues and OMB circulars.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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 by email at:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
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 renew a previously approved information collection. On February 21, 2014, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Helicopter Air Start Printed Page 58673Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and part 91 Helicopter Operations”, to address helicopter air ambulance operations and all commercial helicopter operations conducted under part 135. The FAA also established new weather minimums for helicopters operating under part 91 in Class G airspace.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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 by email at:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's
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 renew a previously approved information collection. FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, is used to collect information about any construction, alteration, or change to the status or use of an airport.
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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 by email at:
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 renew a previously approved information collection. The information collected is used by the FAA to register and renew aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust. The information required to register and approve ownership of an aircraft is required by any person wishing to
Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2017.
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 by email at:
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The information collected on an Aircraft Registration Renewal Application (AC Form 8050-1B) is used by the FAA to verify and update the aircraft registration information collected for an aircraft when it was first registered. The updated registration database will then be used by the FAA to monitor and control U.S. airspace and to distribute safety notices and airworthiness directives to aircraft owners.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 3 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0123; FMCSA-2013-0124 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The 3 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the twelve applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR 60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
The 3 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a two-year period. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed exemption.
As of April 8, 2017, Clark Dobson (CA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 9036). This driver was included in FMCSA-2013-0124. The exemption was effective on April 8, 2017, and will expire on April 8, 2019.
As of April 8, 2017, Gregory Hill (MS) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 18926). This driver was included in FMCSA-2013-0123. The exemption was effective on April 8, 2017, and will expire on April 8, 2019.
As of April 21, 2017, Ronald Rutter (WA) has satisfied renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 12556). This driver was included in FMCSA-2013-0123. The exemption was effective on April 21, 2017, and will expire on April 21, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA. In addition, the driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Based upon its evaluation of the three exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 96196). The public comment period ended on January 30, 2017, and two comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received two comments in this preceding. Amy Schindler stated that she believes granting these exemptions are potentially unsafe. As discussed in section II of this notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Whitney-Rose Levis is in favor of granting the exemptions, but states that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations should be updated to allow monocular drivers to operate without having to renew an exemption.
As of July 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 40 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 40404; 64 FR 66962; 66 FR 63289; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 64944; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 67776; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 26602; 72 FR 58362; 72 FR 64273; 72 FR 67340; 72 FR 67344; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 6242; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 16950; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 27017; 74 FR 62632; 74 FR 65842; 74 FR 65845; 75 FR 9477; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 14656; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 27621; 75 FR 28684; 76 FR 70215; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13689; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 23799; 77 FR 23800; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27849; 77 FR 33558; 77 FR 38386; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 64280; 78 FR 76395; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 22000; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27365; 79 FR 27681; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 38649):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-29019; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2012-0040; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0005. Their exemptions are effective as of July 8, 2016, and will expire on July 8, 2018.
As of July 12, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 4194; 71 FR 13450; 73 FR 15255; 75 FR 9481; 75 FR 20882; 75 FR 22178; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38386; 79 FR 35220):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0104. Their exemptions are effective as of July 12, 2016, and will expire on July 12, 2018.
As of July 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2014-0006. Their exemptions are effective as of July 20, 2016, and will expire on July 20, 2018. As of July 22, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 35212; 79 FR 47175):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0006. Their exemptions are effective as of July 22, 2016, and will expire on July 22, 2018.
As of July 30, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 73 FR 36955; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 33017; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 44708; 79 FR 37843; 79 FR 38661):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2012-0106. Their exemptions are effective as of July 30, 2016, and will expire on July 30, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) or 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Forms 26-1820, 26-8497 and 26-8497a are used by Lenders to obtain specific information concerning a veteran's credit history in order to properly underwrite the veteran's loan. The data collected on the forms is used to ensure that applications for VA-guaranteed loans are underwritten in a reasonable and prudent manner.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
a. VA Form 26-1820 is completed by lenders closing VA-guaranteed and insured loans under the automatic or prior approval procedures.
b. VA Form 26-8497 is used by lenders to verify a loan applicant's income and employment information when making guaranteed and insured loans. VA does not require the exclusive use of this form for verification purposes, any alternative verification document would be acceptable provided that all information requested on VA Form 26-8497 is provided.
c. Lenders making guaranteed and insured loans complete VA Form 26-8497a to verify the applicant's deposits in banks and other savings institutions.
VA Form 26-1820—150,000 hours.
VA From 26-8497—25,000 hours.
VA Form 26-8497a—12,500 hours.
VA Form 26-1820—15 minutes.
VA Form 26-8497—10 minutes.
VA Form 26-8497a—5 minutes.
VA Form 26-1820—600,000.
VA Form 26-8497—150,000.
VA Form 26-8497a—150,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 22-8690 is used to verify the actual numbers of hours worked by a work-study claimant. Without this information, continued entitlement to the benefits for dependents could not be determined.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0706.”
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify the West Indian manatee (
This rule is effective May 5, 2017.
This final rule, as well as comments and materials received in response to the proposed rule, are available on the Internet at
Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, North Florida Ecological Services Office, by telephone at 904-731-3191, or by facsimile at 904-731-3045; or at the following address: 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256; Edwin Muñiz, Field Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, by telephone at 787-851-7297, or by facsimile at 787-851-7441; or at the following address: Road 301, Km. 5.1, P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, PR 00622. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• In April 2007, we completed a 5-year status review, which included a recommendation to reclassify the West Indian manatee from endangered to threatened.
• In December 2012, we received a petition submitted by the Pacific Legal Foundation, on behalf of Save Crystal River, Inc., requesting that the West Indian manatee and subspecies thereof be reclassified from its current status as endangered to threatened, based primarily on the analysis and recommendation contained in our April 2007 5-year review.
• On July 2, 2014, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that reclassifying the West Indian manatee may be warranted (79 FR 37706). On January 8, 2016, we published a proposed rule to reclassify the West Indian manatee as threatened, which also constituted our 12-month petition finding that the action requested is warranted (81 FR 1000).
• Based on our status review, threats analysis, and evaluation of conservation measures, we conclude that the West Indian manatee no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered and should be reclassified to threatened, that is, a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• Our review of the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that some threats to the manatee still remain while others have been reduced or no longer occur. Examples of remaining threats that will make this species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; watercraft collisions; loss of winter warm-water habitat; and poaching.
• Recovery efforts to control these threats in range countries are under way in many areas but have not yet begun in others. Further implementation of recovery actions is needed to bring the West Indian manatee to full recovery by reducing or removing threats to the point where this species is no longer likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The Florida manatee (
On January 8, 2016, we published in the
Please refer to the combined 12-month finding and proposed rule to reclassify the West Indian manatee (81 FR 1000, January 8, 2016) for more information on the species' distribution, taxonomy, description, lifespan, mating, and reproduction. We made no changes to these sections and do not include them in our final rule.
The West Indian manatee,
Within the southeastern United States, Martin
The Martin
In Florida, to count numbers of manatees, FWC conducts a series of statewide aerial and ground surveys of warm-water sites known to be visited by manatees during cold-weather extremes. These surveys are conducted from one to three times each winter, depending on weather conditions (FWC FWRI Manatee aerial surveys, 2016, unpubl. data). While the number of manatees detected during these surveys has increased over the years, in and of themselves these surveys are not considered to be reliable indicators of population trends, given concerns about detection probabilities. However, it is likely that a significant amount of the increase does reflect an actual increase in population size when this count is considered in the context of other positive demographic indicators, including the recently updated growth and survival rates (Runge
In February 2015, researchers counted 6,063 manatees during a statewide survey, and researchers in February 2016 counted 6,250 manatees (FWC FWRI Manatee aerial surveys 2016, unpubl. data).
In 2008, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified the West Indian manatee as a “Vulnerable” species throughout its range based on an estimate of less than 10,000 mature individuals (Deutsch
To the extent that they can be measured with the best available data, the West Indian manatee population trend and status vary regionally (Table 1). In the southeastern United States, the manatee population has grown, based on updated adult survival rate estimates and estimated growth rates (Runge
In the Castelblanco-Martínez
As stated in Castelblanco-Martínez
These four worst model predictions are currently considered unlikely for the Antillean manatee metapopulations. For example, Castelblanco-Martínez
In addition, low survival probabilities of transient manatees (habitat fragmentation) of 50 percent or lower are also considered unlikely since migration rates were assumed low, and given that manatees have a resilient immune system and seem resistant to diseases and traumatic injuries as explained by Castelblanco-Martínez
In the southeastern United States, new population growth rates for Florida's Atlantic Coast, Upper St. Johns River, Northwest, and Southwest Regions describe growth in each region through winter seasons 2011-2012, 2010-2011, 2009-2010, and 2008-2009, respectively (Langtimm presentation, 2016). Regional adult survival rate estimates (see Table 2) were also updated through the same periods and are higher and more precise for all regions since the last estimates were provided (Langtimm presentation, 2016; Runge
A USGS-led status and threats analysis for the Florida manatee was updated in 2016 (Runge presentation, 2016). This effort considers the demographic effects of the major threats to Florida manatees and evaluates how those demographic effects influence the risk of extinction using the manatee Core Biological Model. Although the adult survival rate is less than one in all regions, growth rates have been demonstrably greater than one (positive growth) over the recent past (1983-2007) (Langtimm presentation, 2016).
The analysis forecasts the status of the manatee population under different threat scenarios using the Manatee Core Biological Model. Data from the Manatee Carcass Salvage Program (FWC FWRI Manatee Carcass Salvage Program 2016, unpubl. data) were used to estimate fractions of mortality due to each of six known threats: Watercraft, water control structures, marine debris, cold, red tide, and others (Runge presentation, 2016).
The model expressed the contribution of each threat as it affects manatee persistence, by removing them, one at a time, and comparing the results to the “status quo” scenario. The “status quo” represents the population status in the continued presence of all of the threats, including the threat of the potential loss of warm water in the future due to power plant closures and the loss of springs and/or reduction in spring flows.
Under the status quo scenario, the statewide manatee population is expected to increase slowly, nearly doubling over 50 years, and then stabilize as the population reaches statewide carrying capacity. Under this scenario, the model predicts that it is unlikely (< 2.5 percent chance) that the statewide population will fall below 4,000 total individuals over the next 100 years, assuming current threats remain constant indefinitely (Runge
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of listed species, unless we find that such a plan will not promote conservation of the species. Although the West Indian manatee is listed throughout its range, Service recovery planning efforts for the West Indian manatee focused mostly on those portions of the species' range within U.S. jurisdiction. We published an initial recovery plan for the West Indian manatee in 1980 (USFWS 1980) and subsequently published recovery plans at the subspecies level for manatees found within the United States. At present, approved plans include the Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rican Population of the Antillean Manatee (USFWS 1986); the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, Third Revision (USFWS 2001); and the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999).
Section 4(f) of the Act directs that, to the maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each recovery plan: (1) Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria, which when met would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the list; and (3) estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan.
Revisions to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with section 4(a)(1) and 4(b). Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is threatened or endangered (or not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must indicate when a species is no longer threatened or endangered because of any of these five factors. In other words, objective, measurable criteria contained in recovery plans (recovery criteria) must indicate when an analysis of the five factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that a species is no longer an endangered or threatened species. Section 4(b) requires that the determination made under section 4(a)(1) be based on the best available science.
Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to remove from or reclassify a species on the List made under section 4(a)(1) must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the determination, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps even delist the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be available that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing, and evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The following discussion provides a review of recovery planning and implementation for the West Indian manatee, as well as an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of the species.
Recovery and conservation actions for the West Indian manatee are described in the “UNEP Caribbean Environment[al] Program's Regional Management Plan for the West Indian Manatee” (UNEP 2010, entire) and in national conservation plans for countries outside the United States. Within the United States, the Service's Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West Indian (Antillean) Manatee (USFWS 1986, entire), the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, entire), and the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, entire) identify recovery and conservation actions for the species. Actions common to all plans include minimizing manatee mortality and injury, protecting manatee habitats, and monitoring manatee populations and habitat.
The UNEP plan, published in 2010, identifies short- and long-term conservation and research measures that should be implemented to conserve the West Indian manatee. This plan also includes an overview of West Indian manatees within their range countries, including descriptions of regional and national conservation measures and research programs that have been implemented. Given the general lack of information about manatees in most range countries, the plan recommends that needed research and the development of common methodologies be prioritized in concert with coordinated manatee and manatee habitat protection efforts (UNEP 2010, entire).
Within the species' range, foundations for coordinated conservation and research activities are developing, and a number of governments have designated manatee protection areas and have developed or are developing conservation plans (UNEP 2010, p. xiv). National legislation exists for manatees in all range countries, and many countries have ratified their participation in international conventions and protocols that protect manatees and their habitat (UNEP 2010, p. xv). At
Efforts to conserve manatees outside the United States vary significantly from country to country. Some countries, including but not limited to Mexico, Belize, Brazil, and Cuba, are engaged in efforts to assess current status and distribution of manatees. Many countries, including Belize and Brazil, provide protections for manatees and their habitat. For example, the manatee in Belize is listed as endangered under Belize's Wildlife Protection Act of 1981. Belize protects manatees from overexploitation, and its recovery plan implements recovery actions similar to those identified in the Service's Florida and Puerto Rico recovery plans. Efforts to protect manatees include education and outreach efforts, and countries are promoting cooperation and information exchanges through venues such as the recent Cartagena Convention meetings (UNEP 2014, entire). A successful cooperative initiative identified at the meetings includes the implementation of manatee bycatch surveys in the Dominican Republic, Belize, Colombia, and Mexico (Kiszka 2014, entire). We are encouraged by the progress that is being made in several portions of the Antillean manatee's range in protecting this mammal and the growing enthusiasm behind implementing recovery to better protect this important species. In the future, we would like to reach out and coordinate with these countries with their efforts to further conserve manatees.
We approved the Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico population of the West Indian (Antillean) manatee on December 24, 1986 (USFWS 1986, entire). Although this plan is considered out of date (USFWS 2007, p. 26), we present the progress we have made under the identified tasks. The 1986 plan included three major objectives: (1) To identify, assess, and reduce human-related mortalities, especially those related to gill-net entanglement; (2) to identify and minimize alteration, degradation, and destruction of important manatee habitats; and (3) to develop criteria and biological information necessary to determine whether and when to reclassify from endangered to threatened the Puerto Rico population (USFWS 1986, p. 12). The Recovery Plan also includes a step-down outline that identifies two primary recovery actions for: (1) Population management and (2) habitat protection. Since the release of the 1986 Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico population of the West Indian (Antillean) manatee, initiated recovery actions have provided substantial new knowledge about the species' ecology and threats. Some of these efforts apply to multiple tasks and are helping to update conservation information and tools that are applied towards adaptive management and education. Here we report on the current status of these actions.
A carcass salvage program was first implemented in the late 1970s and continues today. Mignucci-Giannoni
Documented entanglement in fishing nets rarely occurs. However, in 2014, three adult manatees were entangled in large fishing nets; one of them was an adult female that died (PRDNER 2015, unpubl. data). Significant exposure was given to this case through the local and social media. Current PRDNER fishing regulations still allow the use of beach seine nets with certain prohibitions that need to be carefully monitored. Fisheries-related entanglements and debris ingestion are rarely documented but may occur and cause take of manatees (take includes harassment, hunting, capturing, killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill). In August 2014 and September 2016, an adult female was confirmed to have both flippers severely entangled in monofilament line. Attempts to capture the female manatee from the shore were unsuccessful. Agencies, community groups, and nongovernmental organizations in Puerto Rico consistently educate the public about improper waste disposal that can affect manatees.
In 2012, the Service completed a cooperative agreement with researchers from North Carolina State University (NCSU) to identify potential Manatee Protection Areas (MPAs) and address some of the core recommendations made by the most recent West Indian manatee 5-year review, such as the establishment of MPAs (USFWS 2007, p. 37). This collaboration led to the identification of several potential MPAs and serves to update the body of knowledge pertaining to key ecological resources used by manatees (
Federal MPAs have not been designated in Puerto Rico, and the PRDNER does not have a specific manatee area regulation like the State of Florida's Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 (FMSA), which allows for management and enforcement of boat speed restrictions and operations in areas where manatees are concentrated (F.A.C. 2016). Still, the PRDNER has the authority to establish boat speed regulatory areas marked with buoys wherever deemed necessary. For example, in 2014, the USFWS, PRDNER, and Reefscaping, Inc. finalized the installation of 100 manatee speed regulatory buoys throughout known important manatee use areas, and the PRDNER has a plan to install more buoys. In addition, the Navigation and Aquatic Safety Law for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Law 430) was implemented in 2000 (PRDNER 2000). This law restricts boat speeds to 5 miles per hour within 150 feet (45 meters) from the coastline unless otherwise posted. However, the effectiveness of this law and State manatee speed regulatory buoys have not been appropriately assessed, and enforcement is limited (see Factor D).
In Puerto Rico, island-wide manatee aerial surveys have been conducted since the late 1970s. These aerial surveys provide the basis for island-wide distribution patterns and help to determine minimum population direct counts in some areas or throughout the island. Not all surveys were equal in terms of the area covered and time of year in which they were done. These direct counts identify a number of animals observed at the time of the survey and suggest that there are at least a specified number of manatees in the population. The Service recognizes that these counts do not accurately represent the total number of manatees in the population. Weather, other environmental factors (
The most consistent surveys were conducted between 1984 and 2002 (USFWS CESFO Manatee Aerial Surveys 2015, unpubl. data). However, methods used provided only a direct count and did not allow for a more reliable estimate of population size with detection probabilities (Pollock
Recovery actions are also implemented during technical assistance and project reviews. Any action or project with a Federal nexus (
The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee element, was adopted on August 18, 1999, by the Service (USFWS 1999, entire). This ecosystem-based recovery plan is intended to recover listed species and to restore and maintain the biodiversity of native plants and animals in South Florida. The plan is not intended to replace existing recovery plans but rather to enhance recovery efforts (USFWS 1999, p. 3). Inasmuch as manatees are a component of South Florida ecosystems, this plan included species information and recovery tasks from the then-current Florida manatee recovery plan, which was the Service's 1996 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996, entire). Because the 1996 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan was revised in 2001, the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee element became obsolete. However, the 2001 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan includes tasks that address manatee conservation throughout this subspecies' range, including in South Florida.
Manatee recovery activities addressed in the south Florida region include a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Task Force that addresses CERP tasks related to manatee conservation, an Interagency Task Force for Water Control Structures that minimizes manatee deaths associated with water control structures, and efforts to protect the manatees' south Florida winter habitat (FWC 2007, pp. 63, 196).
The CERP Task Force developed guidelines for manatee protection during CERP-related construction activities. The guidelines address culvert and water control structure installation, potential thermal effects of Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells, potential manatee entrapment in canal networks, and in-water construction effects. The Task Force evaluated proposed changes to existing canal systems and the construction of new structures planned for CERP implementation and recommended measures to minimize effects on manatees. The measures have been implemented and are in effect (FWC 2007, p. 196).
Water control structures are mostly found in south Florida and are a predominant means for controlling flooding in the region. Water control structures primarily include flood gates and navigation locks that allow vessel passage through dams and impoundments, such as those associated with Lake Okeechobee. Manatees travel through these structures and are occasionally killed in gate crushings and impingements. Manatee protection devices have been installed on most structures known to have killed manatees, and the number of deaths has been reduced (FWC 2007, p. 63). For the period 1998-2008, the average annual number of structure-related deaths was 6.5 deaths. This number was reduced to 4.2 deaths per year from 2009-2014 (FWC 2007, pp. 194-195; FWC FWRI Manatee Carcass Salvage Database 2016, unpubl. data).
Important warm-water wintering sites for manatees in south Florida include power plant discharges, springs, and passive warm-water sites (sites characterized by warm-water inversions and other features). State and Federal rules have been adopted for all power plant discharges in south Florida that limit public access during the winter (FWC 2007, pp. 235-238; USFWS 2007, pp. 71-79). Coincidentally, a majority of the significant power plants used by wintering manatees have been repowered and have projected lifespans of about 40 years (Laist
We published the current Florida Manatee Recovery Plan on October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). This recovery plan includes four principal objectives: (1) Minimize causes of manatee disturbance, harassment, injury, and mortality; (2) determine and monitor the status of manatee populations; (3) protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor manatee habitats; and (4) facilitate manatee recovery through public awareness and education. To help achieve these objectives, the plan identifies 118 recovery implementation tasks. Important tasks include those that address the reduction of watercraft collisions and the loss of warm-water habitat.
The State of Florida requires counties to develop manatee protection plans (MPPs). These are county-wide plans for the development of boat facilities (docks, piers, dry-storage areas, marinas, and boat ramps) that specify preferred locations for boat facility development based on an evaluation of natural resources, manatee protection needs, and recreation and economic demands. MPPs are reviewed by FWC and the Service and, when deemed adequate, are used to evaluate boat access projects. When proposed projects are consistent with MPPs, permitting agencies authorize the construction of facilities in waters used by manatees. Currently, all of the original 13 counties required to have MPPs have plans, as well as Clay, Levy, and Flagler counties. Charlotte County is also preparing an MPP.
The Service developed programmatic consultation procedures and permit conditions for new and expanding watercraft facilities (
The Service has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard and State agencies to develop and implement standard permit conditions for high-speed marine event permits. These conditions require that events take place at locations and times when few manatees can be found at event locations and require event observer programs. Observer programs place observers in locations in and around event sites; these observers watch for manatees and shut events down when manatees enter event sites.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issues and renews NPDES permits for power plants, desalination plants, wastewater treatment plants, and other dischargers that affect manatees. The FWC, the Service, and others review these actions. These reviews ensure that discharges identified as beneficial to manatees continue to operate in a way that does not adversely affect manatees and seek to modify or eliminate those discharges that adversely affect manatees. In particular, these reviews prevent the creation of new sources of warm water and drinking water, known manatee attractants.
It is difficult to ascertain the adequacy of enforcement efforts. Data concerning dedicated officer hours on the water and numbers of citations written are confounding. For example, many dedicated officer hours on the water address diverse missions, and it is not possible to identify how many of these hours are devoted to manatee enforcement and how many hours are dedicated to other missions. Boater compliance assessments provide another measure to assess adequacy. Boater compliance varies by waterway, with some waterways experiencing 85 percent compliance rates and others as little as 14 percent (Gorzelany 2013, p. 63). Average boater compliance throughout Florida is 54 percent (Shapiro 2001, p. iii). An enforcement presence generally ensures a higher compliance rate (Gorzelany 2013, p. 34).
Manatee conservation relies on significant education and outreach efforts. While the Service and State of Florida engage in these efforts, many diverse stakeholders also participate in these activities. Counties, municipalities, boating organizations, manatee advocacy groups, environmental organizations, and others produce and distribute outreach materials through a variety of media. An active manatee rescue and rehabilitation program displays manatees that are being rehabilitated and promotes conservation through display and educational programs.
Significant education and outreach efforts include Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge's (NWR) manatee kiosks, located at all water access facilities in Kings Bay, Florida, and adjoining waters. The kiosk panels provide the public with information about manatees and guidance addressing manatee viewing activities. The kiosks are supported by Refuge-linked web media that provide additional information about manatee harassment and user activities (Vicente 2015, pers. comm.). SeaWorld Orlando, through its permitted display of rehabilitating manatees, reaches out to unprecedented numbers of visitors. The display addresses the park's rescue and rehabilitation program and informs the public about threats to manatees and what the public can do to reduce the number of manatees affected by human activities (SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, 2016; see:
The 1986 Recovery Plan does not establish quantitative recovery criteria to describe a sustainable population of manatees in Puerto Rico. It does, however, direct the Service to determine and satisfy the recovery criteria that are based on mortality and abundance trends and a minimum population size and ensure that adequate habitat protection and anti-poaching measures are implemented (USFWS 1986, Executive Summary). The Recovery Plan also specifies that delisting should occur when the population is large enough to maintain sufficient genetic variation to enable it to evolve and respond to natural changes and stochastic or catastrophic events. As previously explained, the Service has made substantial progress implementing a number of recovery actions, and some other actions are in progress.
In the absence of historical data (previous to the late 1970s) that identifies a clear goal for population size, and population parameters such as adult survival rates, which have the highest potential effect on growth rate (Marsh
Major tasks for recovery include reduction of human-caused mortality, habitat protection, identification and control of any contaminant problems, and research into manatee behavior and requirements to direct future management (USFWS 1986, Executive Summary). The Service has already identified important manatee habitat and will continue to use and pursue new strategies towards manatee habitat protection together with the PRDNER. Planned research in the near future will focus on manatee health assessments to gain baseline information into potential contaminant problems and disease.
The Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, entire) identifies criteria for downlisting the Florida subspecies from endangered to threatened and criteria for removing the subspecies from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Both downlisting and delisting criteria include Listing/Recovery Factor criteria and demographic criteria. Criteria can be found in Supplemental Document 1 in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178.
A 2004 review of the demographic criteria noted that these criteria are largely redundant and that (1) no manatee population can grow at a fixed rate indefinitely as limiting resources will eventually prevent the population from continuing to grow at that rate and the population will ultimately reach stability; (2) the reproductive criterion is difficult to estimate and the modeling results are difficult to interpret; and (3) demographic recovery criteria should be linked to statistically rigorous field data, as well as to the specific population models that are intended for their evaluation. See previous review of demographic data in Florida Manatee Recovery Plan Objective 3. Absent demographic criteria for the Florida manatee, we rely on more recent demographic analyses and a threats analysis of the five listing factors to support our reclassification, instead of the existing recovery criteria.
1. Identify minimum flow levels for important springs used by wintering manatees.
Minimum spring discharge rates that consider estimated flow rates necessary to protect water supply and support overwintering manatees have been identified for some springs used by manatees. Minimum flows were established at Blue Spring, Fanning Spring, Manatee Spring, the Weeki Wachee River system and Weeki Wachee Springs, Homosassa Springs, and Chassahowitzka Spring. Florida water management districts have scheduled, or are in the process of scheduling, minimum flow requirements for the remaining springs (see Table 3). These regulations will ensure that adequate flows are met to support manatees. To date, minimum flows have been adopted for six springs, and efforts are under way to develop flows for two additional springs, including the Crystal River springs complex. The status of efforts to establish minimum flows for eight remaining springs are unknown.
2. Protect a network of warm-water refuges as manatee sanctuaries, refuges, or safe havens.
A network of warm-water sanctuaries/no-entry areas and refuges exists throughout much of the Florida manatee's range. Along the Atlantic Coast, all four of the primary power plant discharges have been designated as manatee protection areas and many lesser warm-water sites, such as the Coral Gables Waterway, are protected as well. In the St. Johns River region, Blue Springs is in public ownership, and the spring and run are protected. The four primary west Florida power plants are designated as sanctuaries/no-entry areas, and significant warm-water springs in Citrus County are designated as sanctuaries. Efforts are ongoing to improve conditions and management of southwest Florida's Warm Mineral Springs. See Supplemental Document 2 in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178.
3. Identify foraging sites associated with the network of warm-water sites for protection (see Criteria 4 below).
4. Identify for protection a network of migratory corridors, feeding areas, and calving and nursing areas.
Extensive research, including aerial surveys and field studies of tagged manatees, has identified many of the foraging sites associated with the Florida manatee's warm-water network, as well as migratory corridors, resting areas, and calving and nursery areas. In many of these areas, manatee protection area measures are in place to protect manatees from watercraft collisions. State and Federal laws afford some protection against habitat loss in these areas (see Factor D discussion below). For example, the Clean Water Act ensures that discharges into waterways used by manatees are not detrimental to grass beds and other habitat features used by manatees.
1. Address harassment at wintering and other sites to achieve compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act and as a conservation benefit to the species.
To address harassment at wintering and other sites, the Service and State have designated manatee sanctuaries and no-entry areas to keep people out of sensitive wintering sites. Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers enforce these restrictions and address any violations that occur outside of the protected areas.
Kings Bay, located in Crystal River, Florida, is a world-renowned destination for manatee viewing activities. Commercial viewing activities began in the early 1970s, and today's activities generate millions of dollars in income to the region. Harassment associated with this activity has been addressed through the purchase of properties of sensitive manatee habitat, the designation of manatee sanctuaries and protected areas, the creation and operation of the Crystal River NWR in 1983, extensive outreach activities, and enforcement of regulations prohibiting manatee harassment. The Service adopted the Kings Bay Manatee Refuge rule in 2012 (77 FR 15617; March 16, 2012) to expand existing sanctuary boundaries, better address manatee harassment occurring off refuge property, and minimize watercraft-related deaths in Kings Bay. The rule identifies specific prohibitions that can be enforced through the issuance of citations (USFWS 2012). Crystal River NWR recently adopted measures to help prevent any harassment in Three Sisters Springs and is considering further measures as the situation requires.
At the time the recovery plan was developed, there was no data indicating that disease and predation was a limiting factor, thus no reclassification (downlisting) criteria for this threat was deemed necessary and, consequently, no delisting criteria were established.
Specific actions are needed to ensure the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as addressed below.
1. Establish minimum flows consistent with Listing/Recovery Criterion A.
See discussion under Listing/Recovery Criterion A, above.
2. Protect important manatee habitats.
Important manatee habitats have been identified and protected through a variety of means. Manatee habitat is protected through land acquisition and various Federal and State laws. Important acquisitions include Blue Spring in Volusia County and the Main Spring, Three Sisters Springs, and Homosassa Springs in Citrus County. Land managers for these sites manage habitat to benefit manatees. To ensure that these habitats and habitat in public waterways are protected, regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), State water management districts, and others review permit applications for activities that could adversely modify or destroy habitat and require permittees to avoid or minimize impacts. Discharges and runoff that could affect habitat are addressed through the Clean Water Act's NPDES permitting program, administered by FDEP with oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
3. Reduce or remove unauthorized take.
To address harassment at wintering and other sites, the Service and State have designated manatee sanctuaries and no-entry areas where manatees rest and shelter from the cold free from human disturbance. Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers enforce these restrictions and address any violations that occur outside of the protected areas.
1. Create and enforce manatee safe havens and/or Federal manatee refuges.
To date, the Service and State have created more than 50 manatee protection areas, and protection area measures are enforced by the Service, U.S. Coast Guard, FWC, and local law enforcement officers. The Service's Office of Law Enforcement has dedicated manatee law enforcement officers in Florida to address manatee enforcement issues. Service National Wildlife Refuges have refuge law enforcement officers who enforce on and off refuge manatee regulations as time and resources allow.
2. Retrofit one half of all water control structures with devices to prevent manatee mortality.
Water control structures are flood gates that control water movement and navigation locks that allow vessel passages through dams and impoundments, such as those associated with Lake Okeechobee. Manatees travel through these structures and are occasionally killed when structures are closed or opened. Manatee protection devices installed on these structures prevent manatee deaths. See discussion in “South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee.”
To date, all but one water control structure has been retrofitted with manatee protection devices. Efforts are ongoing to complete installation at the remaining site. This action has significantly reduced the impacts of control structure related manatee injury and death; such injuries or deaths are now relatively rare.
3. Draft guidelines to reduce or remove threats of injury or mortality from fishery entanglements and entrapment in storm water pipes and structures.
Some measures have been developed to reduce or remove threats of injury or mortality from fishery entanglements, and steps are being taken to minimize entrapments in storm water pipes and structures. Measures to address fishery entanglements include monofilament recycling programs and derelict crab trap removals; these two programs address primary sources of manatee entanglement. Storm water pipes and structures large enough for manatees to enter are designed to include features that prohibit manatee access. Existing structures are re-fitted with bars or grates to keep manatees out. In the event of entanglements or entrapments, the manatee rescue program intervenes. There are very few serious injuries or deaths each year due to these causes. Guidelines to minimize gear-related entanglements associated with netting activities have been developed. Similarly, guidance has been developed to reduce entrapment in storm water pipes and structures. See Factor E for additional information.
Remaining tasks to address the recovery of the Florida manatees include:
• Continue to address pending changes in the manatees' warm-water network (develop and implement strategies).
• Support the adoption of minimum flow regulations for remaining important springs used by manatees.
• Protect and maintain important manatee habitat.
• Continue to maintain, adopt, and enforce manatee protection areas as appropriate (continue to fund law enforcement activities and manatee protection area marker maintenance).
• Continue to address instances of manatee harassment.
• Continue to review and address warm- and freshwater discharges and boat facility projects that affect manatees.
• Maintain and install manatee protection devices on existing and new water-control structures.
• Continue manatee rescue and rehabilitation efforts, including efforts to minimize the effect of manatee entanglements and entrapments.
• Continue to monitor manatee population status and trends.
• Continue manatee education and outreach efforts.
The Florida manatee population, estimated at about 6,350 manatees, is characterized by good adult survival rate estimates and positive breeding rates. The recently updated threats analysis continues to identify losses due to watercraft and projected losses of winter warm-water habitat as the greatest threats to this subspecies (Runge
In the proposed rule published on January 8, 2016 (81 FR 1000), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by April 8, 2015. On January 13, 2016, the date closing the comment period was corrected to read April 7, 2016 (81 FR 1597). We also held a public hearing on February 20, 2016, at the Buena Vista Palace Conference Center in Orlando, Florida. The Service also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, tribes, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited independent expert opinion from 10 knowledgeable individuals with scientific and conservation expertise that included familiarity with the two subspecies of the West Indian manatee and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the status of the West Indian manatee. None of the peer reviewers who responded agreed with the proposal to reclassify the manatee as threatened (see Peer Reviewer comment section below for more details).
Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act states, “the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.” The Service submitted the proposed regulation to the two State and territorial agencies where most West Indian manatees in the United States occur: Florida and Puerto Rico. We also sent the proposed regulation to the States in the remainder of the manatee's range, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. We received written comments from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). We did not receive official comments from the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER). One of the peer reviewers is also a biologist in the PRDNER Marine Mammal Stranding Program. The other States did not respond to our request. The FWC agreed with our determination as it relates to the Florida subspecies. The PRDNER peer reviewer did not offer support for this determination as it relates to the Antillean subspecies and provided comments.
We requested comments from tribes found within the range of the Florida manatee and received responses from the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Seminole Tribe had no comments on the proposed rule. The Miccosukee Tribe stated that it disagreed with the proposed rule. Specifically, the Miccosukee Tribe stated that it was concerned about the long-term survival of the species due to its cultural significance and that threats to the manatees' habitat (including warm-water habitat and loss of sea grass) must be mitigated before the species can be responsibly downlisted.
In an effort to encourage international comments, we advised species experts and governmental representatives in other countries within the species' range about the Service's status review and requested that they send information about Antillean manatees. The Service made this contact through emails sent to species experts identified in UNEP's Regional Management Plan for the West Indian manatee (2010, Appendix III). We also advised attendees at the December 8-13, 2014 Cartagena Convention that the Service was evaluating the status of the West Indian manatee and was requesting additional information to assist in its review. In addition, during the Seventh International Sirenian Symposium in December 2015, the Service announced that the 12-month finding would be published in January 2016. The Symposium included a significant number of international manatee experts, researchers, and managers, including those with expertise in West Indian manatees. We received very few responses from these sources regarding manatees outside the United States.
In all, we received 3,799 public comments, including petitions signed by 75,276 individuals. The petitions did not include substantive comments, but simply included statements to the effect that those signing them did not support the Service's proposed reclassification of the West Indian manatee. We identified 59 substantive comments, from all sources, to which we respond below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
In addition, Castelblanco-Martínez
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Finally, the Service believes that the effects of climate change were considered in the model which used hurricane frequency data (catastrophic events) (Castelblanco-Martínez
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
The Service has an agreement with the State of Florida under section 6 of the Act, which provides that any State law or regulation regarding the taking of an endangered species or threatened species may be more restrictive than the exemptions or permits provided for in this Act or in any regulation that implements the Act but not less restrictive than the prohibitions so defined. We are confident that the State of Florida, with whom we have partnered for many years on the conservation of this and other species, will ensure that these regulations will remain in place.
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45) Comment: The Service signed an agreement in 2012 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that provides the Service with the ability to allow illegal incidental take through consultation on the Corps permitting process. The take of manatees cannot be authorized and is detrimental to recovery efforts.
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
This final policy reflects the Services' expert judgment as to the best way to interpret and apply “significant portion of its range” as that phrase appears in the Act. Because we conclude that the entire West Indian manatee should be listed as threatened, we do not analyze this species at a smaller geographic scale.
(57)
(58)
We made the following changes from the proposed rule:
• We updated the Population Size and Population Trends sections to include a “Minimum Population Size” column to Table 1, changed the column heading “Population Estimate” to “Non-statistical Population Estimate,” and provided additional information on the Castelblanco-Martínez
• We revised the Recovery Actions section of the preamble to include information from a Manatee Core Biological Model (CBM) update and to include updates for the timeframes for establishing spring minimum flows.
• We expanded the introduction of the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species to further clarify the definitions of endangered and threatened.
• We included new information on threats and mortality under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.
• We reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, information from Coulson
• We added a “Cumulative Effects” section to our Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.
• We clarified in this rule why the West Indian manatee is no longer endangered but rather meets the definition of a threatened species.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires us to determine by regulation whether “any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of the following 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” (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1); hereafter, the section 4(a)(1) factors). Section 3 of the Act defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a “threatened species” as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted that Congress included “a temporal element to the distinction between the categories of endangered and threatened species” in
In making our downlisting determination, the foreseeable future must take into account the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats under consideration, the ability to predict those threats, and the reliability of forecasts of changes in the species' status in response to the threats. See also “The Meaning of `Foreseeable Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act,” (DOI 2009). Pursuant to M-37021 (DOI 2009), we identify a foreseeable future of 50 years for the West Indian manatee, which we believe can be predicted with reliability. Please see section entitled
Thus, we used the best available scientific and commercial data for the West Indian manatee, including demographic parameters and section 4(a)(1) factors. We note that, for the Antillean subspecies, the best available scientific and commercial information relies in many cases upon expert opinion and anecdotal observations. In responding to the petition to downlist the West Indian manatee species and, after considering conservation efforts by States and foreign nations to protect the West Indian manatee as required under section 4(b)(1)(A), we proposed downlisting (80 FR 1000, February 6, 2016) based on the statutory definitions of endangered and threatened species. To make our final listing determinations, we reviewed all information provided during the 90-day public comment period and additional scientific and commercial data that became available since the publication of the proposed rule. See Summary of
The following analysis examines all factors currently affecting or that are likely to affect the West Indian manatee within the foreseeable future.
At the time of listing, resource managers were concerned about the effect of the loss of seagrass on manatees. Subsequently, it became apparent that habitat loss and fragmentation were significant concerns outside the United States. Within the southeastern U.S., the loss of manatee winter habitat has become a significant concern. Degradation and loss of manatee habitat occurs throughout its range (UNEP 2010, p. 12). Although the immediacy and the magnitude of this factor varies throughout the species' range, available manatee foraging habitat does not seem to be a limiting factor in most of the range countries, including Florida and Puerto Rico (Orth
Some countries have been able to document manatee habitat loss effects, while other countries do not have site-specific information available to quantify the severity and/or frequency of this threat on manatees. For example, in Mexico, loss of manatees from certain areas has been attributed to, among other factors, the construction of a dam along a river (Colmenero-Rolón and Hoz-Zavala 1986, in UNEP 2010, p. 59), while significant manatee habitat modification has affected the number of animals along the coast of Veracruz (Serrano
In Honduras, manatee abundance declined, in part, because of habitat degradation (Cerrato 1993, in Lefebvre
Although threats continue, there are recovery efforts being made to protect the manatee against threats posed by habitat loss or modification in many range countries and in the areas of U.S. jurisdiction. In Belize, three protected areas were created specifically to protect critical manatee habitat, and more than 43 percent of the country's protected areas are within the coastal zone (UNEP 2010, p. 24). Mexico has designated significant special manatee protection areas (UNEP 2010, p. 60), and Trinidad protected the Nariva Swamp, the most important manatee habitat in that country (UNEP 2010, p. 77). Although most countries within the species' range outside of the United States continue to provide suitable manatee habitat, habitat degradation and loss remains a threat requiring ongoing recovery efforts.
The Service's 2007 5-year review identified specific threats including loss of seagrass due to marine construction activities (extent unknown), propeller scarring and anchoring (magnitude unknown), and oil spills; loss of freshwater due to damming and competing uses; and increasing coastal commercial and recreational activities (USFWS 2007, pp. 30-31). Human activities that result in the loss of seagrass include dredging, fishing, anchoring, eutrophication, siltation, and coastal development (Duarte 2002, p. 194; Orth
Since the 2007 5-year review, habitat effects including threats to seagrass habitat have been quantitatively assessed in Puerto Rico. The PRDNER has been gathering new relevant information documented in its two reports entitled
Although anthropogenic activities that result in the loss of seagrass such as dredging, anchoring, effects from coastal development, propeller scarring, boat groundings, and inappropriate recreational activities occur in Puerto Rico, seagrass abundance is not considered a limiting factor for the current Antillean manatee population of the Island (Drew
To offset these threats in Puerto Rico, a wide range of conservation efforts are ongoing (see Recovery and Recovery Actions). These include the collective efforts of the Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the PRDNER, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Coast Guard, and others working to avoid, minimize, and mitigate project impacts on manatee habitat. The development and implementation of no-wake areas, marked navigation channels, boat exclusion areas, and standardized construction conditions for marinas and boat ramps are a few of the efforts making a positive impact on maintaining and protecting important manatee habitat (see Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation sections).
Manatees require sources of fresh water for daily drinking and do not appear to exhibit a preference for natural over anthropogenic freshwater resources (Slone
Within the southeastern United States, the potential loss of warm water at power plants and natural, warm-water springs used by wintering manatees is identified as a significant threat (USFWS 2007, entire; Laist and Reynolds 2005 a, b, entire, and (USFWS 2001, entire). Natural springs are threatened by potential reductions in flow and water quality (due to unsustainable water withdrawals combined with severe droughts) and by factors such as siltation, disturbance caused by recreational activities, and others that affect manatee access and use of the springs (Florida Springs Task Force 2000, p. 13). Power plants, which provide winter refuges for a majority of the Florida manatee population, are not permanent reliable sources of warm water. In the past, some industrial sources of warm water have been eliminated due to plant obsolescence, environmental permitting requirements, economic pressures, and other factors (USFWS 2000, entire). Experience with disruptions at some sites has shown that some manatees can adapt to minor changes at these sites; during temporary power plant shutdowns, manatees have been observed to use less preferred nearby sites. In other cases, manatees have died when thermal discharges have been eliminated due to behavioral persistence or site fidelity (USFWS 2000, entire).
The current network of power plant sites will likely endure for another 40 years or so (Laist
Florida's springs have seen drastic declines in flows and water quality, and many springs have been altered (dammed, silted in, and otherwise obstructed) to the point that they are no longer accessible to manatees (Florida Springs Task Force 2001, p. 4; Laist and Reynolds 2005b, p. 287; Taylor 2006, pp. 5-6). Flow declines are largely attributable to demands on aquifers (spring recharge areas) for potable water used for drinking, irrigation, and other uses (Marella 2014, pp. 1-2). Declining flows provide less usable water for wintering manatees. Declines in water quality (
In the case of Manatee, Fanning, and Weeki Wachee springs, restoration efforts have removed sand bars and other obstructions, making these sites once again accessible to manatees (The Nature Conservancy 2015). See:
In the southeastern United States, a wide range of conservation efforts identified in the 2007 5-year Review are continuing (USFWS 2007, pp. 17-18; see also Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation discussion above). Service efforts in cooperation and coordination with State and industry partners are ongoing to minimize any future manatee losses from industrial site reductions or closures by seeking short-term alternatives and long-term sustainable options for supporting manatees without the reliance on industrial warm-water sources. Spring studies and on-the-ground restorations seek to restore flows and access to existing natural springs. Habitat degradation and loss from natural and human-related causes are being addressed through collective efforts to improve overall water quality, minimize construction-related impacts, and minimize loss of seagrass due to prop scarring. Efforts to replant areas devoid of seagrass are showing success in restoring lost manatee foraging habitat (van Katwijk
In the discussion above (and in supplemental documents), we describe progress with local, county, city, and State partners to maintain minimum
Since the manatee was originally listed, information indicates that overutilization, particularly poaching, occurs to a lesser extent now but continues to affect manatees. Throughout the range of the species, manatees are used for a variety of purposes. Outside the United States, manatees have been hunted and poached to supply meat and other commodities. Recreationally, people seek out opportunities to view manatees through commercial ecotour operators or on their own. There are numerous scientific studies being conducted on captive and wild manatees, including studies of specimens salvaged from carcasses. The public is educated about manatees through a variety of media, such as videos and photographs, including rehabilitating manatees in captivity.
Poaching is hypothesized no longer to occur in a few regions, has been reduced in others, and is still common in others (UNEP 2010, entire; Marsh
Because of their low reproductive rates (Lefebvre
In the southeastern United States and other areas where people view manatees, numerous measures are in place to prevent the take of manatees due to disturbance of viewing-related harassment. Well-enforced sanctuaries keep people out of sensitive manatee habitats (
In Puerto Rico, harassment of manatees by kayak users and swimmers has been reported in several popular beach and coastal recreational areas. In addition, harassment related to speedboat races in manatee areas has increased. In 2014 alone, the Service reviewed 12 permit applications for speed boat races in Puerto Rico, several of them in areas with high concentrations of manatees. However, to date there have been no reported injuries or deaths of manatees caused by speedboat races. Consultation with the Service under Section 7 of the Act has served to implement specific conservation measures during marine events such as boat races (see Recovery and Recovery Implementation and Available Conservation Measures sections). The U.S. Coast Guard consistently consults with the Service on marine event applications and readily includes manatee conservation measures when applicable. In addition, government agencies and local nongovernmental organizations have implemented education and outreach strategies to ensure that manatee harassment is avoided and minimized.
Education and research programs involving manatees are designed to ensure that manatees are neither adversely affected nor overutilized. Examples include outreach efforts used to minimize manatee harassment in Crystal River, Florida, and the Service's Act/MMPA marine mammal scientific research permitting program, which limits the potential negative effects that research activities have on manatees.
At the time of listing, neither disease nor predation were identified as concerns for manatees. While numerous infectious disease agents and parasites have been reported in sirenians (manatees and dugongs), there have been no reports of major West Indian manatee mortality events caused by disease or parasites (Marsh
However, disease-related deaths are known to occur in West Indian manatees. Recent cases of toxoplasmosis are a concern in Puerto Rico (Bossart
Mou Sue
Since the manatee was originally listed in 1967, regulatory mechanisms have been established throughout the West Indian manatee's range with varying degrees of effectiveness. At the time of the manatee's original listing, there were very few regulatory mechanisms in place. Currently, regulatory mechanisms include, but are not limited to, specific laws and regulations that prohibit specific and general human activities that impact manatees and their habitat, and the establishment of long-term conservation protection measures at key locations throughout the manatee's range. These include those efforts being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect manatees. The extent and overall effectiveness of these regulatory mechanisms varies widely from country to country. Enforcement and compliance with these measures, as well as the need for additional efforts in some countries, continues to be a concern and will require additional cooperative efforts into the foreseeable future. In the United States, Florida county manatee protection plans (MPPs) have improved the status of manatees.
Outside the United States, West Indian manatees are protected in most countries by a combination of national and international treaties and agreements as listed in Table 4 in UNEP (2010, p. 14), in Lefebvre
The West Indian manatee is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES (see
Although manatees outside of the southeastern United States are legally protected by these and other mechanisms, full implementation of these international and local laws is lacking, especially given limited funding and understaffed law enforcement agencies (UNEP 2010, p. 89).
Marsh
In the United States, in addition to being listed under the Act, the West Indian manatee is further considered a depleted stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (see greater detail just below; MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
“Take” is defined under the MMPA as “harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill.” The term “harassment” means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (Level A harassment), or “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).
Under the MMPA, any marine mammal species or population stock that is listed as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act is considered by definition “depleted” and managed as such. Furthermore, a marine mammal stock that is listed under the Act is considered a “strategic stock” for purposes of commercial fishery considerations. Neither of these categorizations change with the reclassification of the West Indian manatee from endangered to threatened. Both the Florida and Puerto Rico stocks will remain depleted and strategic under the MMPA.
Title II of the MMPA established the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), an independent agency of the U.S. Government, to review and make recommendations on the marine mammal policies, programs, and actions being carried out by Federal regulatory agencies related to implementation of the MMPA. The Service coordinates and works with the Commission in order to provide the best management practices for marine mammals.
Within the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico, the West Indian manatee also receives protection by most State and Territorial agencies, and will continue to receive protection as a threatened species. In Florida, the manatee is protected by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (FMSA), which established Florida as a sanctuary for manatees. This designation protects manatees from injury, disturbance, harassment, and harm in the waters of Florida, and provides for the designation and enforcement of manatee protection zones and has helped to improve the status of the species. However, Florida statutes state that, “[w]hen the federal and state governments remove the manatee from status as an endangered or threatened species, the annual allocation may be reduced” (Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (FMSA) Chap. 379.2431(2)(u)(4)(c)), suggesting that adequate funding could be reduced after downlisting. Florida laws also provide a regulatory basis to protect habitat and spring flows (Florida Water Resources Act).
In Georgia, West Indian manatees are listed as endangered under the Georgia Wildlife Act of 1973 (O.C.G.A. sections 22-3-130) which prohibits the capture, killing, or selling of protected species and protects the habitat of these species on public lands. In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved the Law No. 241, known as the New Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico (
Also, the Navigation and Aquatic Safety Law for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Law 430) was implemented in year 2000 and allows for the designation and enforcement of watercraft speed zones for the protection of wildlife and coastal resources (PRDNER 2000). However, in Puerto Rico and Florida, despite protections, watercraft collisions continue to negatively impact manatees (see Factor E). The PRDNER has indicated that current speed regulatory buoys are ineffective, in part because regulations do not identify the perimeter or area that each buoy regulates (Jiménez-Marrero 2015, pers. comm.). Thus, emphasis has been given to public education and signage in coastal areas to further reduce manatee mortality.
In addition, there are numerous other manatee protection laws and regulations in place in other States within the United States. These are detailed in a table entitled “Existing International, Federal, and State Regulatory Mechanisms,” see “Supplemental Document 2” in Docket No FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178 or
Based on population growth and stability described earlier in this rule, the above-described regulatory mechanisms in place have contributed towards growth in the West Indian manatee population in the United States and provided protection for their habitat as needed. These existing regulatory mechanisms will remain in effect when the species is reclassified to threatened. The West Indian manatee in the United States will remain protected as a threatened species under the Act, and as a depleted species under the MMPA. As long as funding remains available, recovery actions would continue to be implemented, regulations enforced, and additional measures adopted as needs arise. State and Federal agencies would continue to coordinate on the implementation of manatee conservation measures.
At the time of listing in 1967, one of the primary factors that led to its federally-protected status was watercraft collisions with manatees. Since 1967, several regulatory measures have been
Within the United States, watercraft-related deaths have been identified as the most significant anthropogenic threat to manatees in both Florida and Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, 34 years of manatee mortality data from 1980 to 2014 indicate that a total of 37 manatees have died due to watercraft (Mignucci
However, carcass salvage numbers for Puerto Rico indicate that the number of watercraft-related deaths is low, and the population is believed to remain stable (see Population Size and Population Trends sections) in spite of these numbers. As boat use in Puerto Rico has increased in number and distribution (PRDNER 2012, p. 3), and with no State or Federal MPAs yet established, one may expect an increase in watercraft-related conflicts. Still, manatee carcass totals for Puerto Rico have exceeded 10 or more only six times over 34 years and average approximately 7 per year (Mignucci
In Florida, a manatee carcass salvage program, started in 1974, collected and examined manatee carcasses to determine cause of death. This program identified watercraft collisions with manatees as a primary cause of human-related manatee mortality. The recent status review and threats analysis shows that watercraft-related mortality remains the single largest threat in Florida to the West Indian manatee (O'Shea
Over the past 5 years, more than 80 manatees have died from watercraft-related incidents each year. The highest year on record was 2009, when 97 manatees were killed in collisions with boats. The Manatee Individual Photo-identification System (1978 to present) identifies more than 3,000 Florida manatees by scar patterns mostly caused by boats, and most catalogued manatees have more than one scar pattern, indicative of multiple boat strikes. A cursory review of boat strike frequency suggested that some manatees are struck and injured by boats twice a year or more (O'Shea
Federal, State, and local speed zones are established in 26 Florida counties. In Brevard and Lee Counties, where watercraft-related mortality is among the highest reported, speed zone regulations were substantially revised and areas posted to improve manatee protection in the early 2000s. Since 2004, the FWC has approved new manatee protection rules for three counties in Tampa Bay and reviewed and updated speed zones in Sarasota, Broward, Charlotte, Lee, and Duval Counties. In October 2005, the Hillsborough County Commission adopted mandatory manatee protection slow-speed zones in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve that previously had been voluntary. In 2012, speed zones were established in the Intracoastal Waterway in Flagler County. In addition, of the 13 counties identified in 1989 as in need of State-approved MPPs, all have approved plans. Two additional counties, Clay and Levy, proactively developed their own MPPs. Implementation of these protective measures stabilizes and may even reduce the mortality rate from watercraft collisions. An anticipated increase (118 percent) in the number of boats using Florida waterways over the next 50 years will require continued efforts to minimize watercraft collisions with manatees.
The primary conservation action in place to reduce the risk of manatee
The Service developed programmatic consultation procedures and permit conditions for new and expanding watercraft facilities (
In Puerto Rico, fisheries-related entanglements and debris ingestion may cause take and reduce fitness of manatees. In July 2009, there was a documented case of entanglement (beach seine net) and successful release of an adult manatee. In 2014, three adult manatees were entangled in large fishing nets, one of which was an adult female that died (PRDNER 2015, unpubl. data). A few manatees have also been found that were severely entangled in monofilament line. Stranding records indicate they rarely cause manatee deaths in Puerto Rico; a total of four in 34 years have been documented.
Fishing gear, including both gear in use and discarded gear (
Rescue activities that disentangle manatees have almost eliminated mortalities and injuries associated with fishing gear (USFWS Captive Manatee Database 2015, unpubl. data) which has likely contributed towards the improvement of the status of the species. Derelict crab trap removal and monofilament recycling programs aid in efforts to reduce the number of entanglements by removing gear from the water. Extensive education and outreach efforts increase awareness and promote sound gear disposal activities. As a result, deaths and serious injuries associated with fishing gear are now extremely rare. Runge
In 2011, algal blooms in Florida's Indian River Lagoon clouded the water column and killed over 50 percent of the seagrass beds in the region (St. Johns River Water Management District, 2015). The loss of seagrass beds likely caused a dietary change that may have played a role in the loss of more than 100 manatees in the area. While algal blooms occur in other parts of the species' range, there have not been any significant die-offs attributable to this cause in this portion of the species' range.
Although SLR is due in part to natural variability in the climate system, scientists attribute the majority of the observed increase in recent decades to human activities that contribute to ocean thermal expansion related to ocean warming, and melting of ice (Marcos and Amores 2014, pp. 2504-2505).
Trend data show increases in sea level have been occurring throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and, according to Mitchum (2011, p. 9), the overall magnitude in the region has been slightly higher than the global average. Measurements summarized for stations at various locations in Florida indicate SLR there has totaled approximately 200 millimeters (mm) (8 inches (in.)) over the past 100 years, with an average of about 3.0 mm per year (0.12 in. per year) since the early 1990s (Ruppert 2014, p. 2). The relatively few tidal gauges in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and southern North Carolina also show increases, the largest increases being in South Carolina, Alabama, and parts of Florida (NOAA Web site
Continued global SLR is considered virtually certain to occur throughout this century and beyond (Stocker, 2013, p. 100; Levermann
Other possible effects of climate change include increases in the frequency of harmful algal blooms, increases in the frequency and intensity of storms, losses of warm-water refugia and possible decreases in the number of watercraft collisions. Warmer seas may increase the frequency, duration, and magnitude of harmful algal blooms and cause blooms to start earlier and last longer. Increases in salinity could create more favorable conditions for other species; conversely, increases in storm frequency and extreme rainfall could offset the effects of salinity on algal growth (Edwards
Climate change models predict that the intensity of hurricanes will increase with increasing global mean temperature (Edwards
For manatees in the southeastern United States, SLR could mean the loss of most of the major industrial warm-water sites and result in changes to natural warm-water sites. In the event of a projected SLR of 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) in 88 years (Rahmstorf 2010 and Parris
Climate-change-induced loss of fishing habitat and boating infrastructure (docks, etc.), increases in storm frequency, and pollutants and changes in economics and human demographics could decrease the per capita number of boats operating in manatee habitat. If these changes were to occur, decreases in the numbers of boats operating in manatee habitat could reduce numbers of manatee-watercraft collisions (Edwards
Many complex factors with potentially negative consequences are likely to operate on the world's marine ecosystems as global climate change progresses. Conversely, climate change could potentially have a beneficial effect, as well (see discussion above). Therefore, there is uncertainty regarding how climate change and its effects may impact the manatee and its habitat in the future (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010 in Marsh
While watercraft collisions and the pending loss of the Florida manatees' loss of warm water habitat are being addressed, they have not been eliminated. There is a high level of uncertainty regarding the overall effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.
In our assessment, we reviewed manatee population models (Castelblanco-Martínez
Runge
We did not find significant information that would lead us to believe that the cumulative effect of factors acting on the species warrants maintaining the West Indian manatee as endangered. Rather, the potential cumulative effects of factors (both positive and negative) affecting the West Indian manatee, in part, contribute to the species' threatened status.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future.” In a general sense, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which events can reasonably be anticipated; in the context of the definition of “threatened species,” the Service interprets the foreseeable future as the extent of time over which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species. It is important to note that references to “reliable predictions” are not meant to refer to reliability in a statistical sense of confidence or significance; rather the words “rely” and ”reliable” are intended to be used according to their common, non-technical meanings in ordinary usage. In other words, we consider a prediction to be reliable if it is reasonable to depend upon it in making decisions, and if that prediction does not extend past the support of scientific data or reason so as to venture into the realm of speculation.
In considering threats to the species and whether they rise to the level such that listing the species as a threatened species or endangered species is warranted, we assess factors such as the imminence of the threat (
One possible way to determine foreseeable future is as the lifespan of the species. As explained in our proposed rule (81 FR 1004; January 8, 2016), the lifespan of the manatee is not known with certainty, but there is a record of a 67-year old captive Florida manatee and documented longevity records of over 55 years in the wild. We identify in our determination that the foreseeable future of this species is 50 years (see below), is largely consistent with the lifespan of this species. We have also used two published population models (Castelblanco-Martínez
As suggested in the Solicitor's opinion, for the purposes of the present analysis, we are relying on an evaluation of the foreseeability of threats and the foreseeability of the effect of the threats on the species, extending this time period out only so far as we can use the data to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the species, and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. Therefore, in the case of the West Indian manatee, we conclude that the foreseeable future is that period of time within which we can reliably predict whether or not the species is likely to become an endangered species as a result of the effects of the threats specified in this rule. We consider 100 years to be beyond the foreseeability of threats to the West Indian manatee across the 21 countries where the West Indian manatee currently occurs (Table 1), especially given the known uncertainties and data limitations throughout most of the Antillean subspecies range. We have identified a foreseeable future of 50 years because it is a period of time over which we are able to reliably predict the magnitude of threats and their effects on manatee. This time period is consistent with respect to our ability to make predictions on the magnitude and the effects of the principal factors impacting the species as described above. The 50-year period is also similar to the timeframe used for the decline predictions identified for this species by the IUCN (decline at a rate of at least 10 percent over the course of three generations or about 60 years, Deutsch
As explained in more detail above, principal factors impacting the species include: Habitat destruction and modification, future availability of warm-water sites for the Florida manatee, the frequency of red tide and/or other unusual mortality events, watercraft strikes and injuries, and poaching in some areas of its range. In addition, although numerous regulatory mechanisms to protect manatees exist, challenges in the enforcement of these regulatory mechanisms have been identified, including in areas outside the United States. For example, full implementation of international and local laws is lacking, especially given limited funding and understaffed law enforcement agencies (UNEP 2010, p. 89). Most of the identified factors in this rule impacting the West Indian manatee are influenced by humans, and recovery actions are aimed at mitigating or reducing these human activities that are detrimental to the species.
Within the foreseeable future of 50 years, human populations and concomitant factors affecting the species are expected to increase. For example, human population growth and the resulting pressure exerted on habitats are expected to result in more impacts to coastal and freshwater resources, as land is converted to uses that will meet the needs of the human population. In 2015, there were 634,000,000 people in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN 2015, p. 1); in 2010, there were 18,801,310 people in Florida (Carr and Zwick
An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so because of any of the five factors: (A)
In considering what factors might constitute current threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is current exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered species or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
By definition, an endangered species is a “species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species is a “species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” In the southeastern United States, where the largest population of manatees exists, the manatee population has likely grown in size, based on updated adult survival rate estimates and estimated growth rates (Runge
Human causes of mortality and injury are being addressed in part throughout the manatee's range. Predominant causes of mortality and injury include poaching (factor B), entanglement in fishing gear (factor E), and collisions with watercraft (factor E). Poaching has been eliminated in the southeastern United States and in Puerto Rico (factor B). Efforts to address poaching outside the United States vary in effectiveness, with some successful reductions in a few countries (factor D). Poaching attempts in areas where controls are not in place are a threat to the West Indian manatee that makes it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Entanglement in fishing gear continues throughout the species' range (factor E). In the southeastern United States, entangled manatees are rescued and very few deaths and serious injuries occur. In Puerto Rico, there have been few entanglements since 1986, when entanglements were first reported as a severe threat. Entanglements outside the United States are known to occur; however, the magnitude and severity of this threat is unknown.
Watercraft collisions are the predominant anthropogenic cause of death for manatees in the United States (factor E). The Service, other Federal agencies, and State and Commonwealth wildlife management agencies continue to be engaged in significant efforts to address and further reduce this threat. In Florida, a network of marked, enforced, manatee protection areas ensure that boat operators slow down to help avoid manatees. In Puerto Rico, manatee protection areas have not been designated, but a number of regulated manatee speed buoys are in place to better protect manatees (factors A and D). Watercraft collisions are known to kill manatees outside the United States; however, available information on the magnitude of this threat in other countries is limited, except for in Belize where this threat is known to be significant and increasing.
Habitat fragmentation and loss are thought to be the greatest threats to manatees outside the United States (factor A). Development activities in coastal and riverine areas destroy aquatic vegetation and block access to upriver reaches and freshwater. This can disrupt dispersal and foraging patterns and exacerbate the effects of poaching especially on small populations. Within the United States, Federal, State, and Commonwealth agencies limit habitat losses and those activities that block access through regulatory processes. For example, the State of Florida and the Service rely on county MPPs to address impacts to manatee habitat from installation of, for example, a boat dock or marina. In Florida, the other potential significant threat facing manatees is the loss of winter warm-water habitat and algal blooms pose a localized threat to West Indian manatees. Federal and State agencies are working with the power industry and others to ensure a future warm-water network to sustain manatees into the future. While many strides have been made in this area, work continues to be done to fully address and reduce this threat, as described above in our review of the Florida manatee recovery plans. In addition, we must continue to address pending changes in the manatees' warm-water network (develop and implement strategies) and support the adoption of minimum flow regulations for remaining important springs used by manatees. If warm water refuges are lost, this threat could cause the loss or debilitation of manatees due to cold stress that will make the West Indian manatee likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
Available population estimates suggest that there may be as many as 13,142 manatees throughout the species' range (UNEP 2010, p. 11 and Castelblanco-Martínez
Recent demographic analyses (through 2009) suggest a stable or increasing population of Florida manatees (Runge
There are numerous ongoing efforts to protect, conserve, and better understand West Indian manatees and their habitat throughout their range, as described in this rule. The contribution of these recovery efforts to the current status of the species is important. Given our review of the best scientific and commercial information available and analyses of threats and demographics, we conclude that the West Indian manatee no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered. However, there are many important actions that must be taken to address the remaining threats to manatees before the manatee can be delisted. Some imminent threats remain and will likely continue into the foreseeable future and possibly escalate and need to be addressed as appropriate. Escalating threats may be concomitant with increasing human populations, and commensurate efforts will be needed to keep pace with these and any new threats that may evolve. These remaining or new potential threats, especially those acting upon declining and smaller populations make the species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (50 years).
We did not find significant information that would lead us to believe that the cumulative effect of factors acting on the species warrants maintaining the West Indian manatee as endangered. Rather, we find that the potential cumulative effect of factors acting on the West Indian manatee, in part, contributes to the species' threatened status. Overall, regulatory mechanisms adopted since the manatee's listing have ameliorated some factors affecting manatees. However, in some instances, regulatory mechanisms are still inadequate such that the manatee continues to require the protections of the Act. We find that the West Indian manatee is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range due to (1) significant recovery efforts made throughout parts of its range to address threats and (2) a better understanding of manatee population demographics. Examples of remaining threats that make this species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and the loss of winter warm-water habitat (factor A); poaching (factor B); watercraft collisions and others (factor E). Accordingly, we are reclassifying the species as threatened under the Act.
Because we have concluded that the West Indian manatee is a threatened species throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Service's Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of threats to the West Indian manatee, and promotes conservation actions by Federal, State, and local governments in the United States, foreign governments, private organizations and groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the State, and for recovery planning and implementation. The protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
A number of manatees occur in near-shore waters off Federal conservation lands and are consequently afforded some protection from development and large-scale habitat disturbance. West Indian manatees also occur in or offshore of a variety of State-owned properties, and existing State and Federal regulations provide protection on these sites. There are also a significant number of manatees that occur along shores or rivers of private lands, and through conservation partnerships, many of these use areas are protected through the owners' stewardship. In many cases, these partnerships have been developed through conservation easements, wetland restoration projects, and other conservation means.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to the West Indian manatee within the United States or under U.S. jurisdiction. If a Federal action may adversely affect the manatee or its habitat, the responsible Federal agency must consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian manatee. Federal action agencies that may be required to consult with us include but are not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others, due to involvement in actions or projects such as permitting boat access facilities (marinas, boat ramps, etc.), dredge and fill projects, high-speed marine events, warm-water discharges, and many other activities.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Secretary has the discretion to prohibit by regulation, with respect to any threatened species, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, the Service developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to most threatened species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 provide that all the prohibitions for endangered wildlife under 50 CFR 17.21, with the exception of 50 CFR 17.21(c)(5), will generally also be applied to threatened wildlife. These prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” (including to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any endangered (and hence, threatened) wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. These prohibitions will continue to be applicable to the West Indian manatee. The general provisions for issuing a permit for any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species are found at 50 CFR 17.32.
The Service may develop regulations tailored to the particular conservation needs of a threatened species under Section 4(d) of the Act if there are specific prohibitions and exceptions that would be necessary and advisable for the conservation of that particular species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and exceptions under 50
In Florida, questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Office (see
When it becomes effective, this final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the West Indian manatee from an endangered species to a threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This rule formally recognizes that the West Indian manatee is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. However, this reclassification does not significantly change the protections afforded to this species under the Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing this species, or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of the Act or its implementing regulations, is subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian manatee. In addition, although the West Indian manatee is reclassified to threatened when this rule becomes effective, the West Indian manatee is still considered depleted and strategic under the MMPA.
Recovery actions directed at the West Indian manatee will continue to be implemented as outlined in the recovery plans (USFWS 1986 and 2001, entire). Highest priority recovery actions needed to address remaining threats include: (1) Reducing watercraft collisions with manatees; (2) protecting habitat, including foraging and drinking water sites and for the Florida subspecies, warm-water sites; and (3) reducing entanglements in fishing gear. Other recovery initiatives also include addressing harassment and illegal hunting in sites where these occur.
Finalization of this rule does not constitute an irreversible commitment on our part. Reclassification of the West Indian manatee from threatened status back to endangered status could occur if changes occur in management, population status, or habitat, or if other factors detrimentally affect or increase threats to the species. Such a reclassification would require another rulemaking.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Act allows promulgation of special rules under section 4(d) that modify the standard protections for threatened species found under section 9 of the Act and Service regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 (for wildlife) and 17.71 (for plants), when it is deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. No additional regulations are being implemented, or anticipated to be implemented, for the West Indian manatee because there is currently no conservation need to do so for this species. If there is a conservation need for a 4(d) rule at some point in the future for the West Indian Manatee, such a rulemaking would require a companion special rule under the MMPA.
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the Native American Policy of the Service, January 20, 2016, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We contacted tribes in the southeastern United States within the range of the West Indian manatee and requested their comments on our proposed rule. The Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida responded to our request (see Summary of Comments).
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at
The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the North Florida Ecological Services Field Office and the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a) the term “importer” has the meaning given in section 4321 of title 19, United States Code; and
(b) the term “covered importer” means any importer of articles subject to antidumping or countervailing duties for which one of the following is true: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has no record of previous imports by the importer; CBP has a record of the importer's failure to fully pay antidumping or countervailing duties; or CBP has a record of the importer's failure to pay antidumping or countervailing duties in a timely manner.
(b) To ensure the timely and efficient enforcement of laws protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) holders from the importation of counterfeit goods, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate steps, including rulemaking if necessary, to ensure that CBP can, consistent with law, share with rights holders:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) assess the major causes of the trade deficit, including, as applicable, differential tariffs, non-tariff barriers, injurious dumping, injurious government subsidization, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, denial of worker rights and labor standards, and any other form of discrimination against the commerce of the United States or other factors contributing to the deficit;
(b) assess whether the trading partner is, directly or indirectly, imposing unequal burdens on, or unfairly discriminating in fact against, the commerce of the United States by law, regulation, or practice and thereby placing the commerce of the United States at an unfair disadvantage;
(c) assess the effects of the trade relationship on the production capacity and strength of the manufacturing and defense industrial bases of the United States;
(d) assess the effects of the trade relationship on employment and wage growth in the United States; and
(e) identify imports and trade practices that may be impairing the national security of the United States.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia;
(b) United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina; and
(c) United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas.
(b) No individual listed in section 1 shall act as Attorney General unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this order, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this order in designating an acting Attorney General.
| 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 |