Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Justice Programs Office
Prisons Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established for the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) for the 2014–15 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.16 to $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The interim rule was necessary to decrease the assessment rate to reflect reductions to the marketing program and management fees while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.
Effective January 23, 2015.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 291–8614, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
Under the order, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable Texas oranges and grapefruit for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on August 1, and ends on July 31.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted average grower price for Texas citrus during the 2012–13 season was around $12.98 per box and total shipments were near 8.5 million boxes. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of growers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 and could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of Texas citrus may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014–15 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.16 to $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee recommended 2014–15 expenditures of $809,500 and an assessment rate of $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.11 is $0.05 lower than the 2013–14 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2014–15 fiscal period is estimated at 8.2 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.11 rate should provide $902,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses. This action decreases the assessment rate to reflect
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before October 14, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule revises the minimum quantity exception for potatoes handled under the Colorado potato marketing order, Area No. 3 (order). The order regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado and is administered locally by the Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, Area No. 3 (Committee). This rule increases the quantity of potatoes that may be handled under the order without regard to the order's handling regulation requirements from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. This action is expected to benefit producers and handlers.
Effective January 23, 2015; comments received by March 23, 2015 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 97 and Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act
This rule revises the minimum quantity exception currently prescribed in the handling regulation for potatoes handled under the order. This rule will increase the quantity of potatoes that may be handled without regard to the order's handling requirements from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. Relaxing the minimum quantity exception is expected to benefit producers and handlers. The rule was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on May 14, 2014.
Section 948.4 of the order divides the State of Colorado into three areas of regulation for marketing order purposes. These areas include: Area No. 1, commonly known as the Western Slope; Area No. 2, commonly known as San Luis Valley; and, Area No. 3, which consists of the remaining producing areas within the State of Colorado not included in the definition of Area No. 1 or Area No. 2. Currently, the order only regulates the handling of potatoes produced in Area No. 2 and Area No. 3. Regulation for Area No. 1 has been suspended.
Section 948.50 of the order establishes committees as administrative agencies for each of the areas set forth under § 948.4. Section 948.22(a) of the order authorizes the issuance of grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container regulations for potatoes grown in the order's production area. Further, section 948.22(b)(2) of the order provides authority for each area committee to recommend modification of regulations to provide for minimum quantities that should be relieved of regulatory or administrative obligations.
Section 948.387 of the order's administrative rules prescribes grade, size, maturity, and inspection requirements for Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes. Paragraph (f) of that section prescribes the minimum quantity of potatoes that are exempt from regulation. Currently, each person may handle up to 1,000 pounds of potatoes without regard to the order's handling requirements.
At its meeting on May 14, 2014, the Committee unanimously recommended increasing the order's minimum quantity exception from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. The recommendation was made at the request of producers and handlers who wanted greater flexibility in distributing smaller quantities of potatoes. In its deliberations, the Committee commented that 2,000 pounds is consistent with the current weight of a pallet of potatoes. One pallet is typically the smallest lot of potatoes distributed, since most delivery vehicles are now capable of transporting at least 2,000 pounds.
Handlers also feel that the value of one pallet of potatoes does not warrant the cost of complying with the order's regulations. Based on an estimated average f.o.b. price of $10.70, the value of one pallet of potatoes is approximately $214.00. Increasing the minimum quantity exception from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of potatoes will allow a handler to ship one pallet of potatoes without regard to the order's handling requirements. Relaxing the minimum quantity is expected to benefit producers and handlers.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 6 handlers of Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 6 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
During the 2013–2014 fiscal period, the most recent for which statistics are available, 663,025 hundredweight of Colorado Area No. 3 potatoes were inspected under the order and sold into the fresh market. The USDA Market News Service reported a 2013–2014 average f.o.b. price of $10.70 per hundredweight. Multiplying $10.70 by the shipment quantity of 663,025 hundredweight yields a shipping point revenue estimate of $7,094,368. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 6 Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers is therefore calculated to be approximately $1,182,395 ($7,094,368 divided by 6), which is less than the SBA threshold of $7,000,000. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers may be classified as small entities.
In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for the 2013 Colorado fall potato crop was $7.25 per hundredweight. Multiplying $7.25 by the shipment quantity of 663,025 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $4,806,931. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 6 Colorado Area No. 3 potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $801,155 ($4,806,931 divided by 6), which is greater than the SBA threshold of $750,000. Consequently, on average, most of the Colorado Area No. 3 potato producers may not be classified as small entities.
This rule revises the quantity of potatoes that may be handled without regard to the requirements of § 948.387(a) and (b) of the order from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. At the May 14, 2014 meeting, the Committee unanimously recommended increasing the minimum quantity exception to be consistent with the approximate weight of one pallet of potatoes. Authority for the establishment and modification of a minimum quantity exception is provided in § 948.22(b)(2) of the order. This rule amends the provisions in § 948.387(f).
This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order's requirements. Rather, it is anticipated that this change will have a beneficial impact. The Committee believes it will provide greater flexibility in the distribution of small quantities of potatoes. Currently, the distribution of potatoes between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds requires an inspection and certification that the product conforms to the grade, size, and maturity requirements of the order. This translates into a cost for handlers of both time and inspection fees, which is high in relation to the small value (approximately $214.00 per pallet) of these transactions. This action will allow shipments of up to 2,000 pounds of potatoes without regard to the order's handling requirements and the related costs. The benefits for this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh potato producers and handlers, regardless of their size.
As an alternative to this action, the Committee discussed leaving the handling regulation unchanged. The Committee rejected this idea because a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 (Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule relaxes the minimum quantity exception under the order from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Colorado Area No. 3 potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Colorado Area No. 3 potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 14, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on an increase to the quantity of potatoes that may be handled under the order without regard to the handling requirements. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR part 948 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(f)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This interim rule revises the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014–2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,090,821 pounds to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 54 percent. The marketing order regulates the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West and is administered locally by the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee). The Committee recommended this rule for the purpose of maintaining orderly marketing conditions in the Far West spearmint oil market.
Effective January 22, 2015 and applicable to the 2014–2015 marketing year; comments received by March 23, 2015 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Barry Broadbent, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This interim rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil produced in the Far West that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014–2015 marketing year, which began on June 1, 2014, and ends on May 31, 2015.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule revises the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014–2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,090,821 pounds to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 54 percent.
Under the volume regulation provisions of the order, the Committee meets each year to adopt a marketing policy for the ensuing year. When the Committee's marketing policy considerations indicate a need for limiting the quantity of spearmint oil available to the market to establish or maintain orderly marketing conditions, the Committee submits a recommendation to the Secretary for volume regulation.
Volume regulation under the order is effectuated through the establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage applicable to each class of spearmint oil handled in the production area during a marketing year. The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a given marketing year. The allotment percentage for each class of oil is derived by dividing the salable quantity by the total industry allotment base for that same class of oil. The total industry allotment base is the aggregate of all allotment base held individually by producers. Producer allotment base is the quantity of each class of spearmint oil that the Committee has determined is representative of a producer's spearmint oil production. Each producer is allotted a pro rata share of the total salable quantity of each class of spearmint oil each marketing year. Each producer's annual allotment is determined by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's individual allotment base for each applicable class of spearmint oil.
The full Committee met on November 6, 2013, to consider its marketing policy for the ensuing year. At that meeting, the Committee determined that marketing conditions indicated a need for volume regulation of both classes of spearmint oil for the 2014–2015 marketing year. The Committee recommended salable quantities of 1,149,030 pounds and 1,090,821 pounds, and allotment percentages of 55 percent and 46 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oil. A proposed rule to that effect was published in the
Pursuant to authority contained in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the full eight member Committee met again on September 11, 2014, to consider pertinent market information on the current supply, demand, and price of spearmint oil. After some deliberation, the Committee recommended increasing the 2014–2015 marketing year Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,149,030 pounds to 1,984,423 pounds and the allotment percentage from 55 percent to 95 percent. An interim rule to that effect was published in the
The full Committee met again on November 5, 2014, for a regularly scheduled annual meeting to evaluate the current year's volume control regulation and to adopt a marketing policy for the 2015–2016 marketing year. At the meeting, the Committee assessed the current market conditions for spearmint oil in relation to the salable quantities and allotment percentages established for the 2014–2015 marketing year. The Committee considered a number of factors, including the current and projected supply, estimated future demand, production costs, and producer prices for all classes of spearmint oil. The Committee determined that the salable quantity and allotment percentage previously established for Native spearmint oil for the 2014–2015 marketing year should be increased to take into account the recent unanticipated rise in market demand for that class of spearmint oil.
Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from
Thus, taking into consideration the following discussion, this rule makes additional amounts of Native spearmint oil available to the market by increasing the salable quantity and allotment percentage previously established under the order for the 2014–2015 marketing year. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity 189,740 pounds to 1,280,561 pounds, and raises the allotment percentage 8 percent, to 54 percent. Such additional oil will become available to the market by releasing Native spearmint oil held by producers in the reserve pool. As of May 31, 2014, the Committee records show that the reserve pool for Native spearmint oil contained 446,086 pounds of oil.
The increase in the salable quantity as a result of this rule represents an additional 189,740 pounds of Native spearmint oil being made available to the market. However, as some individual producers do not hold Native spearmint oil from previous year's production in the reserve pool, the Committee expects that only 148,715 pounds of additional Native spearmint oil will actually be made available to the spearmint oil market. The relatively high salable quantity resulting from this action, as compared to the actual quantity of spearmint oil that will be made available to the market, is necessary to ensure that a sufficient quantity of Native spearmint oil is available to fully supply the market. Producers that do not have additional Native spearmint oil in inventory (oil held in the reserve pool) will not be able to utilize the additional annual allotment issued to them as a result of this action and such additional annual allotment will go unused.
The 2014–2015 marketing year began on June 1, 2014, with a Native spearmint oil carry-in of 218,754 pounds (carry-in is salable Native spearmint oil from prior years that was not marketed during the 2013–2014 marketing year). This amount is significantly lower than the Committee's projected carry-in of 307,297 pounds. As such, when the carry-in is added to the initially established 2014–2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity of 1,090,821 pounds, the result is a total available supply for the 2014–2015 marketing year of 1,309,575 pounds. This amount is 88,543 pounds less than the 1,398,118 pounds that the Committee believed would be available to the market when it initially recommended volume regulation for the 2014–2015 marketing year in November 2013.
In addition, the Committee staff reported that demand for Native spearmint oil is greater than originally anticipated. Committee records indicate that 2014–2015 marketing year sales through the end of October 2014, the most recent full month recorded, are 84,667 pounds higher than for the same period in the 2013–2014 marketing year. The Committee now estimates trade demand for Native spearmint oil for the 2014–2015 marketing year to be approximately 1,341,000 pounds, up from the 1,300,000 pounds initially estimated in the fall of 2013. If realized, trade demand of 1,341,000 pounds would be 31,425 pounds more than the quantity available under the initially established volume control levels (1,309,525 pounds available minus 1,341,000 pounds demanded = 31,425 pound supply deficit). The increased quantity of Native spearmint oil made available to the market as a result of this action would ensure that market demand is satisfied in the current year and that there would be salable inventory available to the market for the start of the 2015–2016 marketing year on June 1, 2015.
In making the recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage of Native spearmint oil, the Committee considered all currently available information on the price, supply, and demand of spearmint oil. The Committee also considered reports and other information from handlers and producers in attendance at the meeting. Lastly, the Committee manager presented information and reports that were provided to the Committee staff by handlers and producers who were not in attendance at the November 5, 2014, meeting.
This action increases the 2014–2015 marketing year Native spearmint oil salable quantity by 189,740 pounds, to a total of 1,280,561 pounds. However, as mentioned previously, the net effect of the increase will be much less than the calculated increase due to the amount of actual oil individual producers have available to market from the current year's excess production and from reserve pool inventory. The Committee estimates that this action will actually make an additional 148,715 pounds of Native spearmint oil available to the market. That amount, combined with the 151,962 pounds of salable Native spearmint oil that the Committee estimates is currently available to the market, will make a total of 300,677 pounds that will be available to be marketed through the remainder of the marketing year. The total supply of Native spearmint oil that the Committee anticipates actually being available to the market over the course of the 2014–2015 marketing year will be increased to 1,458,318 pounds. Actual sales of Native spearmint oil for the 2013–2014 marketing year totaled 1,341,555 pounds.
The Committee estimates that this action will result in 117,318 pounds of salable Native spearmint oil being carried into the 2015–2016 marketing year. In addition, the Committee expects that 297,371 pounds of Native spearmint oil will be held in reserve pool stocks by producers after this increase. These inventory levels are low in comparison to historical levels, but are well within the range that the Committee believes to be appropriate moving forward. In addition, the Committee believes that the current Native spearmint oil market situation will stimulate production of Native spearmint oil in the coming years, further ensuring that the market will be adequately supplied in the future.
As mentioned previously, when the original 2014–2015 marketing policy statement was drafted, handlers estimated the demand for Native spearmint oil for the 2014–2015 marketing year to be 1,300,000 pounds. The Committee's initial recommendation for the establishment of the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2014–2015 marketing year was based on that estimate. The Committee did not anticipate the increase in demand for Native spearmint oil that the market is currently experiencing and did not make allowances for it when the marketing policy was initially adopted. Handlers now estimate that Native spearmint oil demand for the 2014–2015 marketing year to be as much as 1,375,000 pounds. However, at the meeting, the Committee conservatively revised its estimate to 1,341,000 pounds. The Committee now believes that the supply of Native spearmint oil available to the market under the initially established salable quantity and allotment percentage would be insufficient to satisfy the current level of demand for oil at reasonable price levels. The Committee further believes that the increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage effectuated by this action is vital to ensuring an adequate supply of Native spearmint oil is available to the market moving forward.
As previously stated, it is anticipated that this action will make 148,715 pounds of the Native spearmint oil held in the reserve pool available to the market. However, to achieve that desired net effect under the current supply conditions in the industry, it is necessary for the salable quantity and allotment percentage established under the volume regulation provisions of the order to be set at artificially high levels. The Committee records show that some producers do not hold Native spearmint oil in reserve. Given the process by which volume regulation is effectuated under the order, only those producers with Native spearmint oil in the reserve pool will be able to utilize the additional annual allotment that is issued as a result of this rule. Likewise, producers that do not have Native spearmint oil reserve oil from prior years' production will not have any Native spearmint oil inventory to offer to the market, regardless of how much additional annual allotment is issued to those producers. As such, the Committee expects that approximately 22 percent of the increased salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil will go unused.
As an example, assume Producer A has 2,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil allotment base. In addition, assume that during the 2014–2015 marketing year Producer A produced 920 pounds of Native spearmint oil and currently holds 160 pounds of excess Native spearmint oil in reserve from production in prior years. Given that the initial 2014–2015 marketing year allotment percentage was established at 46 percent, Producer A could market all 920 pounds of the current year production (46 percent allotment percentage × 2,000 pounds of allotment base), leaving him/her with 160 pounds in the reserve pool that was initially not available to market. Without an increase in the allotment percentage, the producer would not have been able to market any of the 160 pounds of reserve oil and the oil would have continued to have been held in the reserve pool for marketing in subsequent years. For Producer A to market all 1,080 pounds of his/her current year Native spearmint oil production and reserve inventory, the allotment percentage needs to be increased by 8 percent to a total of 54 percent (54 percent × 2,000 pounds = 1,080 pounds). An increase in the allotment percentage of anything less than 8 percent would fail to release all of the Native spearmint oil that the producer holds in the reserve pool.
In contrast, assume that another producer, Producer B, likewise has 2,000 pounds of Native spearmint oil allotment base and produced 920 pounds of Native spearmint oil during the 2014–2015 marketing year. However, Producer B has no Native spearmint oil held in reserve. As in the first case, Producer B could market all of his/her current year production under the initial allotment percentage of 46 percent. However, a subsequent increase in the allotment percentage of 8 percent would have no impact on Producer B, as the producer has no reserve pool oil available to deliver to the market. As a result, the 160 pounds of additional annual allotment allocated to Producer B after an 8 percent increase in the allotment percentage would go unfilled.
The Committee acknowledges that the relatively high salable quantity, and the corresponding high allotment percentage, will create a quantity of Native spearmint oil annual allotment for which no Native spearmint oil will actually be available to market. The Committee estimates that an 8 percent increase in the salable quantity is required to make the desired 148,715 pounds of Native spearmint reserve pool oil available to the market. Accordingly, the Committee expects that 41,025 pounds of the recommended 189,740 pound increase in salable quantity will go unfilled. This quantity of underutilized salable quantity has been factored into the Committee's recommendation.
The Committee's stated intent in the use of marketing order volume control regulation is to keep adequate supplies available to meet market needs and to maintain orderly marketing conditions. With that in mind, the Committee developed its recommendation for increasing the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2014–2015 marketing year based on the information discussed above, as well as the summary data outlined below.
(A) Estimated 2014–2015 Native Allotment Base—2,371,350 pounds. This is the estimate on which the original 2014–2015 salable quantity and allotment percentage was based.
(B) Revised 2014–2015 Native Allotment Base—2,371,410 pounds. This is 60 pounds more than the estimated allotment base of 2,371,350 pounds. The difference is the result of annual adjustments made to the allotment base according to the provisions of the order.
(C) Original 2014–2015 Native Allotment Percentage—46 percent. This was unanimously recommended by the Committee on November 6, 2013.
(D) Original 2014–2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,090,821 pounds. This figure is 46 percent of the original estimated 2014–2015 allotment base of 2,371,350 pounds.
(E) Adjusted 2014–2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,090,849 pounds. This figure reflects the salable quantity actually available at the beginning of the 2014–2015 marketing year. This quantity is derived by applying the 46 percent allotment percentage to the revised allotment base of 2,371,410.
(F) Current Revision to the 2014–2015 Native Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage:
(1) Increase in Native Allotment Percentage—8 percent. The Committee recommended an 8 percent increase at its November 5, 2014, meeting.
(2) 2014–2015 Native Allotment Percentage—54 percent. This figure is derived by adding the increase of 8 percent to the original 2014–2015 allotment percentage of 46 percent.
(3) Calculated Revised 2014–2015 Native Salable Quantity—1,280,561 pounds. This figure is 54 percent of the revised 2014–2015 allotment base of 2,371,410 pounds.
(4) Computed Increase in the 2014–2015 Native Salable Quantity—189,740 pounds. This figure is 8 percent of the revised 2014–2015 allotment base of 2,371,410 pounds.
(5) Expected Actual Increase in the 2014–2015 Native Spearmint Oil Available to the Market—148,715 pounds. This figure is based on the Committee's estimation of oil actually held in the reserve pool by producers that may enter the market as a result of this rule.
Scotch spearmint oil is also regulated by the order. As mentioned previously, a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil was established in a final rule published in the
This rule relaxes the regulation of Native spearmint oil and will allow producers to meet market demand while improving producer returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this
The increase in the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage allows for anticipated market needs for that class of oil. In determining anticipated market needs, the Committee considered changes and trends in historical sales, production, and demand.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.
The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The marketing order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.
This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014–2015 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2015. The 2014–2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 46 percent. This rule increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 54 percent.
Based on the information and projections available at the November 5, 2014, meeting, the Committee considered a number of alternatives to this increase. The Committee not only considered leaving the salable quantity and allotment percentage unchanged, but also considered other potential levels of increase. The Committee reached its recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information and input from all interested industry participants, and believes that the levels recommended will achieve the objectives sought. Without the increase, the Committee believes the industry would not be able to satisfactorily meet market demand.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on a change to the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 2014–2015 marketing year. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,280,561 pounds and an allotment percentage of 54 percent.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Transnuclear, Inc. (TN) Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System (NUHOMS® Storage System) listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 3 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1029. The NRC published a direct final rule on this amendment in the
This final rule is effective on February 23, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0271 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:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–6445, email:
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that [the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in part 72 of Title 10 of the
On December 15, 2011, Transnuclear, Inc. submitted an application to amend the NUHOMS® Storage System. Amendment No. 3 adds a new transportable dry shielded canister (DSC), the 32PTH2, to the NUHOMS® Storage System; and makes editorial corrections. The NUHOMS® 32PTH2 system is designed to accommodate up to 32 intact (or up to 16 damaged and the balance intact) pressurized water reactor (PWR), Combustion Engineering (CE), 16 × 16 class spent fuel assemblies, with or without control components. The NUHOMS® 32PTH2 system also consists of a modified version of the Standardized NUHOMS® Advanced Horizontal Storage Module (AHSM), designated the AHSM–HS (high burnup and high seismic).
Numerous sections of the Technical Specifications (TSs) were revised to add and update characteristics, specifications, and requirements related to the 32PTH2 DSC and the AHSM–HS storage module. Additional changes were made to definitions and other sections to improve completeness, consistency, and clarity. Revised sections are indicated by side bars in the TSs.
As documented in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14317A616), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 3 would remain well within the limits of 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Therefore, the CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule (55 FR 29181) that amended 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents from those analyzed in that environmental assessment.
This final rule revises the NUHOMS® Storage System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER. The amended NUHOMS® Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210, “General license issued,” may load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® Storage Systems that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 under 10 CFR 72.212, “Conditions of general license issued under § 72.210.”
The NRC received 17 comments from private citizens, and 1 comment from 2 attorneys representing 20 environmental organizations and individuals. The NRC received two comments from private citizens after the public comment period ended.
The NRC has not made any changes to the Proposed rule as a result of the public comments NRC has received. The following is a summary of the comments and the NRC responses.
Several commenters stated that the NRC should not lower safety standards by approving this new canister. No specifics were provided.
The NRC is not lowering its safety standards. The staff performed an independent safety evaluation of Amendment No. 3 to the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® System to ensure that it meets the regulations in 10 CFR part 72. The results of the staff's independent safety evaluation are described in the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14317A616).
The comment is not substantive enough to aid the NRC in understanding any impact upon the NRC's safety review, the technical specifications, or the NRC's conclusions on this particular amendment. Additionally, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts as confirmed in the direct final rule, Section VII, “Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability.” This comment does not challenge that finding because, as the environmental assessment explained, this amendment to the rule will not result in any significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. This amendment continues to ensure that the Commission's regulations regarding dose rates, found in 10 CFR part 20, are maintained.
Two commenters demanded that the NRC should “get rid” of stored spent fuel. No specifics were provided.
The NRC staff reviewed the comments, and concluded that they are not significant and adverse as defined in NUREG/BR–0053, Revision 6, “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook” (hereinafter “Regulations Handbook”) (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461), as they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Instead, these comments raise generic concerns regarding the use of any spent fuel storage casks and are not specific to any issue or concern with the amendment to the cask certificate that is the subject of this rulemaking effort.
One commenter stated that under no circumstances should nuclear regulations be lowered for the sake of increasing the density of stored high spent fuel and saving money.
The NRC is not lowering its nuclear regulations. The staff performed an independent safety evaluation of Amendment No. 3 to the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® System to ensure that it meets the regulations in 10 CFR part 72. The results of the staff's independent safety evaluation are described in the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14317A616). The comment is not substantive enough to aid the NRC in understanding any impact upon the NRC's safety review, the technical specifications, or the NRC's conclusions on this particular amendment. Additionally, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts as confirmed in the direct final rule, Section VII, “Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability.” This comment does not challenge that finding because, as the environmental assessment explained, this amendment to the rule will not result in any significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. This amendment continues to ensure that the Commission's regulations regarding dose rates, found in 10 CFR part 20, are maintained.
One commenter stated the high burn up fuel is an extremely “hot” type of spent fuel, would require re-casking, which has never been attempted, and that approval should be given only after re-casking is achieved.
The NRC staff reviewed this comment and concluded it is not a significant adverse comment as defined in the Regulations Handbook, as it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Instead, this comment raises a generic concern regarding the safety of high burnup fuel and its storage in spent fuel storage casks, and is not specific to any issue or concern with the amendment to the cask certificate that is the subject of this rulemaking. Although the ability of the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® storage system to store high burnup fuel has not been previously authorized (it is now being authorized in the 32PTH2 DSC), the ability of a similar TN system, the Standardized NUHOMS® system (CoC No. 1004), to store high burnup fuel for 20 years was authorized in Amendment No. 6. The final rule approving that amendment was published in the
Several commenters stated that the NRC should not approve storing 32 fuel assemblies in a space originally designed for 24 fuel assemblies, with some of the comments raising concerns about a potential increased risk associated with the increased number of fuel assemblies.
The 32PTH2 is a new design, specifically intended to store 32 fuel assemblies. It is not a modification to the 24PT1 or 24PT4 for storage of 32 spent fuel assemblies in a 24 assembly cask. Although the ability of the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® storage system to store 32 PWR assemblies has not been previously authorized (it is now being authorized in the 32PTH2 DSC), the ability of a similar TN system, the Standardized NUHOMS® system (CoC No. 1004), to store 32 PWR assemblies in the 32PT DSC for 20 years was authorized in Amendment No. 5. The final rule approving that amendment was published in the
One commenter noted that the definition of damaged fuel has been changed for the 32PTH2.
With the addition of the 32PTH2 DSC, a definition for a damaged fuel assembly specific to the 32PTH2 was added. The new definition is the same as the existing definition, for the 24PT1 and the 24PT4, except that it adds a requirement that the damaged fuel assembly must be able to be handled by normal means. According to the TS, all damaged fuel assemblies loaded in 24PT1 or 24PT4 DSCs are required to be encapsulated in failed fuel cans, and are limited to specific loading zones. In contrast, the damaged fuel assemblies loaded in the 32PTH2 must be able to be handled by normal means because they are not required to be encapsulated in failed fuel cans. Instead, the DSC fuel compartments that can store damaged fuel assemblies in the 32PTH2 are provided with top and bottom end caps, and the damaged fuel assemblies are limited to specific fuel compartments. Note that in both cases, fuel assemblies with damage greater than the definition are not authorized for storage.
One commenter stated that storage ought to be above ground, so that we all remember to keep replacing the encasements.
The Advanced Standardized NUHOMS® Dry Storage System is an above ground system. Note also that all approved dry storage systems are required to be monitored, and that any system that is renewed is also subject to aging management programs which monitor and control age related degradation to the structures, systems and components important to safety.
Two attorneys stated, on behalf of 20 environmental organizations and individuals, that in publishing this direct final rule, the NRC violated the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act for public participation in the NRC decisions affecting public safety and the environment. They also stated that the direct final rule
The NRC has not violated the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act for public participation. As explained in the Regulations Handbook, the direct final rule process may be used where the agency believes a rule is noncontroversial and significant adverse comments will not be received. This process allows the agency to issue the rule without having to go through the review process twice, at the proposed and final rule stages, while at the same time offering the public the opportunity
The same commenters also stated that contrary to the NRC assurances that the rule is limited, routine, noncontroversial, and protects the public and the environment from radiological accidents, the rule approves a significant and unprecedented change in the permissible use of 32PTH2 DSC: the transportation of high burnup fuel.
The rule does not approve the 32PTH2 DSC for transportation of high burnup fuel. The direct final rule is for approval of the 32PTH2 DSC for storage only. While TN's naming convention of including a “T” in the DSC type designator indicates its intention that the 32PTH2 could eventually be authorized for transport, it in no way indicates that the 32PTH2 has been approved for transport. In order for the 32PTH2 DSC to be approved for transportation of high burnup fuel, or any other spent fuel, TN would have to submit an application to the NRC under 10 CFR part 71, which would need to be reviewed and approved in a new and entirely separate process from the current subject approval for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The 32PTH2 DSC has not been reviewed and approved for spent fuel transportation under 10 CFR part 71. Transnuclear, Inc., does have approved transportation certificates that authorize transportation for some of its DSCs (not including the 32PTH2) under this storage CoC (No. 1029) and others, and some of those DSCs are approved for transportation of high burnup fuel (CoCs 71–9255 and 71–9302). However, this is a completely separate review and approval process.
The SER has been revised to explicitly state that the 32PTH2 DSC has not been certified under 10 CFR part 71 for use in transportation.
Many of the comments were related to the potential use of the new 32PTH2 DSC at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The commenters were generally opposed to storage of spent nuclear fuel in the 32PTH2 DSC at SONGS, some because of the higher number of fuel assemblies that could be stored in this DSC; SONGS is currently using the 24PT1 and 24PT4 DSCs (already approved under CoC No. 1029), which hold 24 fuel assemblies each. Other commenters in this group prefer that the spent fuel not be stored onsite at all; they recommend instead that the spent fuel be transported off site immediately. One commenter in this group expressed concerns about accident analyses used for review and approval of spent fuel storage systems in relation to conditions at SONGS, and recommended leaving the spent fuel in spent fuel pools, rather than moving it to dry storage. A supplement to this comment also considered storing the spent fuel in the reactor containment building. Several of the commenters also expressed concerns about the wild fires in California in relation to SONGS spent fuel storage, and one commenter requested that the approval of the 32PTH2 DSC for storage be amended to specifically preclude its use at SONGS.
The NRC staff reviewed the comments in this group, and concluded that they are not significant and adverse comments as defined in the Regulations Handbook, as they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Instead, these comments raise a generic concern regarding potential use of the 32PTH2 DSC at a single, particular site SONGS, and do not raise any specific issue or concern with the amendment to the cask certificate that is the subject of this rulemaking. The NRC staff is aware that SONGS has expressed interest in storing spent nuclear fuel in the 32PTH2 DSC, once it is approved. The regulations for the general license in 10 CFR part 72 allow the use of any approved canisters under 10 CFR 72.214 by any general licensee, however, the cask used by the general licensee must conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214. Additionally, under 10 CFR 72.212, a general licensee is required to perform evaluations that document that the chosen cask, once loaded, will meet the requirements of the CoC and TS, and that the reactor site parameters (including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles) are enveloped by the cask design bases as described in the applicant's safety analysis report and the staff's SER. Further, the cask storage areas must be designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering possible earthquake effects, and the general licensee must protect the stored spent fuel against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC revises the NUHOMS® Storage System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–274), requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has attempted to use plain language in promulgating this rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® Storage System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC
This final rule amends the CoC for the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 3 adds a new transportable DSC, 32PTH2, to the NUHOMS® Storage System; and makes editorial corrections.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 3 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
NUHOMS® Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 3 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings in an SER which is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14317A616.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 3 and end the final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® Storage Systems in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 3 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.
Approval of Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage System, Amendment No. 3,” will not have a significant effect on quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this final rule.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. The NRC issued a final rule (68 FR 463; January 6, 2003) that approved the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” as CoC No. 1029.
On December 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120040478), Transnuclear, Inc. submitted an application to amend the NUHOMS® Storage System.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 3 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the NUHOMS® Storage Systems under the changes described in Amendment No. 3 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review separate exemption requests, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Transnuclear, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This final rule revises the CoC No. 1029 for the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® Storage System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks.” The revision consists of Amendment No. 3 which adds a new transportable DSC, 32PTH2, to the NUHOMS® Storage System; and makes editorial corrections.
Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 for the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® Storage System was initiated by Transnuclear, Inc. and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 3 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 3. These changes do not affect existing users of the NUHOMS® Storage System, and the current Amendments continue to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 3, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801–808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704, (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 788 (2005).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c),(d) (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198).
Certificate Number: 1029.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 5, 2003.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: May 16, 2005.
Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: Amendment not issued by the NRC.
Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: February 23, 2015.
SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® Horizontal
Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel.
Docket Number: 72–1029.
Certificate Expiration Date: February 5, 2023.
Model Number: Standardized Advanced NUHOMS® –24PT1, –24PT4, and –32PTH2.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). This AD was prompted by a report of Angle of Attack (AoA) probes jamming on an in-service Airbus Model A321 airplane. Jamming of the two AoA probes during climb is attributed to water freezing under the AoA vane slinger, and led to activation of the Alpha Prot while the Mach number increased, which resulted in an airplane pitch down per design. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to counteract the pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–25–51, issued on December 10, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 9, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
On December 10, 2014, we issued Emergency AD 2014–25–51, which requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2014–0266–E, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AoA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flightcrew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.
When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AoA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AoA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus * * * [has] developed a specific Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedure, which has been published in AFM Temporary Revision (TR) No. 502.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM [to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot].
This is considered to be an interim action and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–25–51, issued on December 10, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.
(1) All Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes.
(2) All Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) All Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) All Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by a report of Angle of Attack (AoA) probes jamming on an in-service Airbus Model A321 airplane. Jamming of the two AoA probes during climb is attributed to water freezing under the AoA vane slinger, and led to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased, which resulted in an airplane pitch down per design. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flightcrew has procedures to counteract the pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 2 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the AFM to incorporate procedures to address undue activation of Alpha Prot by inserting the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the Emergency Procedures section of the applicable AFM, to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, and the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319–115, A319–133, A320–214, A320–232, and A320–233 airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect discrepancies of the wing lower skin surface and inboard main landing gear (MLG) support rib lower flange location fasteners and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This AD was prompted by reports of failure of certain fasteners located at the wing lower skin surface and inboard MLG support rib lower flange. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of the lower wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange, which could result in an airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected in service. This condition could result in structural failure.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–26–53, issued on December 16, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication identified in this AD as of February 6, 2015.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 9, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
On December 16, 2014, we issued Emergency AD 2014–26–53, which requires repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect discrepancies of the wing lower skin surface and inboard MLG support rib lower flange location fasteners and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). Corrective actions include fastener replacement or repair. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2014–0270R1, dated December 15, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A319–115, A319–133, A320–214, A320–232, and A320–233 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During production of wings, a number of taperlok fasteners were found failed after installation. The fasteners in question are located at the bottom skin of the Main Landing Gear (MLG) reinforcing plate, wing skin and Gear Support Rib 5 lower flange.
This condition, if not detected and corrected could reduce the design margin of the structure [and could result in structural failure].
Based on the results of the preliminary investigation, this affects only certain A319 and A320 aeroplane Models delivered since January 2014. A321 aeroplanes are not affected, as the wing assembly is done using parallel fasteners. A318 aeroplanes are not affected, since none have been delivered since January 2014.
Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2014–0270–E [dated December 11, 2014] to require repetitive inspections of the bottom skin taperlok fasteners at the MLG Rib 5 footprint location and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since that AD was issued, operator comments have indicated the need for clarification, as well as correction.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to add Notes for information and to correct paragraphs (1) and (2) of the AD.
This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.
Airbus has issued Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57N006–14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the bottom skin fasteners at the MLG rib 5 footprint location, and replacement of affected fasteners. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. You can find this information at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0270–E, dated December 11, 2014, specifies to do repetitive detailed visual inspections of the outboard MLG support rib lower flange fasteners and nuts. However, these inspections are not required by this AD. Since the specified compliance time is four months, we are considering further rulemaking to require those inspections.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of the lower wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange could result in an airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected in-service. This condition could result in structural failure. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 80 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–26–53, issued on December 16, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319–115, A319–133, A320–214, A320–232, and A320–233 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 5817, 5826, 5837, 5848, 5855, 5864, 5875, 5886, 5896, and 5910, and MSNs 5918 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of failure of certain fasteners located at the wing lower skin surface and inboard main landing gear (MLG) support rib lower flange. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the fasteners at the external surface of the lower wing skin and inboard MLG support rib lower flange, which could result in an airplane not meeting its maximum loads expected in-service. This condition could result in structural failure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 8 days after the effective date of this AD, or within 8 days since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness, or before further flight for any airplane that is not in operation, whichever occurs later: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57N006–14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 days.
(1) Do a detailed visual inspection of the external surface of the left-hand and right-hand wing lower skin surface to detect missing or broken or migrated fasteners.
(2) Do a detailed visual inspection of the inboard MLG support rib lower flange to detect missing or broken nuts or fastener tails.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, only one discrepancy (any missing or broken or migrated fastener) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further flight, do corrective actions in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Replacement of fasteners
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, more than one discrepancy (any missing or broken or migrated fastener) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further flight, replace all affected fasteners on the affected side(s), in accordance with Airbus AOT A57N006–14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014. One fastener per side may be missing or broken or migrated provided the applicable actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD are done. Replacement of fasteners on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, only one discrepancy (any missing or broken nut or fastener tail) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further flight, do corrective actions in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Replacement of fasteners on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, more than one discrepancy (any missing or broken nut or fastener tail) is found on the left- or right-side: Before further flight, replace all affected fasteners on the affected side(s), in accordance with Airbus AOT A57N006–14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014. One fastener per side may be missing or broken or migrated provided the applicable actions required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD are done. Replacement of fasteners on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1)
(2)
For further information about this AD, contact: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A57N006–14, Revision 00, dated December 4, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information referenced in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–09–11, for certain The Boeing Company Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes. AD 2011–09–11 required repetitive inspections for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the strut disconnect assembly; repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the interior of the strut disconnect assembly, if necessary; repetitive inspections of the exterior of the strut disconnect assembly for cracks, if necessary; corrective action if necessary; and an optional terminating action for the inspections. This new AD adds, for certain airplanes, an inspection of the side and top cover plates to determine if all cover plate attach fasteners have been installed, and installing any missing fasteners including doing an inspection for damage, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of side and top cover plates installed with missing fastener bolts, which results in an unsealed opening on the system disconnect assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination, which can cause cracking of titanium parts in the system disconnect assembly; and also to detect and correct missing fasteners, which results in unsealed openings on the system disconnect assembly. Both unsafe conditions can compromise the engine firewall and result in fire hazards for both the engine compartment and the strut.
This AD is effective February 26, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 26, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2011 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6501; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011). AD 2011–09–11 applied to The Boeing Company Model 777–200 and – 300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. United Airlines and Boeing supported the NPRM (79 FR 50877, August 26, 2014).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50877, August 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50877, August 26, 2014).
We estimate that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 26, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777–200 and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of side and top cover plates installed with missing fastener bolts, which results in an unsealed opening on the system disconnect assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination, which can cause cracking of titanium parts in the system disconnect assembly; and also to detect and correct missing fasteners, which results in unsealed openings on the system disconnect assembly. Both unsafe conditions can compromise the engine firewall and result in fire hazards for both the engine compartment and the strut.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011), with revised service information. Within 12 months after June 6, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–09–11): Do a general visual inspection for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the strut disconnect assembly, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; or Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014, for accomplishing the actions in this paragraph.
(1) For airplanes on which no hydraulic fluid contamination is found (Condition 1): Repeat the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 750 days, whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which hydraulic fluid contamination is found (Condition 2): Before further flight, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies (
(i) For airplanes on which no discrepancy is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD (Condition 2A): Repeat the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 750 days, whichever occurs first.
(ii) For airplanes on which hydraulic fluid coking or heat discoloration is found but no cracking, etching, or pitting is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD (Condition 2B): Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Within 300 flight cycles after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the exterior of the strut disconnect assembly for cracks, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; or Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014; and repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014, for accomplishing the actions in this paragraph.
(B) Within 6,000 flight cycles or 750 days after hydraulic fluid coking and/or heat discoloration was found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the titanium system disconnect assembly with an Inconel system, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; or Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014, for accomplishing the actions in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011), with revised service information. For airplanes on which any crack, etching, or pitting is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD (Condition 3): Before further flight, replace the titanium system disconnect assembly with an Inconel system, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; or Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014, for accomplishing the actions in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011), with revised service information. Replacing the titanium system disconnect assembly with an Inconel system disconnect assembly in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; or Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014; terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024,
For airplanes on which the system disconnect assembly has been replaced in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, dated April 1, 2010; or Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010: Within 1,125 days after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the cover plate fasteners to determine if all cover plate attach fasteners are installed, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014. If any fastener is missing, before further flight, install fasteners (including doing a detailed inspection for damage of the electrical components and repairing any damaged components), in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014.
This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (j) of AD 2011–09–11, Amendment 39–16673 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011). This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before June 6, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011–09–11) using Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, dated April 1, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6501; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 26, 2015.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 6, 2011 (76 FR 24354, May 2, 2011).
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777–54A0024, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter, –200, and –300 series airplanes and Model A340–200, –300, –500, and –600 series airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). This AD was prompted by a report of Angle of Attack (AoA) probes jamming on an in-service Airbus Model A321 airplane. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures to counteract the pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–25–52, issued on December 10, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 9, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116,
On December 10, 2014, we issued Emergency AD 2014–25–52, which requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2014–0267–E, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter, –200, and –300 series airplanes and Model A340–200, –300, –500, and –600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AoA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flightcrew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.
When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AoA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AoA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
As the same systems are installed on A330 and A340 airplanes, to address this unsafe condition, Airbus * * * [has] developed a specific Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedure, which has been published in AFM Temporary Revision (TR) No. 528 for A330 aeroplanes and AFM TR No. 529 for A340 aeroplanes, as applicable to aeroplane type and model.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM [to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot].
This is considered to be an interim action and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 6, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2014–25–52, issued on December 10, 2014, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD.
(1) All Model A330–223F and –243F airplanes.
(2) All Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, and –243 airplanes.
(3) All Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes.
(4) All Model A340–211, –212, and –213 airplanes.
(5) All Model A340–311, –312, and –313 airplanes.
(6) All Model A340–541 and A340–642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by a report of Angle of Attack (AoA) probes jamming on an in-service Airbus Model A321 airplane. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flightcrew has procedures to counteract the pitch down order due to abnormal activation of the Alpha Prot. An abnormal Alpha Prot, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 2 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the AFM to incorporate procedures to address undue activation of Alpha Prot by inserting the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the Emergency Procedures section of the applicable AFM, to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, and the text specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1138; fax 425–227–1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking in the flanges of the airframe at stations 4610 and 5605. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 26, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 26, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248–3108, ext. 209; fax: (972) 248–3321; Internet:
Kenneth A. Cook, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 222–5475; fax: (817) 222–5960; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the aviation authority for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD–8231–2013, dated August 6, 2013 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
The JCAB has informed us that as part of the MHI continuing aging aircraft program, Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 airplanes were subjected to detailed teardown inspections. During the inspections, structural cracks in the flanges of some long body airplane frames were found at frame station (STA) 4610 and STA 5605. It has been determined that the structural cracks resulted from stress corrosion.
Japan is the State of Design for (MHI Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36, which the MCAI applies to, and the United States is the State of Design for MHI Models MU–2B–36A and MU–2B–60 airplanes. Since the Models MU–2B–36A and MU–2B–60 airplanes are of similar type design, the same structural cracks could exist.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
Mike Ciholas and seven others stated that they need more time for discussions at seminars and to obtain more information from MHI and Turbine Aircraft Services.
The commenters requested the comment period be extended to allow for more time to gather and analyze data.
We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request and have determined sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically information recently from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Mike Ciholas and eight others stated that the unsafe condition addressed in the proposed AD be handled as part of routine inspections. The commenters stated that there has never been any incident, accident, injury, or fatality attributed to this issue despite the millions of flight hours the MU–2B airplane has accumulated, including those hours that some airplanes have flown with a crack present. There has never been any damage to any airplane from this issue. None of the subject parts have failed to perform in service, cracked or otherwise.
Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. and two others stated that there have been no failures in the airframes.
The commenters requested that the proposed AD be withdrawn.
We do not agree with the commenters. While there have been no failures to date, the stress corrosion cracking exhibited is in primary load structure. Upon crack initiation, the frames will have diminished load carrying capabilities, which will propagate over time, potentially leading to failure. Although previous inspection requirements specify visual inspection of all frames, no instruction was provided for accessing the difficult to reach areas where the subject cracks have been found. In addition, we are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition and prevent such failures of this airplane.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
David Klain and six others stated that they wanted the FAA to hold the
The commenters requested that we delay issuing the final rule AD action.
We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request to delay issuing the final rule AD action and have determined that sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically information recently from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition. Further delay of the final rule AD action would allow a known unsafe condition to exist without AD action to address it.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
David Klain and three others stated that the Mitsubishi Service Centers have indicated that the time and cost estimates detailed in the proposed AD are not accurate and do not reflect the actual higher costs and time necessary to complete the inspection based on the inspections completed to date.
The commenters requested a change to the Cost of Compliance section.
We do not agree with the commenters. The cost provided by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is a rough order of magnitude estimate based on available information and standardized cost evaluation methods.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
David Klain and three others stated that the proposed AD is based on non-representative airframes. The proposed AD was derived from a service bulletin that originated from inspections of a limited, non-representative sample of airframes that have been removed from service and represent the worst possible scenario with regards to airframe stress (freighters).
The commenters stated that since Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. CE–03–26, dated February 28, 2003 (which can be found at
The commenters also stated that the costly inspection goes against the FAA's mandate to encourage and promote aviation by potentially mandating a costly inspection that would result in the decommissioning of perfectly safe and flyable airplanes for no reason other than the high cost of an inspection mandated by the FAA without any engineering data to support such inspections.
We infer that the commenters believe that the final rule AD action is unnecessary and want the proposed AD withdrawn.
We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet indicate that 8 of them were cracked of which 5 were used as freighters. Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
The OEM has also provided the time and cost information presented in this final rule AD action.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Richard Wheldon and one other commenter stated that there is a less expensive repair available to the owners/operators of the affected airplanes.
The commenters stated that the repairs specified in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI Ltd.) MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53–002B, dated April 27, 1999, involve doublers and are much less intrusive and less labor intensive. The repairs in MHI Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, and No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, involve large splices and/or frame segment replacements, which are very costly. It is not explained why the less expensive methods were not proposed. In discussions with experienced sheet metal mechanics and structures engineers, they expressed that other repair schemes are possible that adequately address any safety concerns and are much less costly.
Many of the cracks found at the lower sections of the bottom frame segments might be repairable using doublers rather than replacing the entire lower frame segments, which is the only solution allowed in the proposed AD. Obviously, the replacement of an entire lower frame segment is a huge, potentially unnecessary undertaking involving considerable assembly and disassembly. Any conventional solution short of frame segment replacement should be investigated.
The commenters also stated that an operator is not allowed to repair the side frame segments per MHI Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53–002B, dated April 27, 1999, and still be in compliance with the proposed AD. The only solution to a side frame crack allowed per MHI Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, and No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, is the much more expensive replacing of the side frame segment.
The commenters requested compliance based on MHI Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53–002B, dated April 27, 1999, at a minimum, be permitted in the final rule AD action.
We do not agree with the commenters. MHI Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53–002B, dated April 27, 1999, require inspecting for cracks that are specifically located around rivet holes. The service bulletins specified in this AD require inspecting for cracks in a different area, specifically throughout the frame flanges.
If lower cost repair methods exist that meet the intent of the proposed AD, you may propose an alternative method of compliance or a change in the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
David Klain and one other commenter stated that the proposed AD does not accurately consider what the causal factors are that may have caused the cracks in question (airframe age, cycles, total time, utilization as freighters, etc.) due to lack of adequate representative data.
The commenters requested the FAA to further investigate the cause of the cracks.
We do not agree with the commenters. We have evaluated the data provided and have determined that the cause of cracking is stress corrosion. We have determined that is sufficient evidence and data of an unsafe condition and we should proceed with issuing the final rule AD action.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. stated that the inspections introduced and recommended in SAIB No. CE–03–26, dated February 28, 2003, which can be found at
The commenter stated that the inspection criteria in the proposed AD require inspection of a different location of these same frames and the fact is that the frame materials and stresses are the same.
We infer that the commenter believes the inspections introduced and recommended in SAIB No. CE–03–26, dated February 28, 2003, are sufficient in addressing the unsafe condition identified in this AD wants the proposed AD withdrawn.
We do not agree with the commenter. It is stated in the proposed AD that stress corrosion cracking may be located throughout the area of the frame flanges. The inspections recommended in SAIB No. CE–03–26 are more limited and only inspect for stress corrosion cracking at screw holes in the flange.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
An anonymous commenter stated that the statistical analysis and evaluation performed in support of the proposed AD is flawed. The commenter also stated that given the inconsistent data from a sample size that is not representative of the fleet, there appears to be no scientific or engineering basis for issuing the final rule AD action and mandating it for the entire fleet
The commenter stated that Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. also stated that the conclusions made by the FAA were not based on an adequate representation of the fleet and that thus far the only cracks found have been on two higher time airframes and not on the many airplanes that have less than one-third of the flight time and cycles
The commenter requested the applicability of the final rule AD action be changed to apply only to high time, high-cycle airplanes.
We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of the 18 airplanes, 5 of them are used as freighters and all 5 of these were among the 8 found cracked. Four of the eight airplanes found cracked have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014).
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has issued Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, and Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The service bulletin describes procedures to inspect and repair/replace the side and lower frame at stations 4610 and 5605. You can find this service information on the Internet at
We estimate that this AD will affect 119 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 100 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,011,500, or $8,500 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take up to 428 work-hours and require parts costing up to $14,400, for a cost up to $50,780 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need such repair based on the results of the inspection. The extent of damage will vary on each airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 26, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 airplanes, serial numbers 502 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696, and Models MU–2B–36A and MU–2B–60 airplanes, serial numbers 661SA, 697SA through 799SA, and 1501SA through 1569SA, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking in the flanges of the airframes at stations 4610 and 5605. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct structural cracks in the airframe flanges, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD.
(1) Within the next 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February 26, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 3 years after February 26, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the side and lower frames at frame station (STA) 4610 and STA 5605 for cracks and corrosion. Do the inspection following paragraphs 3.0 through 3.3 of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.
(2) If any crack is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Repair the frame following paragraphs 4.0 and 5.0 of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable; or
(ii) Replace the frame following paragraphs 4.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.
(3) If any corrosion is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the damage following the instructions in paragraph 3.2 of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
We are allowing special flight permits with the following limitations:
(1) Essential crew only;
(2) Minimum weight;
(3) Limit “G” loading to minimum; and
(4) Most direct flight to repair center.
Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD–8231–2013, dated August 6, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013.
(ii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013.
(3) For Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248–3108, ext.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes regulations that establish and describe Communications Management Units (CMUs) by regulation. The CMUs regulations serve to detail the specific restrictions that may be imposed in the CMUs in a way that current regulations authorize but do not detail. CMUs are designed to provide an inmate housing unit environment that enables staff monitoring of all communications between inmates in a Communications Management Unit (CMU) and persons in the community. The ability to monitor such communication is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protection of the public. These regulations represent a “floor” beneath which communications cannot be further restricted. The Bureau currently operates CMUs in two of its facilities. This rule clarifies existing Bureau practices with respect to CMUs.
This rule is effective on February 23, 2015.
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307–2105.
This final rule codifies and describes the Bureau's procedures for designating inmates to, and limiting communication within, its CMUs. Currently, the Bureau operates two CMUs, separately located at the Federal Correctional Complex (FCC), Terre Haute, Indiana (established in December 2006), and the United States Penitentiary (USP), Marion, Illinois (established in March 2008). A proposed rule was published on April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17324). We received 733 comments during the 2010 comment period. We later reopened the comment period on March 10, 2014, for 15 days (79 FR 13263). We received an additional 443 comments during the 2014 comment period. Similar issues were raised by most of the commenters. We respond below to the issues raised.
Several commenters felt that there exists in CMUs an “overrepresentation of Muslim and political prisoners, showing that CMUs are not designed for legitimate purposes, but rather to discriminate and remove and isolate politically active members of society.”
The Bureau does not use religion or political affiliation as a criterion for designation to CMUs. 28 CFR 551.90 states the Bureau's non-discrimination policy: “Bureau staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief. This includes the making of administrative decisions and providing access to work, housing and programs.” Further, § 540.201, which describes the designation criteria, must be read in tandem with § 540.202, particularly subparagraph (b), which states that after the Bureau becomes aware of one or more of the criteria described in § 540.201, the Bureau's Assistant Director for the Correctional Programs Division must conduct a review of the evidence found and make a finding that designation to the CMU is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities or protection of the public. An inmate cannot, therefore, be designated to a CMU based upon religious or political affiliation, both because neither are part of the stated criteria, and because it is also necessary to have credible evidence of a threat to the safety, security, and good order of the institution or protection of the public to support designation to a CMU.
Instead, an important category of inmates that might be designated to a CMU is inmates whose current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism. Past behaviors of terrorist inmates provide sufficient grounds to suggest a substantial risk that they may inspire or incite terrorist-related activity, especially if ideas for or plans to incite terrorist-related activity are communicated to groups willing to engage in or to provide equipment or logistics to facilitate terrorist-related activity. The potential ramifications of this activity outweigh the inmate's interest in unlimited communication with persons in the community.
Communication related to terrorist-related activity can occur in codes that are difficult to detect and extremely time-consuming to interpret. Inmates involved in such communication, and other persons involved or linked to terrorist-related activities, take on an exalted status with other like-minded individuals. Their communications acquire a special level of inspirational significance for those who are already predisposed to these views, causing a substantial risk that such recipients of their communications will be incited to unlawful terrorist-related activity.
The danger of coded messages from prisoners has been recognized by the courts.
There have been cases of imprisoned terrorists communicating with their followers regarding future terrorist activity. For example, after El Sayyid Nosair assassinated Rabbi Kahane, he was placed in Rikers Island, where “he began to receive a steady stream of visitors, most regularly his cousin El-Gabrowny, and also Abouhalima, Salameh, and Ayyad. During these visits, as well as subsequent visits once Nosair was at Attica, Nosair suggested numerous terrorist operations, including the murders of the judge who sentenced him and of Dov Hikind, a New York City Assemblyman, and chided his visitors for doing nothing to further the jihad against the oppressors. Nosair also tape recorded messages while in custody . . .”
To minimize the risk of terrorist-related communication and other similar dangerous communication to or from inmates in Bureau custody, this regulation clarifies the Bureau's current authority to limit and monitor the communication of inmates in CMUs to immediate family members, U.S. Courts, federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, Members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, other federal law enforcement entities, and the inmate's attorney. The Bureau allows communication with these individuals to help inmates maintain family ties, and protect inmates' access to courts and other government officials. This permits inmates to raise issues related to their incarceration or their conditions of confinement, while minimizing potential internal or external threats.
The presence of Muslim inmates in CMUs does not indicate discrimination, especially given the alternative explanations for designation of inmates to the CMU in § 540.201. In
The Bureau, acting on a case-by-case basis, may designate an inmate to a CMU for heightened monitoring for any of the reasons articulated in § 540.201. This valid legitimate penological purpose negates a claim of a Bureau-wide conspiracy to discriminate against Muslims.
Several commenters, either inmates in CMUs or friends or relatives of inmates in CMUs, stated that the inmates were placed there without prior notice, and that such placement is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(1) Designation to a CMU allows greater Bureau staff management of communication with persons in the community through complete monitoring of telephone use, written correspondence, and visiting. The volume, frequency, and methods of CMU inmate contact with persons in the community may be limited as necessary to achieve the goal of total monitoring, consistent with this subpart;
(2) General conditions of confinement in the CMU may also be limited as necessary to provide greater management of communications;
(3) Designation to the CMU is not punitive and, by itself, has no effect on the length of the inmate's incarceration. Inmates in CMUs continue to earn sentence credit in accordance with the law and Bureau policy;
(4) Designation to the CMU follows the Assistant Director's decision that such placement is necessary for the safe, secure, and orderly operation of Bureau institutions, or protection of the public. The inmate will be provided an explanation of the decision in sufficient detail, unless the Assistant Director determines that providing specific information would jeopardize the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and/or protection of the public;
(5) Continued designation to the CMU will be reviewed regularly by the inmate's Unit Team under circumstances providing the inmate notice and an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the Bureau's policy on Classification and Program Review of Inmates; and
(6) The inmate may challenge the CMU designation decision, and any aspect of confinement therein, through the Bureau's administrative remedy program.
Through the written notice, inmates are informed that designation to the CMU follows the Assistant Director's decision that such placement is necessary for the safe, secure, and orderly operation of Bureau institutions, or protection of the public. The inmate is provided an explanation of the decision in sufficient detail, unless providing specific information would jeopardize the safety, security, or orderly operation of the facility, or protection of the public.
Continued placement in CMUs may not be necessary and will be reviewed regularly by the inmate's Unit Team, as described above. Conditions may change and allow inmates to be transferred out of the CMUs. For instance, an inmate's behavior and conduct may change. Another example of an altered circumstance is that the heightened security risk or threat to the safety, security and good order of the institution or protection of the public may have changed in some way. For instance, if an inmate communicates about the possibility of a disruption at a particular public event, and the event timeframe passes, the security threat may be diminished.
If a court were to conclude that inmates had a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a CMU, the process that would have to be afforded an inmate would depend on the particular situation's demands.
Since the Constitution does not give rise to a liberty interest when the issue is avoiding a transfer to an institution that is less favorable or more restrictive than another, inmates do not have a liberty interest that should be protected from transfer to a CMU.
In
However, unlike the situation in
The conditions at a CMU are not like those at issue in
The communications restrictions possible in the CMU do not rise to the level that implicates violation of a liberty interest. To effectively and efficiently allow monitoring and review of the general correspondence communications of inmates in CMUs, those communications may be limited in frequency and volume as follows:
• Written correspondence may be limited to six (expanded from the proposed rule limitation to three) pieces of paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient (in addition, electronic messaging may be limited to two messages, expanded from the proposed rule limitation of one, per calendar week, to and from a single recipient at the discretion of the Warden);
• Telephone communication may be limited to three completed calls (expanded from the proposed rule limitation to one call) per calendar month for up to 15 minutes; and
• Visiting may be limited to four one-hour visits (expanded from the proposed rule limitation of one one-hour visit) each calendar month.
Unless the quantity to be processed becomes unreasonable or the inmate abuses or violates these regulations, there is no frequency or volume limitation on written correspondence with the following entities: U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, Members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau of Prisons, other federal law enforcement entities, or, as stated earlier, the inmate's attorney (privileged, unmonitored communications only). Correspondence with these entities is not limited under these regulations in furtherance of inmates' access to courts and their ability to defend in litigation.
Even assuming that inmates have a liberty interest in this context, inmates have been afforded sufficient process and will continue to be afforded due process by these regulations, under the
Further, continued designation to the CMU is regularly reviewed by the inmate's Unit Team under circumstances providing the inmate notice and an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the Bureau's policy on Classification and Program Review of Inmates.
By limiting the frequency and volume of the communication to and from inmates identified under this regulation, the Bureau reduces the amount of communication requiring monitoring and review. Reducing the volume of communications helps ensure the Bureau's ability to provide heightened scrutiny in reviewing communications, thereby increasing both internal security within correctional facilities, and the security of members of the public.
As we explained in the proposed rule, the Bureau has determined that in the context of inmates in CMUs, the restrictions authorized by the CMUs regulations are the most appropriate means of accomplishing the Bureau's legitimate goal and compelling interest to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of Bureau facilities, and protection of the public. We stated the following in the preamble to the proposed rule:
“The CMU concept allows the Bureau to monitor inmates for whom such monitoring and communication limits are necessary, whether due to a terrorist link or otherwise, such as inmates who have previously committed an infraction related to mail tampering from within an institution, or inmates who may be attempting to communicate with past or potential victims. The ability to monitor such communication is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protect the public. The volume, frequency, and methods of CMU inmate contact with persons in the community may be limited as necessary to achieve the goal of total monitoring, consistent with this subpart.”
Several commenters stated that CMU restrictions on visiting and telephone calls violate the Due Process Clause and the rights of inmates in CMUs.
Here, analysis of this factor demonstrates that the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate interests. The regulation is designed to ensure the safety, security, and good order of Bureau institutions and protection of the public. Security of the facility has been cited as a valid primary interest in not permitting contact visitation for pretrial detainees.
There is also no liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause that is implicated by the rules governing the scheduling of visits or phone calls in the CMU. In fact, not only are the CMU restrictions well below the level necessary to trigger a liberty interest, but they also are within the scope of restrictions authorized by the Bureau's current regulations. 28 CFR 540.100 and 540.101(d) indicate that inmate telephone use may be limited as necessary to protect institutional security and the safety of the public. Further, 28 CFR 540.51(h)(2) indicates that restrictions on contact visiting, for example, are permitted if necessary for security reasons. Also, the restrictions imposed upon attorney visiting are within the current visiting parameters: As stated in § 540.205(b), “Regulations and policies previously established under 28 CFR part 543 are applicable.”
However, in response to public comment, the final regulations provide new limitations which would be more consistent with the Bureau's resources for monitoring communications. Again, the limitations in the regulation serve as the minimum requirement. Further access may be granted as resources allow, in the discretion of Bureau staff, on a case-by-case basis. The CMUs regulations serve to detail the specific restrictions which may be imposed in the CMU in a way that current regulations authorize but do not detail.
The regulations allow communication with news media (via telephone or writing) “only at the discretion of the warden.” Several commenters argued that this language authorized a “complete ban on communication with news media, a result that is unconstitutional under existing case law.”
First, we note that the regulations in § 540.203 do not restrict with whom a CMU inmate may correspond. The only restriction in the regulation related to correspondence is as follows: The regulations state that “[s]pecial mail, as defined in Part 540, is limited to privileged communication with the inmate's attorney.” § 540.203(b). This means that any correspondence with representatives of the news media will be subject to the level of inspection given to other general mail correspondence. There will be no unmonitored communication with news media representatives.
Second, it is true that inmates in CMUs may not have unmonitored telephone communication with news media representatives. The regulation states that “[u]nmonitored telephone communication is limited to privileged communication with the inmate's
Contrary to the commenters' assertions, prison officials are not required to permit and accommodate confidential, unmonitored communication between inmates and news media representatives. Previous case law has not afforded news media any greater right of access to inmates than that of the general public.
Some commenters stated that the proposed regulation's limitations on communication with clergy and other religious communications violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb (2006) (hereinafter “RFRA”); others suggested that restrictions on visitation violated inmates' due process rights. These and other commenters also stated that the regulations impose an “absolute ban” on communications with clergy and non-immediate family members. One commenter also stated that these regulations violate Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1969), which gave “consular officers” the “right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention . . .” The same commenter likewise stated that the regulations impose a “total ban” on communication with “most family members,” citing 28 CFR 540.44(a), which defines immediate family members as being “mother, father, step-parents, foster parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, and children.”
There is no such “absolute ban”. inmates in CMUs are not prohibited outright by these regulations from communicating with clergy, consular officials, or non-immediate family members. These regulations represent a “floor” beneath which communications cannot be further restricted. Communication restrictions are tailored to the security needs presented by each CMU inmate, on a case-by-case basis. The regulations contain no ban on written correspondence with these groups, nor any outright ban on telephone calls or visits with these groups, only stating that “monitored telephone communication
Any such restrictions imposed on an inmate's access to clergy do not violate RFRA. RFRA “provides that government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1 (2006). The interest of protecting the security of the facility is a legitimate penological interest that has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Also, inmates in CMUs are provided the services of Bureau chaplains upon request, per 28 CFR 548.12, for religious care and counseling, thus providing inmates in CMUs an opportunity to engage in communications with clergy. As discussed below, inmates in CMUs are permitted to engage in religious practices and services. Any limitation on the access to clergy is, therefore, not unduly restrictive and satisfies RFRA.
In comments on the restrictions on visiting, some commenters suggested that the restrictions violated the inmates' due process rights, citing
Several commenters stated that the CMU's no-contact visitation policy has significantly impacted the ability of inmates in CMUs to maintain close and personal relationships with family members, which results in emotional hardships and psychological issues for both the inmate and the visitor(s). These commenters believe that the no-contact visitation policy violates the inmates' right to free association contained in the First Amendment.
As described above, several factors are relevant to the reasonableness inquiry:
The purpose of the limitation on contact visits is to effectively monitor the communications of high-risk inmates in order to ensure the safety, security, and good order of Bureau institutions and protection of the public. Security of a facility has been recognized as a valid interest in not permitting contact visitation for pretrial detainees.
In
The Court found the ban on contact visits helped to prevent the introduction of contraband and reduced the possibility of violent confrontations during visits, and, as a result, promoted the legitimate governmental objective of maintaining the internal security of the prison.
In
By limiting the contact visits of inmates housed in the CMU, the Bureau seeks to balance First Amendment rights with its correctional mission and the special mission of the CMU. The Bureau has made a judgment that communications between the inmates housed in the CMUs and their visitors must be strictly monitored because the inmates meet one or more of the designation criteria listed in § 540.201. The reasoning for the restrictions is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in preserving security, as communications could be easily passed without strict monitoring through a no-contact visit.
Addressing the second
The third
Finally, the fourth
Also, the inmate telephone system consists of digital recordings which accurately store the conversations. These digital recordings are also easily maintained, retrieved, and used for law enforcement purposes and the detection of disciplinary infractions. Attorney-client visits, however, are
The CMU restrictions satisfy the
Some commenters stated that no-contact visiting constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
A punishment violates the Eighth Amendment when it is incompatible with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
Conditions other than those in
The conditions of confinement present in the CMUs are not grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed by the inmates assigned to it. In fact, the inmates were placed in the CMU specifically because their offense of conviction, offense conduct, disciplinary record or other verified information raised serious concerns about their communications with members of the public and close monitoring of those communications was needed in order to preserve the security of the Bureau institutions and protect the public. As we stated in the proposed rule, under the regulation, inmates may be designated to a CMU if:
• The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism;
• The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, offense conduct, or activity while incarcerated, indicates a substantial likelihood to encourage, coordinate, facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance of, illegal activity through communication with persons in the community;
• The inmate has attempted, or indicates a substantial likelihood, to contact victims of the inmate's current offense(s) of conviction;
• The inmate committed a prohibited activity related to misuse/abuse of approved communication methods while incarcerated; or
• There is any other evidence of a potential threat to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of prison facilities, or protection of the public, as a result of the inmate's communication with persons in the community.
Ultimately, the inmates are not being deprived of basic human needs by not permitting them to have physical contact with family or community members. The inmates are permitted to have visitors, although it is through no-contact visits, write letters, and make telephone calls to their family members, albeit under closer monitoring. Inmates are not completely deprived of all contact with family or community members.
The no-contact visitation policy is a reasonable communication restriction that is within the discretion of prison authorities to implement. It does not approach the level of a cruel and unusual condition of confinement proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.
Several commenters stated that conditions of confinement in the CMU were “atypical and significant,” thereby creating a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
As discussed above, even where the Due Process Clause does not itself create a liberty interest, the government may create one where a prison restriction imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Based on
Accordingly, the determination of what is atypical and significant should be made in comparison with the “most restrictive confinement conditions that prison officials, exercising their
Under
Inmate telephone use “is subject to those limitations which the Warden determines are necessary to ensure the security or good order, including discipline, of the institution or to protect the public,” and requires only that an inmate who is not on discipline receive one three minute telephone call each month.
In short, the CMU's communication restrictions do not constitute the kind of “extraordinary treatment” required to find a government-created liberty interest.
Some commenters stated that inmates in CMUs are prohibited from certain religious activities, such as congregational prayers, designated chapel space, limited recognition of voluntary religious fasting, and religious studies.
Inmates in CMUs are permitted to pursue religious activities, including prayers, fasting, and studies, to the extent that it does not threaten the safety, security, or good order of the facility or protection of the public. Policies regarding religious practices are the same in the CMUs as for all other Bureau facilities, as outlined in 28 CFR 548.10–20 and the Bureau's policy on religious beliefs and practices.
Inmates in CMUs are permitted to hold several types of prayer in a similar manner as general population inmates. Congregate prayers are allowed in the CMU. Group prayers led by inmates are subject to constant staff supervision. Those who engage in additional prayers, such as individual prayers for Muslims (the five daily prayers) are permitted to do so in their own cells or in a previously designated area while at work or education or may pray independently at their work station. These inmates are provided an area out of the way, so as to not interfere with other operations or be disturbed themselves.
Also, policy recognizes certain fasts as part of the religious practice and others as personal choice. There is a distinction to be made between fasts which are part of religious practice and those that are personal choice. Fasts which are part of religious practice are recognized as a routine practice in the religion; whereas fasts undertaken by personal choice, or to meet personal religious goals, are sporadic or non-routine fasts that are not recognized as routine practice as part of the religion. Inmates are permitted to fast as they see fit to meet their personal religious goals.
A concern among the commenters was that inmates were not allowed to retain food in their cells from scheduled meals in order to eat the food later after their personal fasts. Bureau national policy on food service prohibits inmates, whether in CMUs or in general population, from removing food from the dining hall, except maybe one piece of whole fruit, due to health concerns and to avoid the spoiling of food items. Inmates have been informed if they choose to engage in a personal fast, then they choose to skip the scheduled meal(s) and cannot retain food in their cells from the dining hall. However, inmates in the CMU who raise this issue have been informed that they may purchase food items at the institution commissary for retention and later consumption in their cells.
Some commenters were concerned that the authority to approve CMU placement might be delegated below the level of Assistant Director.
The Bureau's Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, has authority to approve CMU designations. The Assistant Director's decision must be based on a review of the evidence, and a conclusion that the inmate's designation to a CMU is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, or protection of the public. There is no provision in the regulation that allows for delegation of the Assistant Director's authority.
The following additional miscellaneous issues were raised during the 2014 comment period.
One commenter requested that we “[e]dit the language of 540.200(b) to include `Vocational Technical Training, Unicor (FPI),' after `unit management,' and before `and work programming,' in order to incorporate these programs with programs already offered to CMU inmates.” Section 540.200(b) of the proposed rule states that a CMU “is a general population housing unit where inmates ordinarily reside, eat, and participate in all educational, recreational, religious, visiting, unit management, and work programming, within the confines of the CMU.” Vocational technical training is included in this phrase, as part of “all” educational and work programming activities. Because it is already included in the general list, we will not include this specific reference.
The same commenter requested that we “[r]eplace the language of 540.203(a) with `General Correspondence. General written correspondence as defined by part 540, may be limited to three pieces of handwritten correspondence (8.5 X 11 inches or smaller), double-sided, once per calendar week to and from any party on the inmate's approved contact list and an unlimited amount of typed or computer generated correspondence
Subsection (c) of this regulation refers to the absence of a volume limitation on mail to and from certain listed correspondents. The commenter would substantively alter this provision to remove “at the discretion of the Warden” in favor of “any party on the inmate's approved contact list.” We do not make this change because the Warden may choose to temporarily suspend communications with someone that may be on the inmate's approved contact list for a certain period of time due to a time-sensitive threat, so it is more accurate to say that it is in the Warden's discretion. The commenter would also alter this provision to add inmate electronic correspondence. While we currently allow inmates in CMUs access to electronic correspondence in the same manner permitted for general population inmates, electronic correspondence is not specifically mentioned by regulation because it is currently included under the authority of “general mail” correspondence. We therefore do not make this edit to the regulations.
One inmate stated that “the designation criteria described in section 540.201, sections (a) and (b) permit the BOP to confine and [sic] inmate to a CMU merely on the basis of his offense of conviction. This is unwise policy because, as in my case, an inmate's offense alone provides a very limited glimpse of that individual and what level of security measures he may require.” The inmate also stated that the criteria listed in the proposed rule are unlawful “because 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b) requires the BOP to consider five factors when designating a prisoner's place of confinement; these include the offense of conviction, but also,
The same commenter stated that “[t]he responsibility for designation of inmates for SAMs or SAMs-like restrictions should remain with the Attorney General or FBI and not with the BOP.” As we stated in the 2010 proposed rule, this regulation will be applied differently from regulations in 28 CFR part 501, which authorize the Attorney General to impose special administrative measures (SAMs). Under the CMUs regulations, the Bureau would impose communication limits based on evidence from the FBI or another federal law enforcement agency, or if Bureau information indicates a similar need to impose communication restrictions but does not constitute evidence which rises to the same degree of potential risk to national security or acts of violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General's intervention through a SAM. Further, while SAMs potentially restrict communication entirely, CMUs regulations delineate a floor of limited communication beneath which the Bureau cannot restrict unless precipitated by the inmate's violation of imposed limitations, and then only as a disciplinary sanction following due process procedures in 28 CFR part 541.
Several commenters requested that we exempt inmates with ties to animal rights causes from CMU consideration. We will not favor a group of inmates based upon political affiliation or membership in a group, just as we do not discriminate based upon such factors. We will not make these edits.
One commenter stated that the CMU restrictions violate Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. This article applies “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character”, which is not applicable in the situation of inmates in CMUs, and refers to “violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, cruel treatment and torture”, which, also, is inapplicable in this situation. If the commenter's concern is that CMU restrictions are cruel treatment or torture, our analysis of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution earlier in this document applies.
One commenter suggested that “a review panel of 9 to 13 members whose majority are U.S. citizens not affiliated with the prison or any federal, state, or county agency (including law enforcement agencies) should be put in place to approve or disapprove of the initial assignment of a prisoner to a CMU and of the continuation of a prisoner's assignment to a CMU after each 28 days spent in a CMU.” This suggestion is impracticable because the Bureau does not use, nor is it statutorily authorized to use, citizen groups for federal inmate designation. Two commenters suggested that “CMUs should be required to keep a secure log of all CMU-assignment and CMU-release decisions and the rationale for each decision regarding prisoner assignment or release from a CMU.” The Bureau currently maintains such assignment, release and rationale information securely, although not in in the “log” form that the commenter suggests. The commenters also suggest that such information about inmates in CMUs “should be made available upon request to family members of the prisoner or to attorneys working on behalf of the prisoner.” The commenters would also request that, “[e]ach month a statistical summary of the number of prisoners in CMUs or the number of prisoners moved to or released from a CMU should be made available publicly on an Internet site.” Information regarding inmates is protected by the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, and is accessible through procedures authorized by those statutes under 28 CFR part 513, regarding access to records.
Finally, a large number of commenters mistakenly believed that the proposed rule would permit “experimentation” on inmates in CMUs. This is simply untrue. As stated in § 540.200(c), “[t]he purpose of CMUs is to provide an inmate housing unit environment that enables staff to more effectively monitor communication between inmates in CMUs and persons in the community.” Neither the proposed rule nor the preamble to the proposed rule mention experimentation on inmates, nor does the Bureau intend to conduct experiments on inmates in CMUs.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Bureau finalizes the regulations
This regulation falls within a category of actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined to constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was reviewed by OMB.
The Bureau of Prisons has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation as required by Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this regulation justify its costs. There will be no new costs associated with this regulation. CMUs are set up in currently existing facilities, utilizing currently existing staff and resources, and no new staff and resources are required to implement these regulations. In fact, placing inmates who require communication restrictions together in a CMU decreases costs related to translation, technology use, and use of other such monitoring resources that had previously been spread throughout the Bureau in order to enable communication restrictions on inmates in general population facilities. CMUs enable the Bureau to pool such resources and concentrate them in the CMU locations. This regulation benefits public safety by minimizing the risk of dangerous communication to or from inmates in Bureau custody. This regulation clarifies the Bureau's current authority to limit and monitor the communication of inmates in CMUs, but maintains the ability of these inmates to maintain family ties and access to courts and other government officials. This permits inmates to raise issues related to their incarceration or their conditions of confinement, while minimizing potential internal or external threats.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders and detainees committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This regulation is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Prisoners.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 540 as follows.
5 U.S.C. 301; 551, 552a; 18 U.S.C. 1791, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Inmates may be designated to a CMU if evidence of the following criteria exists:
(a) The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism;
(b) The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, offense conduct, or activity
(c) The inmate has attempted, or indicates a substantial likelihood that the inmate will contact victims of the inmate's current offense(s) of conviction;
(d) The inmate committed prohibited activity related to misuse or abuse of approved communication methods while incarcerated; or
(e) There is any other substantiated/credible evidence of a potential threat to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of prison facilities, or protection of the public, as a result of the inmate's communication with persons in the community.
Inmates may be designated to CMUs only according to the following procedures:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Designation to a CMU allows greater Bureau staff management of communication with persons in the community through complete monitoring of telephone use, written correspondence, and visiting. The volume, frequency, and methods of CMU inmate contact with persons in the community may be limited as necessary to achieve the goal of total monitoring, consistent with this subpart;
(2) General conditions of confinement in the CMU may also be limited as necessary to provide greater management of communications;
(3) Designation to the CMU is not punitive and, by itself, has no effect on the length of the inmate's incarceration. Inmates in CMUs continue to earn sentence credit in accordance with the law and Bureau policy;
(4) Designation to the CMU follows the Assistant Director's decision that such placement is necessary for the safe, secure, and orderly operation of Bureau institutions, or protection of the public. The inmate will be provided an explanation of the decision in sufficient detail, unless the Assistant Director determines that providing specific information would jeopardize the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, or protection of the public;
(5) Continued designation to the CMU will be reviewed regularly by the inmate's Unit Team under circumstances providing the inmate notice and an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the Bureau's policy on Classification and Program Review of Inmates;
(6) The inmate may challenge the CMU designation decision, and any aspect of confinement therein, through the Bureau's administrative remedy program.
(a)
(b)
(2) All such correspondence is subject to staff inspection in the inmate's presence for contraband and to ensure its qualification as privileged communication with the inmate's attorney. Inmates may not seal such outgoing mail before giving it to staff for processing. After inspection for contraband, the inmate must then seal the approved outgoing mail material in the presence of staff and immediately give the sealed material to the observing staff for further processing.
(c)
(1) U.S. courts;
(2) Federal judges;
(3) U.S. Attorney's Offices;
(4) Members of U.S. Congress;
(5) The Bureau of Prisons;
(6) Other federal law enforcement entities; or
(7) The inmate's attorney (privileged communications only).
(d) Electronic messaging may be limited to two messages, per calendar week, to and from a single recipient at the discretion of the Warden.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) Regular visits may be simultaneously monitored and recorded, both visually and auditorily, either in person or electronically.
(2) The Warden may require such visits to be conducted in English, or simultaneously translated by an approved interpreter.
(b)
(c) For convicted inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551), regulations and policies previously established under 28 CFR part 543 are applicable.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule; correction.
The Coast Guard published a final rule in the
This rule is effective February 17, 2015.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718–354–4195, Email
To view the final rule published on January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2011), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to
On January 15, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule (80 FR 2011) to establish and modify anchorage grounds within the Port of New York. The rule becomes effective February 17, 2015. There was an error in an amendatory instruction in that rule and as reflected in 33 CFR 1.05–1(h), the Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG–0943), has authority to issue corrections to rules.
In attempting to revise paragraph (f)(2) of 33 CFR 110.155, we mistakenly referred to paragraph (f) in amendatory instruction 2 on page 80 FR 2013 of that rule. This rule fixes that error by correcting the amendatory instruction.
In rule FR Doc. 2015–00465, published on January 15, 2015, (80 FR 2011), make the following correction:
On page 2013, in the second column, on line 9, correct the paragraph reference “(f)” to read “(f)(2)”.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; modification of effective date.
The Coast Guard is modifying the effective date of a published temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Morgan City (Berwick Bay) Railroad Bridge across the Atchafalaya River, mile 17.5 (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Morgan City-Port Allen Alternate Route) mile 0.3) in Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The modification of the date is necessary to further minimize the effects on navigation caused by additional repairs required for the bridge. The deviation is necessary to complete the previously approved repairs and to allow additional repairs to the fender system. This deviation allows for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for four consecutive hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon with an opening in the middle to pass vessels for five weekdays over a two-week period.
The deviation published in the
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–1066] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671–2128, email
On January 16, 2014, the Coast Guard's notice of temporary deviation from regulations under the same docket number, USCG–2014–1066 was published in the
Notices of the deviation schedule will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System. A Broadcast Notice to Mariners will be used to update mariners of any changes to the planned schedule for this deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
At the request of Chris Samples Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station KXDJ(FM), Channel 252C2, Spearman, Texas, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by substituting Channel 221A for vacant Channel 252A at Silverton, Texas to accommodate the Application that requests to upgrade the facilities of Station KXDJ(FM) from Channel 252C2 to Channel 252C1 at Spearman, Texas. The channel substitution at Silverton, Texas would be in the public interest because it would accommodate the Application and eliminate the Station KICA–FM 73.215 short-spacing. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 221A can be allotted to Silverton, Texas consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with a site restriction located 7.8 kilometers (4.9 miles) east of Silverton. The reference coordinates are 34–28–15 NL and 101–13–09 WL.
Effective February 23, 2015.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Audio Division, on its own motion, deletes eighteen vacant allotments in various communities in Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. These vacant allotments have been auctioned through our competitive bidding process, and are considered unsold permits that were included in Auction 91. We are deleting these vacant allotments from the FM Table, because there were no
Effective January 22, 2015.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) proposes revising its regulations to accept covered disclosures of wrongdoing from employees working under a contract or grant with the Federal government.
Written or electronic comments must be received on or before March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email:
• Fax: (202) 254–3711.
• Mail: Office of General Counsel, 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of General Counsel, 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036.
Lisa V. Terry, General Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, by telephone at (202) 254–3600, by facsimile at (202) 254–3711, or by email at
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) proposes to revise its regulations to expand who may file a whistleblower disclosure with OSC. This revision will allow employees of Federal contractors, subcontractors, and grantees to disclose wrongdoing within the Federal government if they work at or on behalf of a U.S. government component for which OSC has jurisdiction to accept disclosures.
Congress implemented the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Public Law 95–454, 92 Stat. 1111, and the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), Public Law 101–12, 103 Stat. 17, codified at 5 U.S.C. 1201,
Hence, since 1979, Congress has deputized Federal employees, as insiders, to safely disclose wrongdoing they witness or experience in the workplace. The Federal workforce has changed significantly since the passage of the CSRA, notably in the government's increased reliance on contractors. In the modern workforce, employees of contractors, subcontractors, and grantees (collectively “contractors”) often work alongside Federal employees, having similar if not identical duties. Thus contractors are similarly situated to observe or experience the same type of wrongdoing as are Federal employees. According contractors a safe channel to report wrongdoing within the government advances Congress's purpose in enacting the CSRA and WPA. Moreover, Congress recently extended protection against retaliation to government contractors who make whistleblower disclosures, thereby signaling its encouragement of such disclosures. OSC deems such protection against retaliation a precondition to asking insiders to risk their careers to report wrongdoing.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (NDAA), passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, established a “pilot program” to enhance contractor protection from reprisal for a disclosure of information that the contractor reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a Federal contract or grant; a gross waste of Federal funds; an abuse of authority relating to a Federal contract or grant; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or a violation of law, rule or regulation related to a Federal contract or grant.
Under the proposed rule, OSC may receive disclosures from current and former contractors who allege retaliation for making a protected disclosure under 41 U.S.C. 4712, if they work or worked on behalf of a U.S. government agency in which Federal employees are themselves eligible to file disclosures. The proposed rule will therefore limit OSC's review of disclosures by Federal contractors to those who are both covered by the NDAA and working at agencies over which OSC already has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1213. For example, OSC lacks jurisdiction over employees of the U.S. Postal Service and, therefore, will not have jurisdiction over disclosures made by contractors working for the U.S. Postal Service. See OSC's Web site at
As with disclosures made by Federal employees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1213, any disclosure made by a contractor that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information that is specifically prohibited by law or by Executive Order will be transmitted to the National Security Advisor, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Senate. 5 U.S.C. 1213(j). The transmission will terminate OSC's involvement with the disclosure.
Once a disclosure is received from an eligible contractor, OSC will evaluate the information and make a determination as to whether there is a “substantial likelihood” that it discloses
If OSC determines that a disclosure meets the “substantial likelihood” threshold, the Special Counsel will refer the matter to the relevant agency head, who will be required to conduct an investigation into the disclosure. The identity of a contractor who makes a disclosure to OSC will not be revealed without his or her consent, unless the Special Counsel determines that there is an imminent danger to public health or safety, or an imminent violation of criminal law. OSC does not consider anonymous disclosures. Any disclosure submitted anonymously will be referred to the Office of Inspector General at the appropriate agency.
Contractors who wish to report government wrongdoing to OSC under this rule will be encouraged to use OSC Form 12, which is available at OSC's Web site,
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Investigations, Law enforcement, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSC proposes to amend 5 CFR part 1800 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1212(e).
(a)
(b)
(1) Filers are encouraged to use Form OSC–12 (“Disclosure of Information”) to file a disclosure of the type of information described in paragraph (a) of this section with OSC. This form provides more information about OSC jurisdiction, and procedures for processing whistleblower disclosures. Form OSC–12 is available:
(i) By writing to OSC, at: Office of Special Counsel, Disclosure Unit, 1730
(ii) By calling OSC, at: (800) 572–2249 (toll-free), or (202) 254–3600 (in the Washington, DC area); or
(iii) Online, at:
(2) Filers may use another written format to submit a disclosure to OSC, but the submission should include:
(i) The name, mailing address, and telephone number(s) of the person(s) making the disclosure(s), and a time when OSC can contact that person about his or her disclosure;
(ii) The department or agency, location and organizational unit complained of; and
(iii) A statement as to whether the filer consents to disclosure of his or her identity by OSC to the agency involved in connection with any OSC referral to that agency.
(3) A disclosure can be filed in writing with OSC by any of the following methods:
(i) By mail, to: Office of Special Counsel, Disclosure Unit, 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036–4505;
(ii) By fax, to: (202) 254–3711; or
(iii) Electronically, at:
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 44,690-acre “Squaw Valley–Miramonte” viticultural area in Fresno County, California. The proposed viticultural area does not overlap any established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by March 23, 2015.
Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120–01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions requesting the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the region within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed viticultural AVA;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Christine Flannigan, owner of the Sierra Peaks Winery and Purgatory Vineyards, on behalf of herself and other members of the Squaw Valley Grape Growers Group, proposing the establishment of the “Squaw Valley–Miramonte” AVA. The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA is located in Fresno County, California, approximately 40 miles east of the city of Fresno. The proposed AVA is a largely rural region in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and includes the communities of Squaw Valley, Dunlap, and Miramonte. The proposed AVA does not overlap any established AVAs.
The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA contains approximately 44,690 acres and has 3 bonded wineries and 5 commercially producing vineyards, covering a total of 7.5 acres, distributed across the proposed AVA. The petition states that vineyards within the proposed AVA are small due to the region's steep and rugged terrain, which requires most vineyard work to be done by hand rather than by machine. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA include its climate, topography, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA derives its name from the communities of Squaw Valley and Miramonte. Squaw Valley is the largest community within the proposed AVA and is located in the western portion of the proposed AVA. The community of Squaw Valley appears on the Tucker Mountain USGS quadrangle map, as does a large valley labeled “Squaw Valley.” Additionally, the same map shows the Squaw Valley Cemetery and the Squaw Valley School. The petition also included evidence that the name “Squaw Valley” is associated with businesses in the proposed AVA, including Squaw Valley Realty, Squaw Valley Trading Center, Squaw Valley Motel, and Squaw Valley Herb Gardens.
In order to avoid confusion with other locations in the United States that are known as Squaw Valley, including the famous Squaw Valley ski resort in Placer County, California, the petitioner added “Miramonte” to the proposed AVA name. As shown on the Miramonte quadrangle map, Miramonte is a small community in the easternmost portion of the proposed AVA. The Miramonte Conservation Camp, a State of California facility, is also shown on the Miramonte quadrangle map. The community of Miramonte is served by the Miramonte Post Office. TTB notes that several established AVAs have combined the names of geographic features or communities located within the particular AVA in order to provide a geographically distinct name for the AVA, including Pine Mountain–Cloverdale Peak (27 CFR 9.220) and Fort Ross-Seaview (27 CFR 9.221).
The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA is a region of steep, rocky slopes in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. To the north and east of the proposed AVA is the Sequoia National Forest. The San Joaquin Valley, which includes the cities of Fresno and Orange Cove, is to the south, west, and northwest of the proposed AVA. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from approximately 1,600 feet along its proposed western and southern borders to approximately 3,500 feet along its proposed eastern border.
The proposed northern boundary follows the northern boundaries of several sections on the Luckett Mountain USGS quadrangle map. Although the features of the region immediately outside the proposed northern boundary are identical to those within the proposed AVA, the proposed northern boundary marks the northern extent of current viticulture in the region. Approximately 5 miles north of the proposed northern boundary is the Sequoia National Forest, which was excluded from the proposed AVA primarily because its public lands are unavailable for commercial viticulture. The eastern portion of the proposed boundary also follows the boundary of the Sequoia National Forest. The southern portion of the proposed boundary follows the Fresno-Tulare County line and several section lines on the Tucker Mountain and Orange Cove North USGS quadrangle maps. To the immediate south of the proposed boundary, the elevations are lower and broad valleys are more numerous than within the proposed AVA. The San Joaquin Valley is just farther south of that area. The western portion of the proposed boundary follows straight lines drawn between mountain peaks and separates the higher elevations of the proposed AVA from both the lower mountain slopes to the immediate west of the proposed boundary and from the San Joaquin Valley, farther to the west.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA include its climate, topography, and soils.
The petition provided information on the temperature and precipitation within the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions.
The data
According to the petition, cool daytime temperatures and warm nighttime temperatures during the growing season produce higher levels of sugar and anthocyanins (pigments responsible for the color of grape skins) at harvest. Additionally, grapes grown in moderate climates such as the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA have higher levels of malic acid (an organic compound that contributes to the flavor of grapes) than grapes grown in warmer regions, such as the nearby San Joaquin Valley. Finally, the cooler temperatures of the proposed AVA result in later harvest dates than occur in the warmer San Joaquin Valley.
The data in the table shows that the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA receives more rainfall annually than the regions to the northwest and southwest, within the San Joaquin Valley, and less rainfall than the region to the east in the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Sequoia National Forest. The high rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA increase the risk of erosion on the steep hillsides. In order to minimize erosion, vineyard owners plant cover crops between vineyard rows and mow between the rows, instead of using a disk harrow to till the soil. Vineyards located in areas with high rainfall amounts are usually more susceptible to
The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA is located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The terrain is characterized by steep and rugged hillsides covered with boulders and oak woodlands, although a few valleys exist within the proposed AVA. Slope angles within the proposed AVA range from 5 percent to over 75 percent, and elevations range from approximately 1,600 feet to approximately 3,500 feet. The following table shows the elevations and average slope angles of the vineyards within the proposed AVA.
Immediately outside of the northern boundary of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA, the terrain is similar to that found within the proposed AVA. However, this region was not included in the proposed AVA due to a lack of viticulture. The Sequoia National Forest, located approximately 5 miles north of the proposed AVA, was excluded from the proposed AVA not only because of its higher elevations but also because its status as a national forest makes the region unavailable for commercial viticulture. The Sequoia National Forest also borders the proposed AVA to the east, as does a small mountainous region that is not within the national forest that was excluded from the proposed AVA because its higher, steeper elevations are unsuitable for viticulture. To the south and west of the proposed AVA, the elevations become lower and the slope angles become shallower as the foothills give way to the broad, flat terrain of the San Joaquin Valley.
The topography of the proposed AVA has an effect on viticulture. The ruggedness of the terrain limits the amount of flat, open spaces, so the vineyards are planted on the mountain slopes. The steepness of the slopes allows for only very limited use of mechanized spray and harvest equipment, so much of the vineyard work is done by hand. Due to the difficulty of working the vineyards by hand, individual vineyards within the proposed AVA are small. By contrast, vineyards within the San Joaquin Valley are generally much larger because the broad, open valley provides ample space for vineyards, and machinery can be used more safely and easily on the flat terrain. The steep slopes of the proposed AVA increase the risk of erosion, which is controlled by planting cover crops and mowing between the vineyard rows instead of disking. However, the steep hillsides also promote increased airflow and drainage, which lessen the risk of mildew and rot. Finally, the high elevations of the proposed AVA allow the vineyards to receive more sunlight than vineyards at lower elevations within the San Joaquin Valley because fog is generally not present at elevations above 1,600 feet.
The majority of the soils within the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA are derived from granitic material, mainly quartz diorite. The three most common soil series are the Vista, Sierra, and Auberry series. All three soil series are described as having good drainage, which reduces the risk of root disease. The soils within the proposed AVA have pH levels ranging from a slightly acidic 5.6 to a neutral 7.3, levels which are adequate for viticulture and do not promote overly vigorous vine or canopy growth. The soils within the proposed AVA are severely deficient in nitrogen, a nutrient necessary for vine growth, and therefore require supplementation. Additionally, soils in some of the vineyards within the proposed AVA have an excess of potassium, which interferes with the vines' ability to uptake magnesium. As a result, magnesium must be added to the soil in these vineyards.
To the north of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA, the soils are primarily of the Coarsegold and Trabuco series. Coarsegold series soils are derived from weathered schist, while Trabuco series soils are derived from igneous rock. The most common soil series east of the proposed AVA are the Holland series, derived from weathered granitic rock, and the Aiken series, derived from volcanic rocks. The soils in the area directly east of the proposed AVA are more acidic than the soils within the proposed AVA due to deep mats of decomposing needle litter from conifer trees. South of the proposed AVA, rock outcropping complexes such as the Auberry Rock Outcrop and the Blasingame Rock Outcrop are common. Farther south, within the San Joaquin Valley, alluvial soils such as San Joaquin loam and San Joaquin sandy loam become common. To the west of the proposed AVA, the most common soil series are the Hanford and Greenfield series. The soils west of the proposed AVA are less acidic, have finer textures, and are comprised primarily of alluvium.
In summary, the climate, topography, and soils of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The region to the north has higher, steeper elevations than the proposed AVA. The region to the east has higher, steeper elevations, as well as higher precipitation amounts and higher soil acidity levels than the proposed AVA. Portions of the regions to the north and east of the proposed were also excluded because they are part of the Sequoia National Forest and therefore are unavailable for commercial viticulture. To the south, west, and northwest of the proposed AVA lies the San Joaquin Valley, which has low elevations, flat terrain, and soils comprised primarily of alluvium. Additionally, within the San Joaquin Valley, average monthly high temperatures are warmer and annual precipitation amounts are lower than
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 44,690-acre Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Squaw Valley–Miramonte,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). TTB does not believe that the term “Squaw Valley,” standing alone, has viticultural significance, as this name is associated with multiple locations outside the proposed AVA. Although the USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) lists 6 uses of the name “Squaw Valley” within the proposed AVA, it also lists an additional 33 uses in 7 States, including locations in Placer, Lake, Shasta, Plumas, and Lassen Counties in California. Additionally, TTB does not believe that the term “Miramonte,” standing alone, has viticultural significance, as this name is also associated with multiple locations outside the proposed AVA. The GNIS lists 6 uses of the term “Miramonte” within the proposed AVA, but also lists an additional 17 uses within California and Colorado. Therefore, if TTB establishes this proposed AVA, only the full name “Squaw Valley–Miramonte” will be recognized as a term of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Squaw Valley–Miramonte” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. The approval of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA would not affect any existing AVA.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA on wine labels that include the term “Squaw Valley–Miramonte,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 146 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB–2015–
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202–453–2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Orange Cove North, Calif., 1966;
(2) Pine Flat Dam, Calif., 1965; photoinspected 1978;
(3) Luckett Mtn., Calif., provisional edition 1987;
(4) Verplank Ridge, Calif., provisional edition 1987;
(5) Miramonte, Calif., 1966; and
(6) Tucker Mtn., Calif., 1966.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is located on the Orange Cove North map, at the southwest corner of section 21, T14S/R25E. From the beginning point, proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line to the marked 3,355-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 5, T14S/R25E; then
(2) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Pine Flat Dam map and over the marked 3,354-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 32, T13S/R25E, and then continuing northeasterly in a straight line and crossing onto the Luckett Mountain map, proceed to the marked 3,489-foot summit of Dalton Mountain, section 22, T13S/R25E; then
(3) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the Sequoia National Forest boundary line at the northwest corner of section 28, T13S/R26E; then
(4) Proceed east along the Sequoia National Forest boundary line, crossing onto the Verplank Ridge map, and continue south, then east, then south along the national forest boundary line, crossing onto the Miramonte map, and then continue south, then east along the national forest boundary line to the northeast corner of section 5, T14S/R27E; then
(5) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 5, 8, and 17, T14S/R27E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then
(6) Proceed east along the northern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R27E, to the northeast corner of that section; then
(7) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 21, 28, and 33, T14S/R27E, to the Fresno–Tulare County boundary line at the southeast corner of section 33; then
(8) Proceed west along the Fresno–Tulare County boundary line, crossing onto the Tucker Mountain map, to the southwest corner of section 34, T14S/R26E; then
(9) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34, 27, 22, and 15, T14S/R26E, to the northwest corner of section15; then
(10) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of sections 9, 8, and 7, T14S/R26E, and sections 12 and 11, T14S/R25E, to the southwest corner of section 11; then
(11) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 15 and 22, T14S/R25E, to the southeast corner of section 22; then
(12) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 22, T14S/R25E, and, crossing onto the Orange Cove North map, continue west along the southern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R25E, returning to the beginning point.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period on proposed amendment.
We are announcing the receipt of revisions pertaining to a previously proposed amendment to the Colorado regulatory program (hereinafter, the “Colorado program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA” or “the Act”). Colorado proposes additions of rules and revisions to Rules of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, 2 CCR 407–2, concerning the protection and replacement of the hydrologic balance, subsidence, valid existing rights determinations, roads, requirements associated with annual reclamation reports, prime farmland determinations, various definitions, permit revisions, performance bonds, backfill placement methods and requirements, backfilling and grading, and revegetation. Colorado intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Colorado program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76109), is re-opened. We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., mountain standard time (m.s.t.) February 23, 2015. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on February 17, 2015. We will accept requests to speak until 4:00 p.m., m.s.t., on February 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by “CO–040–FOR” or Docket ID number OSM–2011–0002, by either of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “III. Public Comment Procedures” in the
In addition to viewing the docket and obtaining copies of documents at
Alan Boehms, Telephone: (303) 293–5012. Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Colorado program on December 15, 1980. You can find background information on the Colorado program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Colorado program in the December 15, 1980,
By letter dated April 8, 2011, Colorado sent us a proposed amendment to its approved regulatory program (Administrative Record Docket ID No. OSM–2011–0002) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Specifically, Colorado proposes substantive revisions to the Colorado Code of Regulations at 2 CCR 407–2 Rules 1.07 (Procedures for Valid Existing Rights Determinations), 2.01 (General Requirements for Permits), 2.02 (General Requirements for Coal Exploration), 2.03 (Application for Permit for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations: Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information), 2.04 (Application for Permit for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations: Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources), 2.05 (Application for Permit for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations: Minimum Requirements for Operation and Reclamation Plans), 2.07 (Public Participation and Approval of Permit Applications), 2.08 (Permit Review, Revisions and Renewals and Transfer, Sale and Assignment), 2.11 (Challenging Ownership or Control Listings and Findings), 4.03 (Roads), 4.05 (Hydrologic Balance), 4.06 (Topsoil), 4.07 (Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings), 4.08 (Use of Explosives), 4.14 (Backfilling and Grading), 4.15 (Revegetation), 4.16 (Postmining Land Use), 4.20
As a result of comments received for the
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Colorado program.
If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) affirms core principles guiding its approach to 911 governance and proposes mechanisms to ensure, in cooperation with state and local partners, that the nation's 911 governance structure keeps pace with evolving technology so that all entities providing 911 service capabilities remain accountable for reliable 911 call completion and accurate situational awareness. This document proposes
Submit comments on or before March 9, 2015 and reply comments by April 7, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket numbers PS 14–193 and PS 13–75, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
Eric P. Schmidt, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418–1214 or
This is a summary of the Commission's
One of the fundamental purposes for which Congress created the Federal Communications Commission is to “promot[e] safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.” Nowhere does the Commission give higher expression to this overarching obligation than in its efforts to ensure that the American people have access to reliable and resilient 911 communications service. To be sure, this is not the Commission's responsibility alone. State regulators and local emergency response agencies play critical roles in ensuring that 911 is available when needed and that every 911 call will be answered, and it is undoubtedly in the public interest that the Commission should work in close partnership with these stakeholders to carry out its responsibility. Nevertheless, we know that the technologies and commercial relationships that form the foundation of the 911 system are transitioning and, as a result, becoming increasingly interstate in nature. The Commission is uniquely positioned to ensure 911 reliability on a national scale and across different communications platforms and technologies, to promote the deployment of new and innovative 911 technologies by an increasingly diverse array of stakeholders, and to ensure that the benefits of advanced 911 service extend to all Americans.
The importance of ensuring nationwide 911 reliability as technologies transition has been underscored by several recent disruptions of 911 service that have affected the public in multiple states or across the entire nation. For example, in April 2014, a software coding error at a Colorado-based 911 provider's call routing facility led to a loss of 911 service to a population of more than 11 million in seven states—California, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington—for up to six hours. In addition, the state of Hawaii has experienced multiple disruptions in 911 service since January 2014, and the entire state of Vermont lost 911 service for 40 minutes in August 2014. A growing number of disruptions to 911 service are caused by software malfunctions, database failures, and errors in conversion from legacy to IP-based network protocols. These failures may occur in portions of the network that are not directly analogous to the legacy architecture. Moreover, these new modes of failure have the potential to affect many states at once, or even all of a service provider's customers nationwide.
While innovative technologies have the potential to improve many aspects of 911 service and enhance the ability of first responders to do their jobs more effectively, these recent outages have revealed that technology changes may also introduce new vulnerabilities. While the Commission has previously undertaken to monitor the transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911) technologies to determine whether our rules should be revised or expanded to cover new best practices or additional entities, recent events have demonstrated that the pace of change already requires prompt action to review these vulnerabilities. Failure to take appropriate action risks undermining the reliability and resiliency of current 911 services and endangering the transition to NG911 technologies that offer even greater public safety benefits. The American public must have confidence that 911 will work every time help is needed. Any failure to meet this expectation puts individual lives at stake and erodes
In this
It is the policy of the Commission to encourage and support efforts by states and localities to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable 911 service. As IP-based 911 service providers transition to architectures that extend beyond the boundaries of any state and implement network changes that may affect quality of service on a regional or national scale, consistent and collaborative governance is not just good governance, but essential to maintaining the vital public benefits of 911. Together with our state and local partners, the Commission has the public safety imperative to oversee each of the increasingly complex component pieces of the nation's 911 infrastructure, and to ensure that service providers within our respective jurisdictions are held fully accountable for providing reliable 911 service to all Americans. Where there are multi-state aspects of the 911 architecture or technology trends that may increase the risk of failure or cause confusion to PSAPs and end-users, the Commission must, and will, take a leadership role in resolving such risks and confusion.
While we seek comment on specific proposals designed to address the challenges of the transition to NG911, we believe it would be useful at the outset to articulate the general goals that serve as a framework for these proposals. We start from the proposition that all entities providing 911 communications services, both incumbents and new entrants, occupy a unique position of public trust. Increased innovation and enhanced competition in the 911 ecosystem bring tremendous potential to enhance the functionality and utility of 911, but these transitions must be managed in a manner that maximizes the availability, reliability, and resiliency of the 911 network, and ensures the accountability of all participants in the 911 communications ecosystem. Therefore, we believe that every entity with a role in 911 call completion should be guided by two principles: First, any new elements of 911 architecture or service should have the necessary redundancy and reliability safeguards, along with the appropriate governance mechanisms, to maximize reliability and protect public safety. Second, significant changes in 911 service should be coordinated in a transparent manner with the Commission and with state and local authorities. To the extent that technology transitions and changes in the market for 911 services create real or perceived gaps in the delivery of reliable and resilient 911 service, the Commission will act, in cooperation with state and local partners, to close those gaps and set clear expectations regarding each service.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we first seek comment on specific proposals to advance the principles described above by ensuring that the Commission's 911 rules keep pace with changing technology. We then seek comment on whether it may be appropriate to take further steps, in coordination with state and local authorities, to promote a national governance structure that proactively increases end-to-end accountability and produces measurable results. By initiating this rulemaking, we do not intend to impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates on the nation's 911 infrastructure when different states and communities need flexibility to respond to each situation in the way that best suits their particular circumstances. Rather, we seek to ensure that the Commission remains equipped, consistent with its statutory mandates and existing legal authority, with the proper regulatory tools to enforce continued and clear lines of accountability for reliable 911 call completion, including as the nation transitions to an IP-based NG911 architecture.
We also emphasize that the purpose of this rulemaking is not to supplant state action. To the contrary, consistent with our statutory mandate under the 911 Act, our goal is to “encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure,” and to “consult and cooperate with State and local officials” when developing national policies with respect to 911 governance, implementation, and reliability. We recognize that many decisions regarding 911 deployment, operations, and cost recovery are best made at the state and local level, and continued oversight by states and localities is vital to ensuring that 911 service remains effective and reliable in every community across the country. Our action today is intended to ensure that state and local partners continue to be empowered to fulfill this important oversight responsibility within their jurisdictions, and we seek comment on a variety of ways that the Commission can assist in local, state, and regional efforts to maintain and improve 911 service quality. Thus, we do not intend to interfere with the right of state and local 911 authorities to contract for the services they desire or to determine the best path for deployment of NG911 technologies within their jurisdictions. We also note that, in appropriate circumstances, federal rules may ease burdens on state and local jurisdictions by obviating the need for them to promulgate their own potentially disparate requirements.
The Commission adopted § 12.4 based on indications that during the 2012 derecho storm ILECs providing 911 service in affected areas failed to follow established network reliability best practices in three specific areas, which resulted in widespread and prolonged 911 outages. To address these deficiencies and ensure improved reliability in the future, the rule contains two components: (1) A substantive requirement that “covered 911 service providers shall take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service with respect to circuit diversity, central-office backup power, and diverse network monitoring” and (2) a reporting requirement that such providers certify annually whether they have implemented specified best practices or reasonable alternative measures in each of those substantive areas. The rule defines “covered 911 service providers” as those that provide specified 911 capabilities, or the functional equivalent, “directly to a PSAP”—typically meaning those entities that provide 911 services pursuant to a contractual agreement with a PSAP or emergency authority.
In light of the multistate 911 outages discussed above and the lessons they provide about 911 network architectures already in use in many parts of the nation, we propose to expand the scope of entities covered by § 12.4 (
To ensure that § 12.4 keeps pace with evolving network architectures and reliability risks, we also propose to amend § 12.4(b) to provide that “all covered 911 service providers shall take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service.” This obligation would include—but not be limited to—the existing areas of circuit diversity, central-office backup power, and diverse network monitoring. While the current § 12.4 only addresses reliability with respect to these three specific areas, we believe it would demonstrate better governance for this rule to require covered entities to take reasonable measures generally to ensure the reliability of 911 service, with specific behavior identified within this rule as necessary to add more detail.
We seek comment on additional network reliability practices that should be incorporated into § 12.4 and its associated certification requirements. Based on the Bureau's findings with respect to the April 2014 multistate 911 outage and other large-scale disruptions in 911 service described above, we anticipate that one area of particular importance will be the reliability and testing of software and databases used to process 911 calls, including planned maintenance and software upgrades. We also believe that the certification should indicate whether a service provider's IP-based 911 architecture is geographically distributed, load-balanced, and capable of automatic reroutes to backup equipment in the event of a hardware, network, software or database failure. Finally, we believe the network monitoring component of the existing rule should cover not just the physical diversity of monitoring facilities, but also the proper prioritization of critical network alarms. What other measures should be implemented by covered 911 service providers to mitigate the risk of failure and geographic scope of impacts on 911 service? For example, should the certification address factors such as cybersecurity and supply chain risk management?
We also believe that § 12.4 should reflect and require certification with respect to the duty to take reasonable measures to share information and situational awareness, as appropriate under the circumstances, during disruptions in 911 service. We seek comment on the scope of information and communications that should be reasonably expected from various entities in the 911 ecosystem, including those with direct contractual relationships with PSAPs and those that provide service on a vendor or sub-contractor basis. At a minimum, we believe the certification should indicate whether a covered 911 service provider has a process in place to notify PSAPs of an outage within the timeframes specified in part 4 of the Commission's rules. While this proposal would not change such providers' substantive obligations under part 4, it would provide assurance that they have taken proactive steps to successfully perform their duties under the rules if the need arises. Service providers may also be able to detect outages in real time through call counts, ALI queries, and other methods of analyzing network traffic. To what extent should the certification reflect reasonable measures to detect and disseminate such real-time outage information?
We seek comment on these proposals and on potential alternative approaches. Are there other topics or practices should be incorporated into “reasonable measures” and annual certification requirements? Should any components of the certification require testing or analysis by an independent third party, or is the certifying entity's own attestation sufficient? Should the Commission establish standards, best practices, or other mechanisms to promote the reliability of IP-based 911 network elements and processes not currently covered by § 12.4? Should such standards be voluntary (
The functionality of the nation's 911 networks increasingly depends on complex relationships between service providers and PSAPs, and often among multiple service providers, sub-contractors, and other affiliated entities themselves. While states and localities are well-positioned under our cooperative governance framework to oversee many aspects of these relationships based on the needs of the PSAPs and residents within their borders, critical 911 network infrastructure is increasingly shared among many jurisdictions and beyond the oversight of individual emergency authorities, and more complex in its design and operation. Accordingly, the end-to-end reliability of a 911 network depends on the sum of its parts and how they function together. We must ensure that this transition process is open and transparent.
Transparency is essential as the technologies and entities delivering 911 service capabilities evolve over time. In accordance with section 251 of the Communications Act, the Commission's rules require ILECs to provide public notice regarding any network change that will (1) Affect a competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service, (2) affect the ILEC's interoperability with other service providers, or (3) affect the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate network, as well as public notice of network changes that “[w]ill result in the retirement of copper loops or copper subloops, and the replacement of such loops with fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops.” While the Commission adopted these requirements primarily to “promote[ ] open and vigorous competition” among local exchange carriers, as contemplated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, network change notifications have also yielded information on certain changes in 911 network architecture that affect interconnection with an ILEC. However, an increasing number of covered 911 service providers are not ILECs and are not required to file notifications when changes to their networks may affect 911 connectivity.
We therefore propose to require notification to the Commission and the public of major changes in any covered 911 service provider's network architecture or scope of 911 services that are not otherwise covered by existing network change notification requirements. Although parties to individual contracts for 911 services may be aware of major changes in network architecture or in the entities responsible for various 911 functionalities, the public also has a vested interest in understanding changes that may affect its access to 911. Transparency will also promote cooperation and information-sharing among the increasingly diverse range of entities across the 911 ecosystem. We therefore believe that public disclosure of major changes in 911 service is a key step toward increasing accountability when such changes are not initiated at the request of a PSAP or emergency authority or implemented on an emergency basis to mitigate or recover from the effects of an outage.
We seek comment on this proposal. Which 911 service providers should be subject to notification requirements? Should OSPs, ILECs, SSPs, and their sub-contractors each be responsible for reporting major changes in their respective facilities and networks? Or should ILECs and/or SSPs providing 911 services directly to PSAPs be responsible for notification of major changes by their subcontractors and other affiliated entities? We recognize that in many instances changes in 911 network architecture and the entities providing service occur at the request of PSAPs and state or local emergency authorities that desire new or different 911 capabilities. Should such changes be subject to notification requirements, and if so, who should provide the notification? Who should receive the notification? Should the Commission collect and publish such notifications, as it does with wireline network change notifications required under section 251 of the Act and associated Commission rules? How could public safety professional organizations such as NENA and APCO facilitate the distribution of such information to affected PSAPs? To allow sufficient time for public inspection without unnecessarily delaying beneficial network changes, we propose to require notification at least 60 days before major changes in 911 service take effect. We seek comment, however, on whether a shorter—or longer—time period would strike a more appropriate balance.
We also seek comment on what changes should be considered “major” for notification purposes. In general, we propose that changes with impact on 911 service in more than a single state should be among the changes considered major. We seek comment on this proposal. Would such an approach lead industry to adopt incremental, state-by-state changes that may not be as efficient? Should we establish thresholds based on factors such as the geography or population affected by a change in the provision of 911 service, regardless of whether their effect is limited to a single state or extends to multiple states? Beyond geographic or population criteria, are there other criteria that for changes in 911 service or network architecture that should trigger a notification requirement? Would it be helpful for an advisory committee such as CSRIC to develop recommendations regarding the types of 911 network changes that should require public notification? Do any existing CSRIC best practices or recommendations provide guidance?
In addition to proposing public notification of major changes in 911 networks as described above, we believe that additional safeguards are needed where such changes involve discontinuance, reduction or impairment of existing 911 services that are essential to call completion. As with network change notifications, the Commission already has rules requiring common carriers and interconnected VoIP providers to obtain authorization to “discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community, or part of a community.” Similarly, we believe that incumbent 911 service providers that have historically taken responsibility for reliable 911 call completion have undertaken a public trust that cannot simply be relinquished at will. While incumbents are entitled to make decisions about their businesses and pursue new and different lines of service, they are not entitled to do so in a manner that endangers the public or leaves stakeholders uninformed with respect to the functioning of the combined network.
We therefore propose that covered 911 service providers that seek to discontinue, reduce, or impair existing 911 service in a way that does not trigger already existing authorization requirements should be required to obtain Commission approval. We seek comment on this proposal, and on ways the Commission might address the details of implementation. Are these changes in 911 service of such critical importance that Commission approval should be required before such changes proceed? What processes do states and localities currently have in place to evaluate requests to discontinue, reduce or impair existing 911 service, and how can the Commission support and encourage such processes? Would reliance on states and localities to oversee discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of existing 911 services better serve the policy goals of transparency and accountability?
What actions by an incumbent provider short of a complete discontinuance of 911 service would constitute a reduction or impairment of service for purposes of this requirement? What criteria should the Commission use to evaluate a service provider's request to discontinue, reduce or impair existing 911 service? Which changes in the scope of 911 services offered by an incumbent would be most likely to affect reliable 911 call completion? Should the Commission adopt other requirements specific to incumbent providers seeking to exit lines of 911 service or to outsource elements of that service to third parties? Do CSRIC best practices provide guidance on these questions, and should CSRIC be charged with developing additional best practices or
To be clear, nothing in this NPRM would relieve any carrier or interconnected VoIP provider of the requirement to seek permission to discontinue, reduce, or impair service to the extent required by section 214(a) of the Act and/or the Commission's implementing rules. We do not, however, intend to create duplicative obligations for entities that are already subject to section 214(a) and associated authorization requirements. The process proposed here would apply only when entities seeking to discontinue, reduce, or impair existing 911 service are not already required to obtain approval under other existing Commission rules.
We also do not propose to require public notification or Commission approval under these rules where the discontinuance or reduction of 911 service has been requested or initiated by the PSAP or the responsible state or local emergency authority. We presume that PSAPs and emergency authorities that initiate such changes have the ability to take appropriate steps to safeguard 911 reliability in the affected facilities without Commission intervention.
Increased innovation and enhanced competition in the NG911 ecosystem hold the potential to enhance the functionality and utility of 911 while providing PSAPs and emergency authorities with greater choice over which services and products they purchase. At the same time, the increasing diversity of entities offering or planning to offer NG911 services increases the challenge of ensuring that all providers of such services will be capable of meeting appropriate standards of reliability and accountability. It is important that we set clear and consistent expectations with respect to the level of performance that providers of these services will be expected to achieve. Clarifying these obligations is essential to remove uncertainties and barriers to NG911 investment by state, local, and tribal authorities and to maintain public confidence in 911 as the transition to NG911 progresses.
Historically, states have overseen the entry of entities providing 911 service through such mechanisms as tariff conditions or issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity. However, as we have noted above, covered 911 service providers increasingly are building and operating regional and nationwide IP-based 911 networks that both extend across state boundaries and serve PSAPs in multiple states, using less well established technologies. Thus, while states continue to have authority to regulate provision of 911 service within their jurisdictions, these multi-state networks transcend the regulatory authority of any individual state. Moreover, many states have elected not to exercise jurisdiction over IP-based communications, a determination that may operate to restrict their ability to ensure the reliability of 911 service that depends on IP-based technology. We therefore believe that a federal-level process is needed to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps in oversight of providers of new 911 services. This process is not intended to supplant state action; to the contrary, it would complement existing state oversight and could be used to empower state-level action.
We propose to require covered 911 service providers that seek to offer new services that affect 911 call completion to certify to the Commission that they have the technical and operational capability to provide reliable 911 service. In addition, to the extent that the new services rely on IP-based networks, associated infrastructure such as servers and data centers, and/or associated software applications, we propose that covered 911 service providers certify that they have conducted a reliability and security risk analysis of the network components, infrastructure, and/or software that they will use to support 911 call completion. This proposal would not require Commission approval of new entrants or delay the introduction of innovative new 911 technologies. It would, however, require entities that seek to provide new critical links in 911 call completion to publicly acknowledge their responsibilities and certify their preparedness to implement relevant best practices and comply with existing Commission rules applicable to the 911 capabilities they provide. This requirement would extend only to IP-based services that are necessary for successful transmission of voice calls and other data to PSAPs. For example, a smart phone “app” that provides the ability to originate calls or text messages to 911 would be subject to certification requirements, while an app that merely enhances or adds value to a smart phone's existing 911 dialing capabilities would not.
To what extent do state laws, regulations, or common law tort liability already provide adequate assurances of such qualifications, and is there a need for uniform standards in this regard? Are there quality-of-service requirements under state law that would cover 911-related services, and if so, what entities do they cover? Is there immunity under state law against liability for the provision of 911 related services, or communications services by common carriers or others? If so, how does such immunity affect incentives among covered service providers and others to ensure that 911 service is reliable? Do the answers to these questions depend upon whether a service is IP-based? How can the Commission facilitate efforts by states and localities to oversee the effective and reliable deployment of new 911 capabilities?
If we adopt a certification requirement, which entities should be subject to it, and how should we define the scope of new services that would trigger the need for certification? What information should applicants provide to support their certifications? Should applicants be required to analyze network monitoring capabilities, support for situational awareness, and the ability to share outage information with other stakeholders? Should the certification address issues regarding geographic diversity and redundancy in the network, probabilities of equipment failing due to hardware, network, software and procedural failures, as well as the ability to switch to backup systems? To what extent should the risk analysis include cybersecurity and supply-chain risk assessments? Is it sufficient for service providers to conduct their own analysis or should we require analysis and certification by an independent third party? Would it be helpful for an advisory committee such as CSRIC to develop best practices and recommendations that would serve as a basis for a certification of compliance with best practices for new 911 capabilities and services? For example, should CSRIC be charged with recommending guidelines for the reliability and security risk analysis proposed above? Are there other parts of the communication industry or other industries that have similar certification processes? For example, could the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) self-certification for entities receiving credit card data provide guidance?
As noted above, we do not envision that the federal certification process proposed here would preempt existing state processes for certification of 911 service providers. We believe, however, that states should have the option of adopting the federal certification framework as the basis for state-level
We also do not propose that federal certification would extend to the provision of new call processing services or CPE capabilities that are provisioned by PSAPs themselves under the oversight of state and local governments. Nevertheless, we seek comment on how the Commission can work with state and local partners to ensure that the reliability of PSAP call processing is also maximized. Are there best practices or other measures that PSAPs can take to improve the diversity and robustness of their inbound communications links and the reliability of their CPE? What role should the Commission play with respect to the multi-state deployment and maintenance of new CPE technologies? We note that the Commission recently created a task force on PSAP optimization, which we anticipate will also provide insight regarding PSAP infrastructure, network architecture, and procedures, including call processing.
As demonstrated by recent outage trends, the increasing complexity of IP-based 911 network architecture, combined with the increased diversity of entities supporting 911 capabilities, creates potential obstacles to establishing prompt situational awareness and initiating recovery from major 911 outages. While current Commission rules address outage reporting to the Commission and to affected PSAPs, the experiences during large-scale 911 outages described above also indicate a need for better coordination and information-sharing among communications providers themselves and any subcontractors or vendors that provide components of the nation's 911 networks. In such outages, restoration of 911 service is likely to be significantly delayed when it is unclear which part of the 911 system has failed and which provider is responsible for repairs. A lack of coordination can also lead to the unacceptable result of multiple entities being involved in an outage but no single entity being able to provide timely and comprehensive information about the outage to the PSAPs and public that they serve.
To address these concerns, we believe that more needs to be done to address gaps in situational awareness and coordination when large-scale 911 outages affect multiple jurisdictions and service providers. First, effective information sharing is key when diagnosing and repairing problems that may span multiple providers' networks or originate with one provider but affect many others. Second, in the increasingly diverse NG911 ecosystem, it will be more and more difficult for PSAPs and 911 service providers to coordinate an effective and timely response to outages without a central clearinghouse for obtaining and disseminating critical information. Accordingly, we propose to clarify responsibility for situational awareness and coordination among 911 service providers, sub-contractors, and other affiliated entries during disruptions in 911 service. While it may not be technically or economically feasible for a single entity to monitor, control, or repair every segment of a 911 network from caller to PSAP, it would be helpful for one covered 911 service provider in each jurisdiction to perform a triage function to mitigate the duration and impact of outages.
To establish a clearinghouse mechanism for critical information during major 911 outages and other significant degradations in service, we propose to establish a class of covered 911 service providers that would assume primary responsibility for situational awareness and information sharing. These entities—which we propose to call “911 Network Operations Center (NOC) providers”—would be responsible for monitoring their networks to detect disruptions or degradations in 911 service, and for affirmatively communicating relevant information, as appropriate, to other stakeholders, including OSPs, SSPs, vendors, PSAPs, state emergency management offices, and the Commission's Operations Center. As a corollary to this proposal, 911 NOC providers would be empowered to obtain relevant information concerning outages from other covered 911 service providers, who in turn would be required to provide information in response to the 911 NOC provider's requests. 911 NOC providers would then coordinate with other stakeholders to collect and distribute information regarding the impact of outages on all affected portions of the network from call origination to completion.
We propose that the role of 911 NOC provider for each jurisdiction should be assigned to the entity responsible for transport of 911 traffic to the PSAP or PSAPs serving that jurisdiction. In many cases, we expect that this role would be assumed by the incumbent LEC, because, as noted above, ILECs have historically provided transport of 911 traffic to PSAPs and have thereby occupied the best position to maintain comprehensive situational awareness, even as SSPs and vendors have come to provide component pieces of those networks. Nevertheless, as 911 networks evolve, other entities may take on the 911 transport responsibilities that ILECs have historically provided. For example, in an NG911 environment, the 911 transport function may be performed by an ESINet provider that receives 911 traffic from originating service providers and directs the traffic to PSAPs served by the ESINet. In such cases, we envision that the ESINet provider would assume the 911 NOC provider role. We seek comment on this approach. Should ILECs, ESINet providers, and other entities responsible for 911 transport be the 911 NOC providers bearing primary responsibility for maintaining situational awareness, sharing information, and coordinating outage recovery among other affected providers? Are there situations where more than one entity can reasonably be described as being responsible for aspects of transport of 911 traffic to the PSAP or PSAPs serving a jurisdiction? In such situations, which entity would be best suited to fill the 911 NOC provider role?
Under this framework, we anticipate the need for only one 911 NOC provider in each jurisdiction; indeed, the 911 NOC provider's role as a clearinghouse for situational awareness will be most effective with a single point of contact for relevant information. We also emphasize that the proposed responsibilities of 911 NOC providers during an outage would be limited in scope. For instance, 911 NOC providers would not be expected to have omniscient situational awareness of the status of 911 network components
We do not intend these proposals to supersede or replace existing outage reporting requirements under part 4 of the Commission's rules. Thus, we begin with the assumption that all parties covered by existing part 4 requirements would continue to be required to report outages to the Commission that meet the part 4 outage thresholds, and requirements for certain service providers to notify PSAPs and other “911 Special Facilities” of outages affecting 911 service would continue to apply independently of any action taken in this proceeding. We note, however, that the Commission has historically relied on mandatory outage reporting to gather statistical information on trends in communications reliability to assess the effectiveness of best practices and provide policy guidance on efforts to increase network reliability. While closely related, the need to share information and situational awareness among service providers affected by an outage may pose different challenges requiring different oversight mechanisms. We therefore seek comment on the alternative proposal of whether certain obligations currently in part 4 would be better assigned to 911 NOC providers under the framework proposed above. For example, should current responsibilities to notify PSAPs of outages affecting 911 service be incorporated into the information-sharing responsibilities of the 911 NOC provider, rather than the outage-reporting responsibilities of multiple service providers under current § 4.9? Should the Commission consider any other changes to part 4 in light of the responsibilities of 911 NOC providers proposed here?
We also seek comment on processes and mechanisms that 911 NOC providers and other covered 911 service providers could use to carry out their situational awareness and coordination responsibilities proposed here. As described above with respect to reliability certification requirements, service providers may be able to detect outages in real time by tracking the number of 911 calls that enter and exit their networks, an increase in call failure rates, positioning failure rates, or the number of calls that result in an ALI or LIS query from the destination PSAP. Service providers should have alarms configured to bring such discrepancies to the attention of appropriate personnel. To what extent should 911 NOC providers and other covered 911 service providers be expected to share information in real time about call counts and alarms using standardized network management interfaces or other mechanisms? Should CSRIC be charged with developing recommendations on these topics?
How can the Commission facilitate the real-time exchange of information by leveraging technologies such as machine-readable data? Should the Commission require 911 NOC providers or other covered 911 service providers to transmit high-level data on the status of their networks to a centralized “dashboard” allowing users to quickly identify disruptions in any portion of their 911 networks? Who should be given access to such data, and how can the Commission ensure that privacy and confidentiality are protected? Alternatively, should 911 NOC providers be required to maintain a Web page that provides key information on the status of their 911 networks? What information should be included, and should such Web pages be available to the public, or only to PSAPs and other covered 911 service providers?
How can the Commission support and empower 911 NOC providers and other covered 911 service providers to share information under the framework proposed above? One model for improved situational awareness that has been developed in the communications sector is the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), a public-private partnership overseen by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC). Could a similar model be applied to the 911 ecosystem? Which entities should be eligible to participate, and should certain entities, such as NOC providers, be required to participate? Should the Commission facilitate improved communication by maintaining a centralized database of contact information for PSAPs and state emergency offices, which would allow 911 NOC providers and other covered 911 service providers to compile and update distribution lists for outage notification and recovery? Should the Commission serve as a hub for compilation and distribution of any other information? What role could advisory committees such as CSRIC play?
We also seek comment on issues that could affect the nature and scope of a NOC provider's responsibility for information gathering and dissemination. For example, should the scope of information that the NOC provider is responsible for gathering and disseminating vary depending on where in the call completion process a 911 outage has occurred? If so, what should the 911 NOC provider's responsibility be? To what extent should 911 NOC providers be responsible for addressing cybersecurity risks in 911 networks and sharing information with other stakeholders in the event of a cyber attack? What information should other covered 911 service providers that experience the effects of an outage be expected to communicate back to the 911 NOC provider?
Where a PSAP is served by more than one covered 911 service provider (
Are there legal or regulatory barriers that currently prevent or discourage 911 service providers, as well as their sub-contractors and other affiliated entities, from sharing information during a 911 outage? What are the specific laws, regulations, or contractual provisions that would preclude such information-sharing, and how can the Commission address those barriers in order to improve efficient, privacy-protective information sharing and situational awareness? Are there issues of legal liability for disclosing customer information that should be addressed as part of the Commission's efforts in this regard? Should the Commission extend liability protections already afforded to
The Communications Act of 1934 established the FCC, in part, “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” Beyond that general mandate, Congress has repeatedly and specifically endorsed a role for the Commission in the nationwide implementation of advanced 911 capabilities. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act) directed the Commission to “designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting assistance.” It also directed the Commission to “encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated statewide plans, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable wireless telecommunications networks and enhanced wireless 911 service.” The New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act) further affirmed the Commission's authority to require interconnected VoIP providers to offer 911 service. The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) also advanced the Commission's implementation of technologies such as text-to-911 by granting authority to promulgate “regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures . . . necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically feasible.” Together, and in light of the series of 911 outages described above extending across multiple jurisdictions, we believe these provisions authorize—and indeed require—the Commission to take a leadership role, in cooperative partnership with states and localities, in promoting the continued availability and reliability of 911 services nationwide.
To the extent that 911 service providers are common carriers, the Commission also has based 911 reliability requirements on section 201(b) of the Communications Act, which requires the “practices” of common carriers to be “just and reasonable,” and on section 214(d), which provides that a common carrier must “provide itself with adequate facilities for the expeditious and efficient performance of its service as a common carrier.” Where 911 service requirements affect wireless carriers, the Commission also has relied on its Title III authority to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered,” and more generally, “to manage spectrum . . . in the public interest.”
With respect to proposals to promote transparency and public notification for changes in 911 service, we note that section 218 of the Act authorizes the Commission to “inquire into the management of the business of all carriers,” and to obtain from such carriers and from persons directly or indirectly under their control “full and complete information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created.” Section 251(c)(5) of the Act also requires each incumbent local exchange carrier to “provide reasonable public notice of changes in the information necessary for the transmission and routing of services,” or “other changes that would affect the interoperability of [its] facilities and networks.” Furthermore, Section 4(o) of the Act states that “[f]or the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life and property,” the Commission “shall investigate and study all phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation and coordination of these systems.” The Commission also has authority, under the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, to “compile . . . information concerning 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 elements, for the purpose of assisting IP-enabled voice service providers in complying with this section.” Thus, as part of a cooperative governance structure for 911, the Commission is authorized to gather and disseminate information from carriers and other regulatees for the purpose of ensuring effective public safety communications. We seek comment on the application of these provisions to proposals in this NPRM.
As the Commission concluded in the
To the extent that any of the proposals herein affect entities that are not subject to specific statutory authority, we also believe that their adoption would be that “reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” Whether or not the increasingly diverse range of entities providing 911 services are common carriers or Commission licensees, they nevertheless have undertaken to provide a critical public safety communications service that is within our general jurisdiction to “promot[e] safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” In light of the record of recent events leading to significant multistate 911 outages, we believe such proposals would be reasonably ancillary to our fulfillment of the specific statutory mandates to ensure reliable and resilient 911 service across different technologies, as discussed above. We seek comment on this analysis and any other sources of legal authority for the proposals in this
The proceedings initiated by this
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments in response to this
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
• Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this
This
Accordingly,
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact of the proposals described in the attached
The
The
The
The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
The
The
To facilitate situational awareness and coordination, the
As noted above, the
The
These proposals build upon the existing 911 reliability certification process for covered 911 service providers that the Commission established in 2013. Under this process, a corporate officer with supervisory and budgetary authority over network operations in all relevant service areas must file an annual attestation with the Commission describing the entity's implementation of specified best practices, or if it is not feasible to implement those best practices, a description of reasonable alternative measures designed to mitigate the risk of failure. The option of certifying alternative measures is designed to provide flexibility to small entities operating in diverse service areas, which may have unique ways of addressing network reliability challenges. Because many covered 911 service providers have indicated they already conduct activities that form the basis for this certification in the normal course of business, the Commission expects the additional burden of filing certifications to be minimal. Certifications will be submitted through a simple online form, which is designed to allow small entities to input certification information and upload an attestation from a corporate officer without the need for any specialized personnel. In some cases, however, covered 911 service providers may choose to hire consultants or engineers to conduct technical aspects of the certification, or an attorney to review certification information for compliance with applicable rules. However, the Commission expects that most covered 911 service providers, including small entities, will be able to complete and submit the annual certification using only in-house personnel.
The
For incumbent 911 service providers that seek to discontinue, reduce or impair existing 911 service in a way that does not trigger already existing authorization requirements under section 214 of the Communications Act, the
The
To improve situational awareness during 911 outages, the
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
The
Furthermore, the proposals in the
To the extent that the
None.
Resiliency, redundancy and reliability of communications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 12 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 155(c), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 219, 251(e), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 332, 403, 615, 615a, 615c, 621(b)(3), and 621(d).
(a) * * *
(4)
(i) Any entity that:
(A) Provides call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), location information services (LIS), text-to-911, or any other capability required for delivery of 911, E911, or NG911, or the functional equivalent of any of those capabilities, to a public safety answering point (PSAP), statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority as such entities are defined in § 64.3000(b) of this chapter, whether directly or indirectly as a contractor or agent to any other entity; and/or
(B) Operates a central office that directly serves a public safety answering point (PSAP), statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority as such entities are defined in § 64.3000(b) of this chapter. For purposes of this section, a central office directly serves a PSAP, statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority if it hosts a selective router or the functional equivalent, hosts an ALI/ANI database or the functional equivalent, or is the last service-provider facility through which a 911 trunk or administrative line passes before connecting to a PSAP, statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority.
(ii) The term “covered 911 service provider” shall not include:
(A) PSAPs or governmental authorities to the extent that they provide 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities; or
(B) Communications providers that solely originate voice calls or text messages to 911 but do not provide any of the capabilities or services described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section.
(12)
(13)
(14)
(b)
(c) * * *
(3)
(i) A covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it has, within the past year:
(A) Conducted Diversity Audits of the Aggregation Points that it uses to gather network monitoring data in each 911 Service Area;
(B) Conducted Diversity Audits of Monitoring Links between Aggregation Points and NOCs for each 911 Service Area in which it operates;
(C) Implemented Physically Diverse Aggregation Points for network monitoring data in each 911 Service Area and Physically Diverse Monitoring Links from such aggregation points to at least one NOC; and
(D) Established appropriate alarms for network failures that would be reasonably likely to result in a disruption of 911 service within a 911 Service Area, and procedures designed to ensure that such alarms quickly bring such network failures to the attention of appropriate personnel.
(ii) If a covered 911 service provider has not implemented all of the elements in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, it must certify with respect to each such 911 Service Area:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the relevant risk, or is taking steps to remediate any vulnerabilities that it has identified with respect thereto, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this subsection are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(4)
(i) A covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it has, within the past year:
(A) Implemented reasonable measures to ensure that any Internet Protocol (IP)-based architecture used to provide 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities defined in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section is geographically distributed, load balanced, and capable of automatic reroutes in the event of a software or database failure.
(B) Implemented reasonable measures to ensure that any software or database used by the covered 911 service provider to provide 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities such as call routing, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), location information services (LIS), text-to-911, or the functional equivalent of those capabilities, is designed, configured, and tested to ensure reliable operation.
(C) Implemented reasonable measures to maintain continuity of 911 service during planned maintenance and/or updates to any software or database used to provide 911, E911, or NG911 capabilities.
(ii) If a covered 911 service provider has not implemented all of the elements in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, it must certify:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of a hardware, network, software, database, or other failure or is taking steps to remediate any issues that it has identified with respect thereto, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this subsection are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(5)
(i) A covered 911 service provider shall certify whether it has, within the past year:
(A) Implemented reasonable measures to maintain real-time situational awareness regarding the operational status of 911, E911, or NG911 service throughout any portion(s) of the 911 network that it owns, leases, or otherwise operates or controls or as to which it otherwise provides any of the capabilities or services described in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section.
(B) Implemented reasonable measures to share appropriate information with PSAPs and other covered 911 service providers in the event of a disruption of 911, E911, or NG911 service, including, at a minimum, the information required under part 4 of the Commission's rules and under § 12.7 .
(ii) If a covered 911 service provider has not implemented all of the elements in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, it must certify:
(A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk of inadequate situational awareness and information sharing or is taking steps to remediate any issues that it has identified, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
(B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this subsection are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not apply.
(a)
(1) For purposes of this section, the following actions by a covered 911 service provider constitute major changes in 911 network architecture and services:
(i) A change in 911 network architecture that affects the primary geographic routing or logical processing of voice calls, automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), location information services (LIS), text-to-911, or functionally equivalent capabilities, to public safety answering points (PSAPs), statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency authorities in more than one state;
(ii) A change in 911 network architecture that affects the availability of backup routing or processing capabilities for voice calls, ALI, ANI, LIS, text-to-911, or functionally equivalent capabilities, to PSAPs, statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency authorities in more than one state; or
(iii) A change in the allocation of primary responsibility with respect to provision of any of the capabilities or services described in § 12.4(a)(4)(i) affecting more than one state, including but not limited to a covered 911 service provider's allocation of such responsibilities to a sub-contractor or other third party.
(2) Notifications under this section shall be filed with the Commission at least 60 days before the changes described therein take effect.
(i) Notifications shall state publicly the nature of the proposed changes, the geographic area(s) or jurisdiction(s) affected, the anticipated date of the changes, and any other relevant information.
(ii) To the extent that notifications contain information that would cause competitive harm or a threat to public safety or national security if disclosed, a covered 911 service provider may request confidential treatment of such information under § 0.459 of this chapter.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1) For purposes of this section, the following actions by a covered 911 service provider constitute a discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of existing 911 services:
(i) Exit from a line of 911 services previously provided to PSAPs, statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency authorities in more than one state;
(ii) Termination or reduction in technical support or maintenance for 911 network components or customer premises equipment (CPE) to PSAPs, statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency authorities in more than one state; or
(iii) Reduction or impairment of quality-of-service levels for 911 services to PSAPs, statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency authorities in more than one state.
(2) Applications for discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of existing 911 services under this section shall be filed with the Commission at least 60 days before the changes described therein are requested to take effect. The Commission shall respond within 60 days by approving the request, approving the request subject to conditions, or denying the request. If the Commission takes no action within 60 days, the request shall be deemed approved.
(i) Applications shall state publicly the nature of the proposed discontinuance, reduction, or impairment, the geographic area(s) or jurisdiction(s) affected, the anticipated date of the changes, and any other relevant information.
(ii) To the extent that applications contain information that would cause competitive harm or a threat to public safety or national security if disclosed, a covered 911 service provider may request confidential treatment of such information under § 0.459 of this chapter.
(3) Changes initiated by a PSAP or emergency authority. Changes in 911 network architecture or service initiated by a PSAP or state or local emergency authority, including changes that would otherwise constitute a discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of existing 911 services under paragraph (b) of this section, shall not require Commission approval under this section.
(4) Changes subject to Section 214 authorization. Changes in 911 network architecture or service that require Commission authorization under Section 214 of the Communications Act and associated Commission rules shall not require separate Commission approval under this section.
(a)
(1) Possess the technical and operational capability to provide reliable 911 service;
(2) Have conducted a reliability and security risk analysis of any network components, infrastructure and/or databases and software used to support 911 call completion, including automatic location information (ALI), automatic number identification (ANI), location information services (LIS), text-to-911, or the functional equivalent of those capabilities; and
(3) Understand and agree to abide by the Commission's annual reliability certification requirements under this part 12, any applicable outage reporting or PSAP outage notification requirements under § 4.9 of this chapter, and any other Commission rules applicable to the new 911 capabilities that it offers.
(b) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(1) In the event of such a disruption in 911 service, the 911 NOC Provider shall request information from any other affected covered 911 service provider(s) regarding their situational awareness of the cause and scope of the outage from the origination to the completion of 911 communications, including voice calls, ALI, ANI, LIS, and text-to-911. The 911 NOC Provider shall then communicate to any other affected covered 911 service providers, PSAPs, state emergency management offices, and to the Commission's Operations Center, all information reasonably available to mitigate the effects of the disruption and to restore service.
(2) All other covered 911 service providers shall communicate to the 911 NOC Provider all reasonably available information regarding the cause and scope of a disruption in 911 service that occurs on or affects portions of the 911 network that they own, lease, or otherwise operate or control and shall respond promptly to any request for such information by the 911 NOC Provider.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Charles Crawford, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, of the Commission's rules, by allotting Channel 247A at Bogata, Texas, as a first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 247A can be allotted to Bogata, Texas consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction located 12.9 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of Bogata. The reference coordinates are 33–33–21 NL and 95–18–28 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before March 2, 2015, and reply comments on or before March 17, 2015.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford, 2215 Cedar Springs Rd., #1605, Dallas, Texas 75201.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 32 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex; establish blueline tilefish commercial and
Written comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA–NMFS–2014–0145” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 32, which includes an environmental assessment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Rick DeVictor, telephone: 727–824–5305, or email:
The blueline tilefish is in the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic, and the fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
A benchmark assessment for the blueline tilefish stock in the South Atlantic was conducted through the Southeast, Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process in 2013 (SEDAR 32). At its October 2013 meeting, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determined the 2013 stock assessment was based on the best scientific information available and considered the assessment to be appropriate for management decisions. The assessment determined that the blueline tilefish stock is undergoing overfishing in the South Atlantic. As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council must therefore implement measures to end overfishing within 2 years of notification of an overfishing status. NMFS notified the Council of the blueline tilefish stock status on December 6, 2013.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that ACLs and AMs be implemented to prevent overfishing and achieve the OY from a fishery. An ACL is the level of annual catch of a stock that, if exceeded, triggers AMs. AMs are management controls to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and to correct any overages of ACLs if they occur. Two examples of AMs include an in-season closure if landings reach or are projected to reach the ACL, and a post-season overage adjustment which would reduce the ACL if an overage occurred during the previous fishing year.
NMFS published an emergency rule on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21636), that implemented temporary measures to reduce overfishing of blueline tilefish while Amendment 32 was being developed. Those measures were extended through a temporary rule on October 14, 2014 (79 FR 61262, October 10, 2014), and are effective through April 18, 2015, while Amendment 32 and the associated rulemaking are under review. The temporary measures of the emergency action include the following: Removal of blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex, specification of sector ACLs and AMs for blueline tilefish, and revision to the deep-water complex ACL to reflect the removal of blueline tilefish from the complex.
This proposed rule would remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex. In 2012, the Comprehensive ACL Amendment established a deep-water complex that contained the following eight species: blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, black snapper, and blackfin snapper (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The Comprehensive ACL Amendment also specified ACLs and AMs for the complex where the complex's ACLs were based upon an acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation provided by the Council's SSC. In the absence of stock assessments, the ABCs for these and other unassessed species in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment were based on median or average catch. The Council placed most unassessed snapper-grouper species into complexes because many unassessed snapper-grouper species are data-limited stocks that are known to have issues with species identification and/or extreme fluctuations in relative landings through time due to rarity, or lack of targeted fishing effort.
As a result of blueline tilefish being assessed through SEDAR 32 and the Council's SSC providing an assessment-based ABC recommendation for blueline tilefish, the Council decided to remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex and establish individual ACLs and AMs for the blueline tilefish stock. The Council has determined that sufficient information is now available for blueline tilefish and the rationale for grouping the species with other data-limited species in the deep-water complex no longer applies.
This proposed rule would implement individual blueline tilefish commercial and recreational sector ACLs (based on the revised ABC for blueline tilefish specified in Amendment 32) to end overfishing of the stock. In Amendment 32, the Council defines the blueline tilefish stock ACL equal to 98 percent of the ABC. Due to improved data reporting, the Council has consistently chosen to set ACL equal to ABC for snapper-grouper species. However, for blueline tilefish in Amendment 32, the Council decided to set the stock ACL at 98 percent of the proposed ABC to account for landings that occur north of the Council's area of jurisdiction. Approximately 2 percent of the total
This rule would implement commercial and recreational in-season AMs for blueline tilefish. If commercial or recreational landings for blueline tilefish reach or are projected to reach the applicable ACL, then the commercial or recreational sector, as applicable, would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. The recreational sector would not have an in-season closure if the Regional Administrator (RA) determines, using the best scientific information available, that a closure would be unnecessary.
Additionally, if the total ACLs are exceeded in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year the commercial and recreational sectors will not have an increase in their respective sector ACLs.
This rule would also implement post-season ACL overage adjustments (paybacks) for blueline tilefish. For the commercial sector, if commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (stock ACL) is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, then during the following fishing year the commercial ACL would be reduced for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year. For the recreational sector, if recreational landings for blueline tilefish exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (stock ACL) is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, then the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year would be reduced to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. Additionally, the recreational ACL would be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage from the prior fishing year. However, the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL would not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.
This rule would implement a commercial trip limit and revise the recreational bag limit for blueline tilefish. This rule would establish a commercial trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg), gutted weight; 112 lb (51 kg), round weight. The trip limit is expected to slow the rate of harvest, potentially lengthening the commercial season during a fishing year, and reduce the risk of the commercial ACL from being exceeded.
For the recreational bag limit, blueline tilefish are currently part of the aggregate grouper and tilefish bag limit of 3 fish per person per day. This proposed rule would revise the blueline tilefish bag limit within the aggregate to set a specific blueline tilefish bag limit of one per vessel per day for the months of May through August. There would be no retention of blueline tilefish by the recreational sector from January through April and from September through December each year. A bag limit of one blueline tilefish per vessel per day and an 8-month annual closure was determined to best meet address ending overfishing, reducing recreational harvest, and potentially reducing blueline tilefish discards if blueline tilefish are targeted less during the open season because of the lower bag limit. The Council determined that the shortened summer seasonal opening could provide increased stability for planning purposes to recreational fishermen as it could minimize the risk of an in-season closure and the recreational ACL being exceeded, which may require post-season AMs in the following fishing year. In addition, the Council determined that an opening during the summer months could increase safety at sea by allowing fishing to occur in the generally calmer summer weather compared to a January 1 season opening during the winter. The vessel limit and fishing season dates for the blueline tilefish recreational sector would match what is being proposed by the Council for snowy grouper through Regulatory Amendment 20 to the FMP. The Council determined that similar recreational management measures and fishing seasons would be beneficial to the fish stocks as both species are caught at the same depths and have similar high release mortality rates.
This proposed rule would revise the ACLs and AMs for the deep-water complex (composed of yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, black snapper, and blackfin snapper). The ACLs are being revised for two reasons. First, as Amendment 32 proposes to remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex, this proposed rule would remove the current blueline tilefish portion from the complex total ACL. The permanent blueline tilefish portion of the complex ACL is 631,341 lb (286,371 kg), round weight, and the total deep-water complex ACL is 711,025 lb (322,516 kg), round weight. The emergency rule set both a new, separate blueline tilefish ACL of 224,100 lb (101,650 kg), round weight and a revised deep-water complex ACL without blueline tilefish of 79,684 lb (36,144 kg), round weight. Second, through Amendment 29 to the FMP, which is currently in rulemaking, the Council is proposing a revision to the ABC control rule for data-poor species based on recommendations from the SSC. If Amendment 29 is approved and implemented, the portion of the deep-water complex ABC for silk snapper and yellowedge grouper would change. The Council submitted Amendment 29 to the Secretary of Commerce on October 14, 2014, the notice of availability for the amendment was published in the
Therefore, this proposed rule would change the deep-water complex total ACL (both sectors without blueline tilefish but with the increased catch levels for silk snapper and yellowedge grouper resulting from Amendment 29), to 170,278 lb (77,237 kg), round weight. Additionally, this proposed rule would establish sector specific ACLs for the deep-water complex based on the allocations for species in the deep-water complex that were established in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The commercial ACL for the complex would be 131,634 lb (59,708 kg), round weight and the recreational ACL for the complex would be 38,644 lb (17,529 kg), round weight.
This proposed rule would revise the AMs for the deep-water complex. This proposed rule would retain the current commercial in-season AM, revise the commercial post-season AM, and implement revised recreational AMs for the deep-water complex. If commercial or recreational landings for the deep-water complex reach or are projected to reach their applicable ACL, then the commercial or recreational sector, as applicable, would be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. The recreational sector would not have an in-season closure if the RA determined, using the best scientific information available, that a closure was unnecessary. The Council decided that the in-season AM for both sectors is necessary to reduce the risk that landings exceed the ACL.
This proposed rule would also modify the post-season ACL overage adjustments for the deep-water complex. Currently, if deep-water complex commercial landings exceed the ACL and at least one species in the complex is overfished, the commercial ACL is reduced in the following year by the overage amount. This proposed rule would modify the commercial post-season AMs as follows: If commercial landings exceed the commercial ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) is exceeded, and at least one species in the deep-water complex is overfished, then during the following fishing year the complex commercial ACL would be reduced for that following year by the amount of the complex's commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
Currently, if recreational landings for the deep-water complex exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the length of the following recreational fishing season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. This proposed rule would modify the recreational post-season AMs as follows: For the recreational sector, if recreational landings for the deep-water complex exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL is exceeded, and at least one species in the complex is overfished, then length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year would be reduced to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. Additionally, the recreational ACL would be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage from the prior fishing year. However, the recreational fishing season and recreational ACL would not be reduced if the RA determined, using the best scientific information available, that no reduction is necessary.
Amendment 32 also contains actions that would not be specified in the regulations. Amendment 32 revises the definitions of management thresholds for South Atlantic blueline tilefish, including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, and ABC, and establishes recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for blueline tilefish and revises the ACTs for the deep-water complex.
Definitions of MSY and OY were established for blueline tilefish in Amendment 11 to the FMP (64 FR 59126, November 2, 1999). Amendment 32 would revise these definitions based upon the most recent scientific information contained in SEDAR 32. Amendment 32 would specify the MSY value for blueline tilefish and set the OY equal to the ACL. Amendment 32 would also establish recreational ACTs for blueline tilefish and revise the ACTs for the deep-water complex. The deep-water complex ACTs are being revised to reflect the removal of blueline tilefish from the complex and the change in the deep-water complex ABC as described above. These ACTs are management reference points to track performance of the management measures but do not trigger AMs.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 32, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a supplemental IRFA for this rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the NMFS (see
Every commercial fishing vessel in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery must have either a valid Federal South Atlantic unlimited snapper-grouper permit or a trip-limited permit. Both permits are limited access permits, and a vessel with a trip-limited permit is limited to no more than 225 lb (102.1 kg) round weight (whole weight), per trip. As of November 5, 2014, there were 539 vessels with a valid unlimited permit and 111 vessels with a valid trip-limited permit. An estimated annual average of 277 vessels landed deep-water complex species from 2008 through 2012. From that, it is estimated that up to 277 commercial fishing vessels and up to 277 commercial fishing businesses would be directly affected by the proposed rule.
According to Small Business Act Size Standards, a business in the finfish fishing industry is small if its annual receipts are less than $20.5 million. Based on estimates of average annual dockside revenue per vessel, it is concluded that a substantial number of the directly affected commercial fishing businesses are small businesses.
The proposed changes to management measures would directly apply to businesses in the finfish fishing industry (NAICS 114111) that harvest blueline tilefish and other species of the deep-water complex of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. Proposed changes in this rule would also directly apply to anglers; however, anglers, whether aboard for-hire fishing or private and leased vessels, are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6) and so therefore are not further discussed in this summary.
The proposed increase of the commercial ACL for the deep-water complex beyond its temporary value could have a beneficial economic impact by as much as an additional $244,116 to $338,690 (2012 dollars) annually in dockside revenue. The average annual economic benefit per vessel is estimated to be from $1,596 to $2,214 (2012 dollars).
The proposed commercial ACL and AMs for blueline tilefish are expected to reduce average annual commercial landings of blueline tilefish from 2015 through 2019 by as much as 142,300 to 323,426 lb (64,546 to 146,704 kg) round weight, and dockside revenue by as much as $576,330 to $679,195 (2012 dollars). That change represents an approximate 89 percent to 91 percent reduction of average annual dockside revenue from blueline tilefish landings over that time. The average annual loss per vessel is estimated to range from $4,648 to $5,477 (2012 dollars), which
From 2008 through 2012, the average trip landed 525 lb (238.1 kg) gutted weight, of blueline tilefish, and an annual average of 124 commercial vessels had blueline tilefish landings. Without the proposed trip limit, the current average landings of 525 lb (238.1 kg), gutted weight, per trip would reach the proposed commercial ACL of 17,841 lb (8,092.5 kg) round weight, or 15,929 lb (7,225.3 kg), gutted weight, in 2015, by 30 trips and an estimated 94 vessels and up to 94 small businesses would have no blueline tilefish landings in 2015, as a result of AMs being triggered and the commercial season being closed. The proposed 100-lb (45.4-kg), gutted weight, trip limit would increase the number of trips necessary to reach the commercial ACL to 1,593, which would improve the likelihood that all of the estimated 124 vessels and small businesses, especially the smallest of those businesses, would have some blueline tilefish commercial landings during the year.
The 100-lb (45.4-kg) trip limit would reduce average blueline tilefish landings per trip by 425 lb (192.8 kg) gutted weight, and $897 (2012 dollars), which is an 81 percent reduction in landings (by weight and value) per trip with blueline tilefish landings. That reduction of average blueline tilefish landings per trip represents a loss of approximately 28 percent of average dockside revenue per trip.
The average of 525 lb (238.1 kg), gutted weight, per trip is not representative of all vessels in the snapper-grouper fishery. Vessels with a trip-limited permit cannot presently land more than 201 lb (91.2 kg), gutted-weight, of blueline tilefish per trip. The small businesses with trip-limited permits would lose no more than $222 (2012 dollars) in dockside revenue per trip. Hence, the 100 lb (45.4-kg), gutted weight, trip limit would represent at most a 51 percent reduction in landings (by weight and value) per trip for those vessels with a trip-limited permit.
The proposed 100 lb (45.4 kg), gutted weight, trip limit would increase trip-related costs. Specifically, it would prevent larger vessels from experiencing traditional economies of scale. Consequently, it is expected that small businesses with vessels that have unlimited poundage permits would incur larger increases in average unit costs per pound of blueline tilefish landed than those with vessels that have 225 lb (102.1 kg), round weight, trip limit permits.
Commercial ACLs for the deep-water complex less than the proposed 131,634 lb (59,708 kg), round weight, were considered but not adopted by the Council. A lesser commercial ACL would result in either a smaller beneficial economic impact than the preferred alternative or an adverse economic impact.
A lesser commercial ACL for blueline tilefish was considered but not adopted and it, when combined with the in-season AM, would generate larger adverse economic impacts on small businesses. Other considered but not adopted alternatives would establish a higher commercial ACL than the preferred alternative for blueline tilefish, which would have smaller adverse economic impacts in the short run, but potentially larger adverse economic impacts in the long run.
Among the considered but not adopted alternatives were higher commercial trip limits, which would have smaller adverse economic impacts on small businesses per trip. However, the higher trip limits would shorten the length of the open commercial season, reduce the number of small businesses that have landings of blueline tilefish during the year, and increase the likelihood that the smallest of the small businesses would have zero blueline tilefish landings during the year.
Blueline tilefish, deep-water complex, Fisheries, Fishing, South Atlantic, Snapper-Grouper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(7)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) No more than one fish may be a golden tilefish;
(iv) No more than one fish per vessel may be a blueline tilefish; and
(v) No goliath grouper or Nassau grouper may be retained.
(a) * * *
(10)
(h)
(ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(2)
(ii) If recreational landings for the deep-water complex, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section is exceeded, and at least one of the species in the deep-water complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: The bag and possession limits for the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.
(3) The combined commercial and recreational sector ACL (total ACL) is 170,278 lb (77,237 kg), round weight.
(z)
(ii) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section is exceeded, and blueline tilefish are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the commercial ACL for that following year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(iii) The applicable commercial ACLs, in round weight, are 17,841 lb (8,093 kg) for 2015, 26,766 lb (12,141 kg) for 2016, 35,785 lb (16,232 kg) for 2017, and 44,048 lb (19,980 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years. The commercial ACL will not increase automatically in a subsequent fishing year if landings exceed or are projected to exceed the total ACL in the prior fishing year, as specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section.
(2)
(ii) If recreational landings for blueline tilefish, exceed the applicable recreational ACL, and the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL) specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section, is exceeded, and blueline tilefish is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the recreational fishing season in the following fishing year to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL the following fishing year. When NMFS reduces the length of the following recreational fishing season and closes the recreational sector, the following closure provisions apply: the bag and possession limit for blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. Additionally, the recreational ACL will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The fishing season and recreational ACL will not be reduced if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available that no reduction is necessary.
(iii) The applicable recreational ACLs, in round weight, are 17,791 lb (8,070 kg) for 2015, 26,691 lb (12,107 kg) for 2016, 35,685 lb (16,186 kg) for 2017, and 43,925 lb (19,924 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years. The recreational ACL will not increase automatically in a subsequent fishing year if landings exceed or are projected to exceed the total ACL in the prior fishing year, as specified in paragraph (z)(3) of this section.
(3) Without regard to overfished status, if the combined commercial and recreational ACL (total ACL), as estimated by the SRD, is exceeded in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year, an automatic increase will not be applied to the commercial and recreational ACLs. The RA will evaluate the landings data, using the best scientific information available, to determine whether or not an increase in the commercial and recreational ACLs will be applied. The applicable combined commercial and recreational sector ACLs (total ACLs), in round weight are 35,632 lb (16,162 kg) for 2015, 53,457 lb (24,248 kg) for 2016, 71,469 lb (32,418 kg) for 2017, and 87,974 lb (39,904 kg) for 2018 and subsequent fishing years.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln of Lincoln, Nebraska, an exclusive license to the smooth bromegrass variety named “NEWELL”.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301–504–5989.
The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln of Lincoln, Nebraska, an exclusive license to the switchgrass variety named “LIBERTY”.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301–504–5989.
The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Business Meeting.
Thursday, January 29, 2015; 1:00 p.m. EST.
1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC.
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376–8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376–8105 or at
This meeting is open to the public.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Cheryl Chambers, Rm. 3K067, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, DC 20233, by FAX to (301) 763–8070 or email at
The American Community Survey (ACS) collects detailed socioeconomic data from about 3.5 million addresses in the United States and 36,000 in Puerto Rico each year. The ACS also collects detailed socioeconomic data from about 195,000 residents living in Group Quarter (GQ) facilities. Resulting tabulations from that data collection are provided on a yearly basis. The ACS allows the Census Bureau to provide timely and relevant housing and socioeconomic statistics, even for low levels of geography.
An ongoing data collection effort with an annual sample of this magnitude requires that the ACS continue research, testing and evaluations aimed at improving data quality, achieving survey cost efficiencies, and improving ACS questionnaire content and related data collection materials. The ACS Methods Panel is a research program that is designed to address and respond to survey issues and needs. During the 2016–2018 period, the Methods Panel may include testing methods for increasing survey efficiencies, reducing survey cost, lessening respondent burden, and improving response rates. Testing may also include methods to improve data quality.
At this time, plans are in place to propose several tests: a 2016 ACS Content Test, a 2016 mail messaging test, a 2017 self-response test with the potential to test both mail messaging as well as questionnaire content, a 2018 self-response test building on the previous tests, as well as tests of Internet data collection enhancements in 2017 and 2018. Since the ACS Methods Panel is designed to address emerging issues, we may conduct additional testing as needed. Any additional testing would focus on methods for reducing data collection costs, improving data quality, revising content, or testing new questions that have an urgent need to be included on the ACS.
In response to Federal agencies' requests for new and revised ACS questions, the Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2016 ACS Content Test. In 2014, the Office of Management and Budget Interagency Committee for the ACS identified candidate versions of the requested new and revised questions, to be finalized in 2015. The objective of the 2016 ACS Content Test, for both new and existing questions, is to determine the impact of changing question wording and response categories, and redefining underlying constructs, on the quality of the data collected. The Census Bureau proposes to evaluate changes to the questions by comparing the revised questions to the current ACS questions, or for new questions, to compare the performance of two question versions to each other as well as to other well-known sources of such information.
In response to declining response rates and increasing costs, the Census Bureau plans to study methods to increase self-response, the least expensive mode of data collection, especially Internet response. The tests would include changes to messages included in mail materials to motivate the public to respond to the ACS, increase awareness of the ACS, as well as changes to design elements of the materials, including color and graphics. The tests would be conducted in series, in 2016, 2017, and 2018, building on previous tests' findings. Additionally, the test in 2017, and possibly 2018, may include content changes based on continued review of the ACS content for respondent burden. The Census Bureau will assess the impact on data quality of the changes to the questions.
The ACS began collecting data using the Internet in January 2013. To date, the Web site used to collect the data is designed for a desktop computer screen. The Internet tests being proposed would evaluate Internet data collection via mobile devices, examine ways to reduce Internet break-offs, email testing, as well as other improvements to Internet data collection.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Scott Boggess, U.S. Census Bureau, ADDP, HQ–6H063, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233–0001 (301–763–6167 or via the Internet at
The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) Pretest project plan will consist of several panels to assess data collection mode preferences (Paper-and-Pencil Interviewing (PAPI) and Internet) of respondents, amount of respondent incentives to gain cooperation and participation in the survey, and telephone as a method of nonresponse follow-up.
The design for the pretest survey data collection is assumed to be two-phase: the first phase will screen for households with children and children with special health care needs; followed by the selection of a single child in households with children and phase two will present age-based topical questions. There are three separate age-based topical surveys that a household could be selected for: 0 to 5 year old children, 6 to 11 year old children, or 12 to 17 year old children. Census staff will develop a sampling plan to select a pretest sample of 16,000 households (addresses) from a vendor-provided sampling frame with split panels to test mode of administration (Mail and Web Push + Mail) and use of cash incentives ($5 or $10). The target overall response rate for the pretest is 70 percent for the screener and 80 percent for the topical questionnaire.
The pretest allows for the preparation of a successful first year production survey which enables the MCHB to produce national and state-based estimates on the health and well-being of children, their families, and their communities as well as estimates of the prevalence and impact of children with special health care needs.
Mailout/Mailback Paper-and-Pencil Interviewing (PAPI) Treatment Groups Plans for the Mailout/Mailback pretest treatment groups include a sample of 8,000 households that will be mailed an English and Spanish language self-administered PAPI screening instrument (questionnaire) followed by a separate age-based topical instrument (questionnaire). The households selected for this group will all be sent a $5 cash incentive with the initial request to complete the screener instrument. This group will then be further broken down into two different treatment groups: one group will receive a $5 cash incentive with the topical instrument and the other will receive a $10 cash incentive with the topical instrument. The sample sizes for each of these different cash incentive groups is 4,000 households.
Plans for the Web Push + Mail pretest treatment group include a sample of 8,000 households that will receive instructions on how to complete an English or Spanish language screening instrument (questionnaire) via the Web. The households selected for the Web Push + Mail pretest treatment group will be taken through the screening instrument to determine if they screen into one of the three topical
NSCH–P–T1 (English Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children),
NSCH–P–T2 (English Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children),
NSCH–P–T3 (English Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children),
NSCH–PS–S1 (Spanish Screener),
NSCH–PS–T1 (Spanish Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children),
NSCH–PS–T2 (Spanish Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children), and
NSCH–PS–T3 (Spanish Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children).
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Public Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463 as amended by Pub. L. 94–409, Pub. L. 96–523, Pub. L. 97–375 and Pub. L. 105–153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting.
Friday, May 8, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.
Gianna Marrone, Program Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606–9633.
Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Because of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must contact Gianna Marrone of BEA at (202) 606–9633 in advance. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gianna Marrone at (202) 606–9633.
The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's twenty-eighth meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co., Ltd. (Dezhou Kaihang) regarding the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014.
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs by no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
The Department intends to issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 90 days of the issuance of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Upon issuing the final results of this new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In this new shipper review, we calculated a per unit rate for each importer by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit amount against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. If the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is above
The final results of this new shipper review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For merchandise produced by Shandong Fengyu Edible Fungus Co., Ltd. and exported by Dezhou Kaihang, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
On December 24, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) issued final judgment in
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in
Hermes Pinilla, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3477.
On October 12, 2007, the Department published
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by Aisin using the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department in the
Because we revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise will be required.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4987.
On December 2, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated countervailing duty investigations on melamine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and Trinidad and Tobago.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act permits the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigation if, among other reasons, the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement, or the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated. On January 9, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2), Cornerstone Chemical Company (“Petitioner”) made timely requests to postpone the preliminary countervailing duty determinations.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Opportunity to participate in business directory app.
The U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Energy (the “Interagency Team”) announce an opportunity for U.S.-based suppliers and providers of clean energy, smart grid, and energy efficiency solutions to participate in the pilot phase of an interactive directory of renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions. The Interagency Team is currently developing an interactive app to serve as a mobile business directory for U.S. clean energy exporters. The app will highlight sustainability improvements at U.S. diplomatic missions and provide potential business partners globally with a searchable interface to find information on potential U.S. technology and service providers. The app will showcase a diverse array of clean energy goods and services, including renewable energy equipment
Target users include Foreign Service Officers and Foreign Commercial Service Officers and their energy sector stakeholders in international markets. The app will enable users to easily demonstrate U.S. clean energy and energy efficiency solutions available in foreign markets and provide a tool to facilitate commercial partnerships that drive the deployment of U.S. technologies and services globally. Through the app, a global audience, as well as the American public, will be invited to learn more about environmental diplomacy efforts overseas, and the innovative U.S. companies powering them.
The information submitted to the directory and displayed on the app is intended to inform users about U.S. clean energy and energy efficiency solutions. All U.S.-based businesses in these industries that meet the criteria requested in the online form will be eligible for the directory and app. The Interagency Team will perform due diligence on submissions to the Directory and expects that submitting parties will perform their own due diligence, investigation, and background research before entering into a commercial relationship with any listed business or business contact facilitated through the product. A listing in the directory does not constitute endorsement of the business or its products, services or technology by the Interagency Team. The Interagency Team assumes no responsibility or liability for the actions users may take based on the information provided and reserves the right not to list any particular business.
To provide information for use in the app, send an email to
Helaina Matza, Office of Innovation and Eco-Diplomacy, United States Department of State; 202.647.0716;
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of public workshop.
NIST announces the Genome in a Bottle Consortium meeting to be held on Thursday and Friday, January 29 and 30, 2015. The Genome in a Bottle Consortium is developing the reference materials, reference methods, and reference data needed to assess confidence in human whole genome variant calls. A principal motivation for this consortium is to enable performance assessment of sequencing and science-based regulatory oversight of clinical sequencing. The purpose of this meeting is to update participants about progress of the consortium work, continue to get broad input from individual stakeholders to update or refine the consortium work plan, continue to broadly solicit consortium membership from interested stakeholders, and invite members to participate in work plan implementation. Topics of discussion at this meeting will include release of the pilot candidate NIST Reference Material, short and long read data from the next sets of NIST Reference Materials, structural variants, and potential future Reference Materials.
The Genome in a Bottle Consortium meeting will be held on Thursday, January 29, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Pacific Time and Friday, January 30, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Pacific Time. Attendees must register by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Thursday, January 22, 2015.
The meeting will be held in the Fisher Conference Center inside the Arrillaga Alumni Center at Stanford University, 326 Galvez Street, Stanford, CA 94305–6105. Please note admittance instructions under the
For further information contact Justin Zook by email at
Clinical application of ultra high throughput sequencing (UHTS) for hereditary genetic diseases and oncology is rapidly growing. At present, there are no widely accepted genomic standards or quantitative performance metrics for confidence in variant calling. These standards and quantitative performance metrics are needed to achieve the confidence in measurement results expected for sound, reproducible research and regulated applications in the clinic. On April 13, 2012, NIST convened the workshop “Genome in a Bottle” to initiate a consortium to develop the reference materials, reference methods, and reference data needed to assess confidence in human whole genome variant calls (
At the August 2012 meeting, the consortium established work plans for four technical working groups with the following responsibilities:
(1) Reference Material (RM) Selection and Design: Select appropriate sources for whole genome RMs and identify or design synthetic DNA constructs that could be spiked-in to samples for measurement assurance.
(2) Measurements for Reference Material Characterization: Design and carry out experiments to characterize the RMs using multiple sequencing methods, other methods, and validation of selected variants using orthogonal technologies.
(3) Bioinformatics, Data Integration, and Data Representation: Develop methods to analyze and integrate the data for each RM, as well as select appropriate formats to represent the data.
(4) Performance Metrics and Figures of Merit: Develop useful performance metrics and figures of merit that can be obtained through measurement of the RMs.
The products of these technical working groups will be a set of well-characterized whole genome and synthetic DNA RMs along with the methods (documentary standards) and reference data necessary for use of the RMs. These products will be designed to help enable translation of whole genome sequencing to regulated clinical applications. The consortium meets in workshops two times per year, in January at Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA, and in August at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, MD. At these workshops, including the last meetings at Stanford in January 2014 and at NIST in August 2014, participants in the consortium have discussed progress developing well-characterized genomes for NIST Reference Materials and planned future experiments and analysis of these genomes (see
There is no cost for participating in the consortium. No proprietary information will be shared as part of the consortium, and all research results will be in the public domain.
All attendees are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must pre-register at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
On October 31, 2014, NMFS published a notice inviting qualified commercial shark permit holders to submit applications to participate in the 2015 shark research fishery. The shark research fishery allows for the collection of fishery-dependent data for future stock assessments and cooperative research with commercial fishermen to meet the shark research objectives of the Agency. Every year, the permit terms and permitted activities (
A conference call will be held on January 29, 2015.
A conference call will be conducted. See
Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Delisse Ortiz at (301) 427–8503.
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
The final rule for Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008, corrected at 73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008) established, among other things, a shark research fishery to maintain time-series data for stock assessments and to meet NMFS' research objectives. The shark research fishery gathers important scientific data and allows selected commercial fishermen the opportunity to earn more revenue from selling the sharks caught, including sandbar sharks. Only the commercial shark fishermen selected to participate in the shark research fishery are authorized to land/harvest sandbar sharks subject to the sandbar quota available each year. The 2015 sandbar shark quota is 116.6 mt dw per year. The selected shark research fishery participants also have access to the research large coastal shark, small coastal shark, and pelagic shark quotas subject to retention limits and quotas per §§ 635.24 and 635.27, respectively.
On October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64750), NMFS published a notice inviting qualified commercial shark directed and incidental permit holders to submit an application to participate in the 2015 shark research fishery. NMFS received 7 applications, of which 6 applicants were determined to meet all the qualifications. NMFS selected all 6 qualified participants after considering how to meet research objectives in particular regions. NMFS expects to invite qualified commercial shark permit holders to submit an application for the 2016 shark research fishery later in 2015.
As with past years, the 2015 permit terms and permitted activities (
The conference call will be held on January 29, 2015, from 2 to 4 p.m. (EST). Participants and interested parties should call 1–888–810–4795 and use the passcode 8297434. Selected participants who do not attend will not be allowed to participate in the shark research fishery. While the conference call is mandatory for selected participants, other interested parties may call in and listen to the discussion.
Selected participants are encouraged to invite their captain, crew, or anyone else who may assist them in meeting the terms and conditions of the shark research fishery permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for exempted fishing permit.
This notice announces receipt of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application from the Alaska Seafood Cooperative (AKSC). If granted, this permit would allow AKSC to evaluate how often vessels use alternate halibut handling methods designed to reduce halibut mortality, when the alternate methods are available as an option. Operators from AKSC nonpelagic trawl vessels would remove halibut from a codend on the deck, and release those fish back to the water in a timely manner to increase survivability. These halibut would be sampled by trained sea samplers for length and physical condition using standard International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) halibut mortality assessment methodology. This experiment has the potential to promote the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Pacific Halibut Act.
Comments on this EFP application must be submitted to NMFS by 5 p.m. A.S.T., February 11, 2015. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will consider the application at its meeting from February 2, 2015, to February 11, 2015 in Seattle, WA.
The Council meeting will be held at the Renaissance Hotel 515 Madison Street, Seattle, WA 98104. The agenda for the Council meeting is available at
•
•
•
•
Copies of the EFP application and the basis for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act are available from the Alaska Region, NMFS Web site at
The June, 2014 International Halibut Commission (IPHC) Report is available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Web site at
Jeff Hartman, 907–586–7442.
NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area (FMP), which the Council prepared under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the BSAI groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at § 600.745(b) and § 679.6 allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to authorize, for limited experimental purposes, fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations.
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (
Regulations implemented by the IPHC allow Pacific halibut to be commercially harvested by the directed North Pacific longline fishery. Halibut is a prohibited species in the groundfish fishery, requiring immediate return to the sea with a minimum of injury. Halibut caught incidentally by catcher/processors in the nonpelagic trawl groundfish fisheries must be weighed on a NMFS-approved scale, sampled by observers, and returned to the ocean as soon as possible. The Council establishes annual maximum halibut bycatch allowances and seasonal apportionments adjusted by an estimated halibut discard mortality rate (DMR) for groundfish fisheries. The DMRs are based on the best information available, including information contained in the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report, available at,
Directed fishing in a groundfish fishery closes when it reaches the halibut mortality apportionment for the fishery, even if the target species catch is less than the seasonal or annual quota for the directed fishery. In the case of the Bering Sea flatfish fishery, seasons have been closed before fishery quotas
With the implementation of Amendment 80 to the FMP on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), halibut mortality apportionments were established for the Amendment 80 sector and for Amendment 80 cooperatives. Amendment 80 is a catch share program established in 2007 to allocate several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries (including the flatfish fishery) among fishing sectors, and facilitate the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector. Though halibut mortality allocations provide Amendment 80 cooperatives more flexibility to use available mortality, halibut mortality continues to constrain fishing in some Amendment 80 fisheries. Therefore, this sector is actively exploring ways to continue to reduce halibut mortality.
Before incidentally-caught halibut are returned to the sea, at-sea observers must estimate halibut and groundfish catch amounts. Regulations in 50 CFR part 679 assure that observer halibut and groundfish estimates are credible and accurate, and that potential bias is minimized. For example, NMFS requires that all catch be made available for sampling by an observer; prohibits tampering with observer samples; prohibits removal of halibut from a cod end, bin, or conveyance system prior to being observed and counted by an at-sea observer; and prohibits fish (including halibut) from remaining on deck unless an observer is present.
In 2009 and 2012, halibut mortality experiments were conducted by members of the Amendment 80 sector under EFP 09–02 (74 FR 12113, March 23, 2009) and EFP 12–01 (76 FR 70972, November 16, 2011). By regulation, all catch including halibut is moved across a flow scale below deck before the halibut is returned to the sea. Halibut mortality increases with increased handling and time out of water. Under EFP 09–02 and 12–01, experimental methods for sorting catch on a vessel's deck allowed halibut to be returned to the sea in less time, with less handling relative to halibut routed below deck and over the flow scale. The halibut mortality during flatfish fishing under EFP 09–02 and EFP 12–01 was estimated to be approximately 17 mt and 10.8 mt, respectively, less than the amounts estimated from the DMR for this fishery. The reduced halibut mortality under EFP 09–02 and EFP 12–01 is attributed to the improved condition of halibut through reduced handling and time out of water.
Reducing halibut mortality is a high-priority management goal for the IPHC, the Council, and NMFS. In June 2014, the Council received a report from the IPHC about the impact of halibut bycatch in the groundfish fisheries on the short- and long-term yields in the directed halibut fishery. The IPHC report (see ADDRESSES) presented scenarios under which increases in halibut bycatch or decreases in the exploitable halibut biomass would result in no directed fishery yield in IPHC Management Area 4CDE per the IPHC's harvest policy. At its June 2014 meeting, the Council passed a motion requesting all groundfish industry sectors to undertake voluntary efforts to reduce halibut mortalities in the BSAI resulting from halibut bycatch, as well as discards in the directed fishery, by 10 percent from the current 5-year average levels, through the 2014–15 fishing seasons. The Council also encouraged NMFS to work closely with the Amendment 80 sector to develop deck sorting procedures and technologies that could reduce halibut mortalities with the eventual goal of implementing a full-scale program.
On January 8, 2015, the Alaska Seafood Cooperative (an Amendment 80 cooperative) submitted an application for an EFP for 2015 to build on the information collected in prior deck sorting EFPs to assist with future full-scale implementation and to reduce halibut mortality in the Amendment 80 sector. The primary objective is to test methods that reduce halibut mortality in the Amendment 80 sector in IPHC Management Area 4CDE in 2015.
The experimental design for EFP 2012–01 allowed halibut to be removed from the codend on two Amendment 80 sector vessels, and standardized viability estimates were applied to the halibut returned to the sea. EFP fishing on all vessels authorized under EFP 2012–01 was conducted with two lead-level sea samplers and a dedicated EFP project manager. For any fishing trip, EFP fishing could not be conducted as the same time as regular commercial fishing, to minimize confusion about groundfish catch and PSC estimates from observers versus sea samplers. NMFS received an application from the AKSC to conduct a new halibut mortality experiment in 2015. This EFP would expand on results of EFP 2009–02 and EFP 2012–01 to explore the feasibility of deck sorting halibut in additional target fisheries, on more vessels, and during a longer interval of time during the fishing season. EFP results would inform the operational practicality and cost of various fishing and fish handling practices, and their effect on halibut mortality. The EFP would allow researchers onboard catcher/processor vessels to sort halibut removed from a codend on the deck of the vessel. Those sorted halibut could be released back to the water after the halibut are measured for length and tested for physical condition using standard IPHC viability assessment methods.
The objectives for this EFP are to: (1) Assess the reduction in halibut mortality when deck sorting is available as an optional catch handling procedure; (2) evaluate the frequency of tows where deck sorting is used relative to the existing catch handling procedures; (3) evaluate the percentage of a participating vessel's halibut catch that is sorted on deck; and (4) evaluate the utility of deck sorting in the context of the rules and constraints of the EFP.
The applicant proposes to begin EFP fishing at the earliest possible date in 2015, and end on December 31, 2015. The EFP would allow halibut to be sorted, sampled, and released prior to being weighed on a flow scale, to achieve the experimental objectives and reduce halibut mortality. This EFP application requests an amount of halibut for vessels engaged in experimental fishing not to exceed the AKSC's 2015 halibut apportionment of 1,693 metric tons (mt). AKSC would not exceed its annual halibut mortality apportionment.
The applicant would track the amount of halibut mortality for fish sorted on deck to determine halibut mortality amounts from EFP-permitted vessels. These amounts would reflect actual halibut mortality amounts sampled during the experiment, and accrue against the EFP halibut mortality limit, not to exceed 1,693 mt. Before the halibut mortality limit is reached, the EFP permit holder would notify NMFS and end EFP fishing. As required by existing regulations, Amendment 80 fishing will also cease when the annual halibut mortality apportionment is reached.
This proposed action would exempt participating catcher/processors from selected 50 CFR part 679 prohibitions, monitoring and observer requirements. Should the Regional Administrator issue a permit based on this EFP application, the conditions of the permit will be designed to minimize halibut mortality, and any potential for biasing estimates of groundfish and halibut mortality. Vessels participating in EFP
1. The prohibition against interfering with or biasing the sampling procedure employed by an observer including physical, mechanical, or other sorting or discarding of catch before sampling, at § 679.7(g)(2);
2. the requirements to weigh all catch by an Amendment 80 vessel on a NMFS-approved scale at § 679.28(b);
3. the requirement for all catch by an Amendment 80 vessel to be made available for sampling by an observer at § 679.93(c)(1); and
4. the regulations that prohibit fish from being allowed to remain on deck unless an observer is present at § 679.93(c)(5).
EFP 2015–02 would require sea samplers for monitoring and data collection under the EFP. Sea samplers are NMFS-certified observers that conduct activities under an EFP rather than normal observer activities on an Amendment 80 vessel. In contrast with EFP 2012–01, the applicant proposes to commence EFP fishing with one instead of two sea samplers. This EFP would also allow for EFP fishing and regular commercial fishing to occur during a single fishing trip. To ensure that standards for catch accounting of target species, bycatch of groundfish and PSC are sufficient, the EFP applicant proposes to: (1) Provide advanced notification to NMFS and EFP staff of when deck sorting will commence, (2) provide a pre-cruise briefing with observer program staff, (3) phase-in electronic compliance monitoring on each vessel permitted under this EFP, and (4) record halibut mortality from the EFP in the catcher/processor elogbook.
In 2016, the AKSC would be required to submit to NMFS a report of the EFP results after EFP experimental fishing has ended in 2015. The report would include an estimate of halibut mortality from halibut sampled during the EFP and an estimate of halibut mortality under standard IPHC halibut mortality rates for those target fisheries.
Under the EFP, the AKSC would be limited to the AKSC's Amendment 80 groundfish allocation. The amount of halibut mortality accrued by the AKSC and under the EFP would not exceed the AKSC's 1,693 mt halibut mortality limit. The amount of halibut mortality applied to the EFP activities would be subject to review and approval by NMFS.
This EFP would be valid upon issuance in 2015 until either the end of 2015 or when the halibut mortality apportionment is reached in areas of the BSAI open to directed fishing by the Amendment 80 cooperative. EFP-authorized fishing activities would not be expected to change the nature or duration of the groundfish fishery, gear used, or the amount or species of fish caught by the Amendment 80 cooperative.
The fieldwork that would be conducted under this EFP is not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment as detailed in the categorical exclusion prepared for this action (see
In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the application warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council is scheduled to consider the EFP application during its February 2015 meeting, which will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, Seattle. The EFP application will also be provided to the Scientific and Statistical Committee for review at the February Council meeting. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.
Interested persons may comment on the application at the February 2015 Council meeting during public testimony or until February 11, 2015. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's Web site at
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Leslie Cornick, Ph.D., Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on northern fur seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427–8401; fax: (301) 713–0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Rosa L. González or Amy Sloan; phone: (301) 427–8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests authorization for takes of northern fur seals, Eastern Pacific Stock, in the Pribilof Islands from September to November annually over a five-year period. The applicant requests authorization to capture, restrain, sedate, attach external instruments, measure (standard morphometrics and weight), sample (blood, vibrissae, blubber, and muscle), and ultrasound up to 10 lactating adult females and 10 juvenile males per year. All procedures, with the exception of blubber and muscle biopsy would also be performed on up to 10 paired pups per year, without sedation. Identifiable scats would be collected opportunistically from sampled
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 10/3/2014 (79 FR 59750–59751); 11/21/2014 (79 FR 69434–69435); 11/28/2014 (79 FR 70856–70857); 12/5/2014 (79 FR 72171), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
On 12/12/2014 (79 FR 73886), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received a petition requesting a safety standard for residential elevators to address an entrapment hazard between the elevator interior and exterior doors. The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2015–0001, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD, 20814; telephone (301) 504–6833, email:
On November 1, 2013, The Safety Institute, Carol Pollack-Nelson, and Cash, Krugler & Fredericks, LLC (collectively referred to as petitioners), submitted a petition to the Commission to initiate rulemaking to mandate a safety standard for residential elevators to address an entrapment hazard caused by excess space between the elevator car door/gate (interior door) and hoistway or swing door (exterior door).
Petitioners assert that in many home elevators, and in similar versions found in older apartment and commercial buildings, the clearance between the interior door and exterior door is large enough to allow children as old as 12 years to fit between the doors. According to petitioners, a child can become entrapped in the door path when the elevator is called to another floor, and the hoistway door automatically locks. The child's body is carried along with the elevator car until the hoistway door meets the obstruction of the sill, where the child's body—usually the head—is crushed.
Petitioners request that the CPSC promulgate a mandatory standard that constrains the space between residential elevator hoistway doors and car doors/gates to 4 inches when measured from the inside of the hoistway door to the farthest point on the car door/gate. Petitioners contend that the CPSC's figures show that there were an estimated 1,600 injuries associated with residential elevators and lifts from 2011 through 2012. According to the petitioners, some of those injuries, as well as several deaths, were due to children becoming entrapped in the gap between the residential elevators doors. In addition, the petitioners state that the voluntary standard (ASME Elevator Safety Code) has failed to safeguard children from injuries and deaths from the entrapment hazard because that standard allows a wider gap between the doors for a maximum of 5 inches.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–6833. The petition is also available at
DoD.
Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is terminating the Missile Defense Advisory Committee, effective January 16, 2015.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–692–5952.
This committee is being terminated under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR 102–3.55, and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective January 16, 2015.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to alter the system of records, N01754–4, entitled “Navy Family Accountability and Assessment System (NFAAS)” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
This system is used to account for personnel (status and location(s)) following a natural/manmade disaster or when directed by the Secretary of Defense to assess the impact of the disaster on DoD affiliated personnel and their families, by conducting a needs assessment survey; to capture information required to support Navy and DoD affiliated personnel as they return to a stable state following a disaster; and to track Navy affiliated personnel and family members' support requirements and command readiness efforts in areas such as Individual Augmentation Deployments, Exceptional Family Member Program, and mandated training.
Comments will be accepted on or before February 23, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Robin Patterson, Head, PA/FOIA Office (DNS–36), Department of the Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350–2000, or by phone at (202) 685–6545.
The Department of the Navy's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Navy Family Accountability and Assessment System (NFAAS) (August 16, 2007, 72 FR 46045).
Delete entry and replace with “DoD affiliated personnel that includes Military service members (active duty, Guard/Reserve and the Coast guard personnel when operating as a military service with the Navy), civilian employees, family members of the above and contractors working at DoD facilities.”
Delete entry and replace with “The military departments may request information to assess the needs of affiliated personnel using a needs assessment survey to help determine any specific emergent needs. Surveys are to include the date of assessment, the type of event and category classification, contacts with the military family, and a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Number (if issued).
Individual augmentation deployment records include post deployment health assessments (PDHA) dates, dates of deployment, and contacts with the service member or contractor and family. Exceptional Family Members Program information that include dependent identification and categories. Additional information collected includes the individual's full name, Social Security Number (SSN), DoD ID Number, date of birth, gender, DoD affiliation, branch of service, military status, rank/rate, duty station address, mailing/home address, home/work/cell telephone numbers, home/work email addresses, name of sponsor, sponsor SSN; spouse and child information: name, date of birth, and number of children; medical information: Medical history, illness/diagnosis, and medical treatment; education information: Current grade level, provider/school name, school district, provider/school
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DoD Instruction 3001.02, Personnel Accountability in Conjunction with Natural Disasters or National Emergencies; OPNAVINST 3006.1, Personnel Accountability in Conjunction with Catastrophic Events; SECNAV Instruction 1754.5B Exceptional Family Member Program; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “To account for personnel (status and whereabouts) following a natural/manmade disaster or when directed by the Secretary of Defense.
To assess the impact of the disaster on DoD affiliated personnel and their families, by conducting a needs assessment survey.
To capture information required to support Navy and DoD affiliated personnel as they return to a stable state following a disaster.
To track Navy affiliated personnel and family members' support requirements and command readiness efforts in areas such as Individual Augmentation Deployments, Exceptional Family Member Program, and mandated training.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Department of Navy's compilation of system of records notices may apply to this system.”
Delete entry and replace with “All records and data collected are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel with a need-to-know. Information maintained on computer requires Common Access Card (CAC) and passwords, which are “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) records. Physical access to facilities is controlled by locked terminals and rooms, security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”
Delete entry and replace with “Commander, Navy Installations Command, 716 Sicard Street SE., Building 111, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20388–0001.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the Commander, Navy Installations Command, 716 Sicard Street SE., Building 111, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20388–0001.
The request should include the individual's full name, SSN, address, date of birth and must be signed.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should log on to:
The request should include the individual's full name, SSN, address, date of birth and must be signed.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual; Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC); Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS); Officer Personnel Information System (OPINS); Navy Enlisted System (NES); Inactive Manpower and Personnel Management Information System (IMAPMIS); Defense Civilian Personal Data System (DCPDS); and Need Assessment Survey.”
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 23, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202–502–7411.
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
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 6 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM–90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241–3315; Fax (865) 576–0956 or email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE–EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–8622 or
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comments.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with the New Jersey Fireworks Superfund Site, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Jane Fabrizi (“Settling Party”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $55,445.75 for response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2015.
The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be obtained from Andrew S. Goldman (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “New Jersey Fireworks Superfund Site, Proposed Settlement Agreement” and “EPA Docket No. CERCLA–CERC–03–2015–0043CR,” and should be forwarded to Andrew S. Goldman at the above address.
Andrew S. Goldman (3RC41), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814–2487;
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 23, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 201, 202, 203, and 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Certain local exchange carriers are required to submit a biennial or annual TRP in partial fulfillment of cost support material required by 47 CFR part 61. Sections 201, 202, and 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, require common carriers to establish joint and reasonable charges, practices, and regulations for their interstate telecommunications services provided. For services that are still covered under Section 203, tariff schedules containing charges, rates, rules, and regulations must be filed with the Commission. If the FCC takes no action within the notice period, then the filing becomes effective. The Commission is granted broad authority to require the submission of data showing the value of property used to provide the services, some of which are automatically required by its rules and some of which can be required through individual requests. All filings that become effective are considered legal but only those filed pursuant to Section 204(a)(3) of the Act are deemed lawful.
For services that are detariffed, no tariffs are filed at the FCC and determination of reasonableness and any unreasonable discrimination is generally addressed through the complaint process. Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) can make a voluntary filing at any time, but are required to update rates annually or biennially.
Among other reforms, the Commission developed the TRP to minimize reporting burdens on reporting ILECs. TRPs set forth the summary material ILECs file to support revisions to the rates in their interstate access service tariffs. For those services still requiring cost support, TRPs assist the Commission in determining whether ILEC access charges are just and reasonable as required under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Commission also minimized reporting burdens by developing incentive-based regulation (price caps), which simplifies the process of determining the reasonableness of rates and rate structures for ILECs subject to price caps. Supporting material requirements for price cap ILECs having 50,000 or fewer access lines do not have to file any supporting material unless requested to do so. Price cap carriers can elect to be subject to Title I versus Title II of the Act for certain forms of internet access in order to offer their internet service on a detariffed basis pursuant to private contracts. Rate-of-return ILECs can choose to charge from tariffed to detariffed for the same internet services, but are subject to Title II regulation. Through forbearance, the Commission has allowed those LECs whose petition has been granted to choose mandatory detariffing of certain broadband and packet services.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections 3064–0109, –0162 & –0162, described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper, or John Popeo, at the FDIC address or telephone number above.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the survey collection instrument for its fourth National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (Household Survey), currently approved under OMB Control No. 3064–0167, scheduled to be conducted in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to its June 2015 Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey seeks to estimate the proportions of unbanked and underbanked households in the U.S. and to identify the factors that inhibit the participation of these households in the mainstream banking system, and opportunities to expand the use of banking services among underserved consumers. The results of these ongoing surveys will help policymakers and bankers understand the issues and challenges underserved households perceive when deciding how and where to conduct financial transactions.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should refer to “National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households”:
•
•
•
•
Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the survey and related instructions by clicking on the link for the
The FDIC is considering possible revisions to the following collection of information:
The FDIC recognizes that public confidence in the banking system is strengthened when banks effectively
The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is also a key component of the FDIC's efforts to comply with a Congressional mandate contained in section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (Reform Act) (Pub. L. 109–173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: (1) “What cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts”; and (2) “what is a fair estimate of the size and worth of the “unbanked” market in the United States.” The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is designed to address these factors and provide a factual basis on the proportions of unbanked households. Such a factual basis is necessary to adequately assess banks' efforts to serve these households as required by the statutory mandate.
To obtain this information, the FDIC partnered with the U.S. Census Bureau, which administered the Household Survey supplement (“FDIC Supplement”) to households that participated in the January 2009, June 2011, and June 2013 CPS. The results of these surveys were released to the public in December 2009, September 2012, and October 2014, respectively.
The FDIC supplement has yielded nationally-representative data, not otherwise available, on the size and characteristics of the population that is unbanked or underbanked, the use by this population of alternative financial services, and the reasons why some households do not make greater use of mainstream banking services. The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is the only population-representative survey conducted at the national level that provides state-level estimates of the size and characteristics of unbanked and underbanked households for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. An executive summary of the results of the first three Household Surveys, the full reports, and the survey instruments can be accessed through the following link:
Consistent with the statutory mandate to conduct the surveys on an ongoing basis, the FDIC already has in place arrangements for conducting the fourth Household Survey as a supplement to the June 2015 CPS. However, prior to finalizing the next survey instrument, the FDIC seeks to solicit public comment on whether changes to the existing instrument are desirable and, if so, to what extent. It should be noted that, as a supplement of the CPS survey, the Household Survey needs to adhere to specific parameters that include limits in the length and sensitivity of the questions that can be asked of CPS respondents. Specifically, there is a strict limitation on the number of questions permitted and the average time required to complete the survey (15 minutes on average).
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The FDIC will consider all comments to determine the extent to which the information collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. After the comment period closes, comments will be summarized and/or included in the FDIC's request to OMB for approval of the collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
In accordance with Section 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on December 16–17, 2014.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee directs the Desk to undertake open market operations as necessary to maintain such conditions. The Committee directs the Desk to maintain its policy of rolling over maturing Treasury securities into new issues and its policy of reinvesting principal payments on all agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. The Committee also directs the Desk to engage in dollar roll and coupon swap transactions as necessary to facilitate settlement of the Federal Reserve's agency mortgage-backed securities transactions. The System Open Market Account manager and the secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System's balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee's objectives of maximum employment and price stability.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Notice.
NIOSH gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Westinghouse Electric Corp. in Bloomfield, New Jersey, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C–46, Cincinnati, OH 45226–1938, Telephone 877–222–7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice provides an update of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines to account for last calendar year's increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.
For information about how the guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program, contact the Federal, state, or local office that is responsible for that program. For information about poverty figures for immigration forms, the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program, and the number of people in poverty, use the specific telephone numbers and addresses given below.
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, contact Kendall Swenson, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, telephone: (202) 690–7507, or visit
For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I–864, Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at 1–800–375–5283.
For information about the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program (free or reduced-fee health care services at certain hospitals and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving the poverty guidelines), contact the Health Resources and Services Administration Information Center at 1–800–275–4772. To receive a Hill-Burton information package, call 1–800–638–0742 (for callers outside Maryland) or 1–800–492–0359 (for callers in Maryland). You also may visit
For information about the number of people in poverty, visit the Poverty section of the Census Bureau's Web site at
Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of
As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U). The guidelines in this 2015 notice reflect the 1.6 percent price increase between calendar years 2013 and 2014. After this inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to standardize the differences between family sizes. The same calculation procedure was used this year as in previous years. (Note that these 2015 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 2014 which the Census Bureau expects to publish in final form in September 2015.)
The poverty guidelines continue to be derived from the Census Bureau's current official poverty thresholds; they are not derived from the Census Bureau's new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
The following guideline figures represent annual income.
Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966–1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds—the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes—have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii.) The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that administers the program is generally responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.
Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines sometimes have been mistakenly referred to as the “OMB” (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as “the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the
Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-Federally-funded activities also may choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.)
Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as “income” or “family,” because there is considerable variation in defining these terms among the different programs that use the guidelines. These variations are traceable to the different laws and regulations that govern the various programs. This means that questions such as “Is income counted before or after taxes?”, “Should a particular type of income be counted?”, and “Should a particular person be counted as a member of the family/household?” are actually questions about how a specific program applies the poverty guidelines. All such questions about how a specific program applies the guidelines should be directed to the entity that administers or funds the program, since that entity has the responsibility for defining such terms as “income” or “family,” to the extent that these terms are not already defined for the program in legislation or regulations.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Assessing Community-Based Organizations' Partnerships with Schools for the Prevention of HIV/STDs—New—Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
HIV infections remain high among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). The estimated number of new HIV infections increased between 2008 and 2010 both overall and among MSM ages 13 to 24. Furthermore, sexual risk behaviors associated with HIV, other sexually transmitted disease (STD), and pregnancy often emerge in adolescence. For example, 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) data revealed 47.4% of U.S. high school students reported having had sex, and among those who had sex in the previous three months, 39.8% reported having not used a condom during last sexual intercourse. In addition, 2001–2009 YRBSS data revealed high school students identifying as gay, lesbian, and bisexual and those reporting sexual contact with both males and females were more likely to engage in sexual risk-taking behaviors than heterosexual students.
Given the disproportionate risk for HIV among YMSM ages 13–24, it is important to find ways to reach the younger youth (
However, conducting HIV and STD prevention work (particularly work that is designed to specifically meet the needs of YMSM), can be challenging. School is not always a welcoming environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Harassment, bullying, and verbal and physical assault are often reported, and such unsupportive environments and victimization among LGBT youth are associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including truancy, substance use, poor mental health, HIV and STD risk, and even suicide. Schools build partnerships with community-based organizations to increase access to needed services of LGBTQ youth.
The CDC requests a 3-year OMB approval to conduct a new information collection entitled, “Assessing Community-Based Organizations' Partnerships with Schools for the Prevention of HIV/STDs.” The information collection will allow CDC to conduct assessment of selected staff from community-based organizations (CBOs) and health and/or wellness centers (HWCs), including school-based health centers, at participating schools or to which YMSM from participating schools are referred. This is part of the HIV and STD prevention efforts that are taking place in conjunction with local education agencies (LEAs) funded by the CDC, Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) under strategy 4 (School-Centered HIV/STD Prevention for Young Men Who Have Sex with Men) of PS13–1308:
This information collection system involves administration of a web-based questionnaire to no more than 60 total staff members who work for up to 60 CBOs and HWCs that are participating in the HIV/STD prevention project with the three LEAs (Broward County Public Schools in Broward County, Florida; Los Angeles Unified School District in Los Angeles, California; and San Francisco Unified School District in San Francisco, California) funded by CDC cooperative agreement PS13–1308. These LEAs represent all funded LEAs under Strategy 4 of PS13–1308. The questionnaire will include questions on the following topics: services offered by the organization and the organization's relationships with the school district and participating schools in the LEA.
The Web-based instrument will be administered in the 2015 and again in 2016 and 2018. These data collection points coincide with the initiation of project activities, the mid-way point, and endpoint of the PS13–1308 cooperative agreement. Although some respondents may participate in the data collection in multiple years, this is not a longitudinal design and individual staff member responses will not be tracked across the years. No personally identifiable information will be collected and data will only be reported in the aggregate to protect the CBOs and HWCs being represented.
All respondents will receive informed consent forms prior to participation in the information collection. The consent form explains the study and also explains that participants may choose not to complete the Web-based questionnaire with no penalty and no impact on their job or relationship with
For the Web-based questionnaire, the estimated burden per response is about 60 minutes (1 hour). This estimate of burden is an average and takes into account that the length of the questionnaire for each respondent will vary slightly due to the skip patterns that may occur with certain responses, variations in the reading speed of respondents, and variations in the time required to collect the information needed to complete the questionnaire.
The estimated annualized burden of this data collection is 60 hours for respondents.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
World Trade Center Health Program Petition for the Addition of a New WTC-Related Health Condition for Coverage under the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program (OMB No. 0920–0929, expires 4/30/2015)—Revision—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–347), amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to add Title XXXIII establishing the WTC Health Program within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The WTC Health Program provides medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible firefighters and related personnel, law enforcement officers, and rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), and to eligible persons who were present in the dust or dust cloud on September 11, 2001 or who worked, resided, or attended school, childcare, or adult daycare in the New York City disaster area (survivors). PHS Act § 3312(a)(3) identifies a list of health conditions for which individuals who are enrolled in the WTC Health Program may be monitored or treated. PHS Act § 3312(a)(6)(B) specifies that interested parties may petition the Administrator of the WTC Health Program to request that a new health condition be added to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions in 42 CFR 88.1.
To aid the petitioner, the WTC Health Program provides a petition form to be completed and then sent to the Administrator for review. However, the petitioner is not required to use the form, and may submit a petition in a different format, provided it contains all of the data elements requested on the form. Data elements include the interested party's name, contact information, signature, and a statement about the medical basis for the relationship/association between the 9/11 exposure and the proposed health condition, which the Administrator of the WTC Health Program will use to determine whether to propose a rule to add the condition, to not to add the condition, or to seek a recommendation
The petition form is amended slightly to reflect a WTC Health Program policy change. The current form asks respondents to offer reference to “a peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic study.” The revised form will ask respondents to reference “peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic and/or direct observational studies.”
The submission of a petition is purely voluntary, and is not required or otherwise compelled by NIOSH or the WTC Health Program. NIOSH expects to receive no more than 20 submissions annually.
Petitioners include prospective and enrolled WTC responders, screening-eligible survivors, certified-eligible survivors, or members of groups who advocate on behalf of responders or survivors, such as physicians. We estimate that an individual spends an average of 40 hours gathering information to substantiate a request to add a health condition and assembling the petition.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 800.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management Notice of an Open Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via teleconference on Thursday, February 5, 2015. The meeting will be open to the public.
The NSTAC will meet on Thursday, February 5, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge or for information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance to attend, please contact Ms. Sandy Benevides via email at
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the conference call on Thursday, February 5, 2015, from 2:50 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance by no later than Monday, February 2, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. by emailing Sandy Benevides at
Ms. Helen Jackson, NSTAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, telephone (703) 235–5321.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The NSTAC members will be presented with their next tasking. The members will be tasked with a study regarding big data analytics. The members will engage in a discussion of current events related to national cyber issues. Additionally the members, in coordination with senior leaders from the White House and DHS, will discuss future potential study topics to include the national security and emergency preparedness implications of the Dark Web.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency-011 Training and Exercise Program Records System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency to collect and maintain records on its training and exercise programs. This system of records includes personally identifiable information of current and former Federal Emergency Management Agency employees and contractors, current and former members of the first responder and emergency management communities, and other individuals who have applied or registered to participate in training and exercise programs or who have assisted with Federal Emergency Management Agency's training and exercise programs. As a result of a biennial review of this system, DHS updated the (1) security classification, (2) system location, (3) purpose, and (4) routine uses of information. The Final Rule to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act has not been changed and remains in effect. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice. This updated system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before February 23, 2015. This updated system will be effective February 23, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS–2014–0081 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Eric M. Leckey, (202) 212–5100, Privacy Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20478. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343–1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/FEMA–011 Training and Exercise Program Records System of Records.”
In support of its mission, FEMA's Office of Protection and National Preparedness (PNP), the National Processing Service Centers (NPSC), the United States Fire Administration (USFA), the Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration (FIMA), and the Mission Support program offices sponsor a wide range of training and exercise programs for FEMA's employees and contractors as well as its partners in the first responder, emergency management, and flood insurance communities. FEMA provides training to first responder and emergency management personnel from federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies such as fire, medical, emergency management, and law enforcement professionals. FEMA also provides training to nongovernmental and volunteer disaster relief organizations, as well as certain private sector professionals such as flood insurance representatives. These programs train participants on situational awareness and emergency management skills necessary to effectively prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.
FEMA established this system of records in order to collect and maintain personally identifiable information (PII) on individuals who apply or register for FEMA training and exercise programs and information about the organizations employing or sponsoring these individuals. FEMA uses this information to facilitate an individual's participation and determine eligibility for training, housing, and stipend reimbursement programs. FEMA also uses this information to compile statistical information, administer, and measure effectiveness of FEMA training and exercise programs. FEMA uses the
As a result of a biennial review of this system, FEMA updated the following categories within this system of records. First, the security classification was updated to include classified information. Second, FEMA updated the system location to include records that may be located in IT systems. Third, FEMA amended the purpose to include expense reimbursements to program participants. Finally, FEMA updated routine use (C) to specify that FEMA may share information with the General Services Administration (GSA); modified routine uses (D) and (E) for clarity; and added routine use (P) to allow information to be shared with other federal agencies when DHS/FEMA has an agreement to use another federal agency's IT system for purposes consistent with the original collection of the information as detailed in this system of records notice.
The purpose of this system is to facilitate registration for, participation in, and completion and documentation of training and exercise programs sponsored by FEMA in support of its mission.
FEMA collects, uses, maintains, retrieves, and disseminates the records within this system under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121; the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2201; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 6 U.S.C. 748; Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and several Executive Orders, as described in the authorities section of this notice. This updated system of records strengthens privacy protections and provides greater transparency regarding FEMA's training and exercise records by encompassing the full range of the Agency's training and exercise programs into a single system of records. FEMA limits access to the information in this system by verifying the status and “need to know” of individuals registering for and participating in the Agency's training and exercise programs to further safeguard individuals' privacy.
The updated routine uses are compatible with the purpose for original collection of the information; FEMA shares exercise information with a federal agency when FEMA needs to use the recipient agency's IT system is for registration and participation in FEMA's training and exercise programs.
FEMA also collects, uses, maintains, retrieves, and disseminates information about individuals who register or apply for training and exercise programs, including DHS employees and contractors, other federal government employees, and volunteers or members of the first responder or emergency management communities. FEMA conducts and hosts training and exercise programs to foster the development of mission critical skills among these communities through participation in programs. FEMA shares exercise and training information with federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies, nongovernmental/volunteer organizations, and private sector organizations when necessary to facilitate the development of training and exercise programs, coordinate, facilitate, and track participation in training and exercise programs, and for statistical purposes. FEMA also shares academic records such as transcripts with educational institutions; however, FEMA's information sharing with education institutions for transcript purposes only takes place if it is requested by the student.
FEMA updated the security classification to include classified information. FEMA's exercises may involve classified locations or information to fully test the nation's disaster preparedness and response capability. Additionally, FEMA may use other federal agency's IT systems for exercises that may be categorized unclassified and classified.
Consistent with DHS's information-sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/FEMA–011 Training and Exercise Program Records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, information may be shared with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
Additionally, the Final Rule to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act remains unchanged and in effect. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA–011 Training and Exercise Program Records System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)–011
DHS/FEMA–011 Training and Exercise Program Records.
Classified and Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the FEMA Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. Additionally, records are maintained in various FEMA training and exercise information technology (IT) systems such as the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) Admissions System, the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) Learning Management System, the Independent Study Database System (ISDBS), the FEMA Employee Knowledge Center (FEKC), and the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Online Operation Center.
Any individual who has applied for, participated in, been named as a reference for, or assisted with a training or exercise program recommended, sponsored, or operated by FEMA. This
• Individual's name (First, Middle, Last, Suffix);
• Date of birth;
• Social Security number (SSN);
• Alternate unique number assigned in lieu of an SSN (if the individual does not have a SSN or doesn't know his or her SSN);
• Sex;
• Race and ethnicity (for statistical purposes only);
• U.S. Citizenship;
• City and country of birth (collected for non-U.S. citizens);
• Information related to disabilities requiring special assistance;
• Phone numbers;
• Email addresses;
• Addresses;
• Military Rank/Prefix;
• Unique user ID (for IT system registration);
• Individual's password (for IT system access; only accessible by the individual; disclosed as part of the authentication process);
• Individual's security questions and answers (for IT system access);
• Individual's employer or organization being represented;
• Individual's employment status;
• Individual's position title;
• Individual's professional certifications;
• Category of position;
• Years of experience;
• Type of experience;
• Primary responsibility;
• Reason for applying/registering for training/exercise;
• Reference point of contact name;
• Reference point of contact phone number;
• Reference point of contact addresses;
• Relationship of individual to the reference point of contact;
• Organization type/Jurisdiction (
• Organization identification number (non-proprietary);
• Number of staff in the organization;
• Size of population served by the organization;
• Nomination forms;
• Registration/Application forms;
• Training/Exercise rosters and sign-in sheets;
• Training instructor and exercise role lists;
• Training/exercise schedules, including location and venue, type, target capabilities, and mission;
• Financial information, such as bank routing and account number;
• Payment records, including financial, travel, and related expenditures;
• Examination and testing materials;
• Grades and student evaluations;
• Course and instructor critiques; and
• Reports pertaining to and resulting from training and exercises.
42 U.S.C. 5196; Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2201; 44 U.S.C. 3101–3106; 6 U.S.C. 748; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5; the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3716; 31 U.S.C. 321, Executive Order No. 13111; Executive Order No. 12148; Executive Order No. 12127; 15 U.S.C. 2206; Chief Financial Officer Bulletin, Financial and Acquisition Management Division, Number 117, June 23, 2003, Subject: Invitational Travel; Executive Order No. 9397
The purpose of this system is to facilitate registration, participation, completion, and documentation of FEMA's training and exercise programs, including participant housing and stipend reimbursement programs.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agency, law enforcement agency, or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation
H. To federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity (a) to assist in making a determination regarding access to or amendment of information, or (b) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual or the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested access to or amendment of information.
I. To federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agency, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
J. To federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring of a prospective employee or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, or for general inquiries by a state agency or state entity in connection with monitoring status and activities of its employees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's role and authority on such decisions and matters.
K. To physician(s) in order to provide information about a student or participant in need of medical care and are unable to provide the information him- or herself.
L. To members of the National Fire Academy (NFA) and Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Boards of Visitors federal advisory committees for the purpose of evaluating NFA's and EMI's programmatic statistics.
M. To sponsoring federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies to update/evaluate statistics on participation in FEMA-sponsored educational programs.
N. To the Department of Treasury for the processing and issuance of stipend payments to reimburse training, exercise, or conference related expenses.
O. To federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies educational institutions for the maintenance/updating of student academic records (such as transcripts).
P. To other federal agencies that support FEMA's training and exercise efforts through use of IT system(s).
Q. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
FEMA stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, SSN, or unique user ID.
FEMA safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. FEMA imposes strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information it stores. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
FEMA's training and exercise records retention is generally covered under General Records Schedule (GRS) 1A–29a, 1–29a(2), and 1–29b; NARA Authority N1–311–08–2 1a, and NARA Authority N1–311–88–2 2. Under GRS 1, records are maintained for up to five years after the cutoff date and then destroyed. Under NARA Authority N1–311–08–2 1a, records retired to the Federal Records Center (FRC) five years after the cutoff and destroyed after forty years. Under NARA Authority N1–311–88–2 2, records are maintained for six years and three months after the cutoff and then destroyed.
Privacy Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20478.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a testing and evaluation system. However, DHS/FEMA will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Individuals seeking notification of or access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the FEMA FOIA Officer whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created;
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are obtained on paper and through IT systems directly from all individuals who have registered for, applied for, participated in, or assisted with FEMA's training or exercise programs including FEMA employees and contractors, volunteers, other federal employees and other participants such as instructors, course developers, observers, and interpreters.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 23, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
• Form I–508: 1,728 responses at .33 hours (20 minutes) per response, and
• Form I–508F: 200 responses at .33 hours (20 minutes) per response.
(6)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 23, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 23,
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
New System of Records.
The Department's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) is proposing to create a new system of records, the “RAD Program Evaluation Data Files.” The Department's Office of PD&R is responsible for maintaining current information on housing needs, market conditions and existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The principal purpose of the evaluation of the RAD Program is to allow the Department to assess and report to Congress on the performance of this program, which converts public housing units to new forms of ownership, focusing on: (1) Preserving the affordable housing availability of former public housing units; (2) the amount of private capital leveraged as a result of RAD conversions; and (3) the effect that RAD conversions have on unit residents. The new SORN allows the Department to track RAD program participants for the purpose of studying the impact of the RAD program on residents of impacted public housing properties. In order to study the residents as they move from the public housing development, it is necessary to collect their contact information at this point in the program implementation. In addition, the records collected through this evaluation represent HUD's effort to be responsive to its Congressional mandate to document and report the impact of the program. A more detailed description of the new system is contained in this notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. Communication should refer to
Donna Robinson-Staton, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402–8073. [The above telephone number is not a toll free number.] A telecommunications device for hearing-and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available by calling the Federal Information Relay Service's toll-free telephone number (800) 877–8339.
This system of records is operated by HUD's Office of PD&R and includes personally identifiable information (PII) pertaining to participants of HUD's RAD Program from which information is retrieved by a name or unique identifier. The new system of records encompasses programs and services of the Department's data collection and management practices. Publication of this notice allows the Department to satisfy its reporting requirement and keep an up-to-date accounting of its system of records publications. The new system of records will incorporate Federal privacy requirements and HUD policy requirements. The Privacy Act provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies to protect records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure, by ensuring that information is current and collected only for its intended use, and by providing adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of such information. Additionally, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices in protecting the personal privacy of the individuals covered by this system of records notice.
This notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records and the type of exemptions in place for the records. In addition, this notice includes the business addresses of the HUD officials who will inform interested persons of the procedures whereby they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to them.
This publication does meet the SORN threshold requirements pursuant to the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A–130, and a report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform as instructed by Paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A–130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914).
5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program Evaluation Data Files.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20140; The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037; The SSRS, 53 West Baltimore Pike Media, PA 19063.
The categories of individuals covered by the system will include Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program participants who have agreed to be part of the RAD outcome study.
The categories of records in the system will include the participants name, home address, telephone number, and personal email address.
The authority for the collection of records, and the maintenance of this system is authorized by Sections 501–502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–609), 12 U.S.C. 1701z–1, 1701z–2.
The data collected through this effort will be used to study the impact of the RAD program on residents of impacted public housing properties. RAD is an initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and many stakeholders that seek to preserve public and other HUD-assisted housing, by providing owners and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with access to additional funding to make needed physical improvements to such properties. In a tightened budget environment, PHAs and private owners have to make tough choices between repairing roofs and replacing plumbing—or worse, demolishing units altogether—because “of a chronic lack of adequate funding”. The public housing inventory currently has a capital needs backlog of $25.6 billion, and the nation continues to lose 10,000 to 15,000 units of affordable housing every year. RAD allows PHAs and private owners to convert public housing and other HUD-assisted properties to long-term project-based Section 8 rental assistance. It also enables them to access private debt and equity to address immediate and long-term capital needs of the projects. Most needed repairs made as part of RAD are likely to be small and residents will be able to stay in their homes during construction. However, some apartments and buildings will require more extensive rehab. In these cases, residents may be temporarily relocated. All tenants who are relocated will have the right to return to their development once construction is completed. Generally, temporary relocation should not last longer than 12 months. In a few cases, a property may be too old or deteriorated, and past the point where it can be effectively rehabilitated, requiring that it be demolished and replaced. In these instances, residents will be provided temporary relocation and will have the right to return to the replacement housing that is constructed. The authorizing statute for the demonstration program requires that HUD assess the extent to which the program meets the goals of preserving and improving former public housing units, and to assess the amount of private capital leveraged as a result of such conversions. The authorizing statute also requires HUD to assess the effect of conversion on residents. In order to track residents as they move from the public housing development, it is necessary to collect their contact information at this point in the program implementation. PII will be collected from a sample of 400 residents of public housing developments participating in HUD's RAD program who have agreed to be part of an outcomes study, which will allow HUD to understand the impact of this program on the residents of public housing developments that are implementing RAD. In addition, the records collected through this evaluation represent HUD's effort to be responsive to its Congressional mandate to document and report the impact of the RAD program.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside HUD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1. To Econometrica and Urban Institute staff to track study participants and locate participants for a future follow-up interview. Staff may also use the data files to match with other datasets for tracking purposes, such as change of address and credit bureau databases.
2. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent that such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I
3. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised; (b) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.
All data collected will be input and stored in a secure database. Hard-copy materials containing respondent identifying information will be locked up when not in use. PII will be accessible to the research team only at the Urban Institute and SSRS system locations. Transfer of PII between HUD and HUD's contractors through secure file transfer protocol or transportable media encryption or a similar standard. All hard-copy materials, including completed forms and electronic records on transportable media, will be kept in locked cabinets when not in use. In addition, data on transportable media will be encrypted. Records with PII will not be printed.
The contact database will include personal identifiers that can be used to locate records to update residents' whereabouts following enrollment into the outcomes study. Records within the contact database can be retrieved by name, home address, telephone number, and personal email address.
The retention and disposal procedures will be in keeping with HUD's records management policies as described in 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 3303. Records will be maintained for a period not to exceed five years. All PII associated with the project will be destroyed by Econometrica, Inc. and their subcontractors or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST SP 800–88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (September 2006) at the end of the contract. At the end of the contract, paper-based records that do not need to be retained will be shredded and the remainder of the files will be shredded after the three-year retention period required in the contract.
Carol Star, Director, Division of Program Evaluation, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 402–6139.
For information, assistance, or inquiries about the existence of records, contact the Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4156, Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402–8073. Verification of your identity must include original signature and be notarized. Written request must include the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address, and telephone number of the individual making the request.
The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 (Attention: Capitol View Building, 4th Floor), telephone number: (202) 402–8073 or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20410.
Initial contact information will be extracted from the HUD's Inventory Management System, also known as Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC). Any necessary updates to this contact information will be provided directly from HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration participants who have agreed to be part of the outcomes study. The records stored in the contact database will include information that can be used to locate residents' whereabouts following enrollment into the outcomes study. This data will be supplied exclusively by the individuals themselves.
None.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before February 23, 2015.
Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358–2281; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import 800 live whole plants and 133 phytatrays of gametophytes of Diellia (
The applicant requests a permit to import one captive-born Mandrill (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female captive born white-cheeked gibbon (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for species listed below to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant request the renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant request the renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests an amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests an amendment of their permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess Arabian oryx (
The applicant request the renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to import one male captive-bred Amur tiger (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Availability of revised North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagrams and Two Lease Maps Diagrams.
Notice is hereby given that effective with this publication, certain NAD 27-based Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs) and two Lease Maps depicting geographic areas located in the Gulf of Mexico with revision dates as indicated are now available. BOEM, in accordance with its authority and responsibility under the OCS Lands Act, is updating the maps used for the description of renewable energy, mineral, and oil and gas lease sales in the geographic areas they represent.
BOEM produces and maintains the official marine cadastre for the OCS areas of the United States. The marine cadastre is a comprehensive spatial data infrastructure whereby rights, restrictions and responsibilities in the marine environment can be assessed, administered and managed. The marine cadastre includes the block grids and official boundaries, which provide the base for nearly all of the BOEM offshore maps and leasing processes. It also gives BOEM the means to define, describe, analyze, and account for every acre/hectare of federal offshore submerged lands.
Pursuant to the “Agreement between the United Mexican States and the United States of America Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico,” which went into effect on July 18, 2014, certain activities carried out within three (3) statute miles of the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico trigger obligations for the United States related to such activities within its jurisdiction. The following OPDs and Lease Maps (dated October 1, 2014) have been revised to reflect this “Transboundary Three Statute Mile Line.”
Copies of the revised OPDs and two lease maps are available for download in .pdf format from
Douglas Vandegraft, Chief, Mapping and Boundary Branch at (703) 787–1312 or via email at
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60313) and determined on January 23, 2014 that it would conduct full reviews (79 FR 6218, February 3, 2014). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on January 16, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4511 (January 2015), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 23, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact William Majors,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: The records are of imported items that are on the United States Munitions Import List. The importers must register with ATF and must file an intent to import specific items as well as certify to the Bureau that the items were in fact received. The records are maintained at the registrant's business premises where they are available for inspection by ATF officers during compliance inspections or criminal investigations.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 23, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Helen Koppe at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: The nonimmigrant alien information will be used to determine if a nonimmigrant alien is eligible to purchase, obtain, possess, or import a firearm.
Nonimmigrant aliens also must maintain the documents while in possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States for verification purposes.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 23, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Helen Koppe at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: Firearms manufacturers' records are permanent records of all firearms manufactured and records of their disposition. These records are vital to support ATF's mission to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of DOJ's National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) Federal Advisory Committee to discuss various issues relating to the operation and implementation of NMVTIS.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will take place at the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Todd Brighton, Designated Federal Employee (DFE), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 616–3879 [note: this is not a toll-free number]; Email:
This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Mr. Brighton at the above address at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the DFE.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Mr. Brighton at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The NMVTIS Federal Advisory Committee will provide input and recommendations to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) regarding the operations and administration of NMVTIS. The primary duties of the NMVTIS Federal Advisory Committee will be to advise the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Director on NMVTIS-related issues, including but not limited to: Implementation of a system that is self-sustainable with user fees; options for alternative revenue-generating opportunities; determining ways to enhance the technological capabilities of the system to increase its flexibility; and options for reducing the economic burden on current and future reporting entities and users of the system.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) provides grants of federally-appropriated funds for civil legal services to low-income individuals and families. LSC is making available up to $3.8 million for Pro Bono Innovation Fund grants commencing in October 2015. Current recipients of LSC funding may submit a Letter of Intent to Apply for these funds.
The deadline to submit a Letter of Intent to Apply is 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on February 23, 2015.
Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20007–3522.
For more information about current Pro Bono Innovation Fund projects, please contact Mytrang Nguyen, Program Counsel, (202) 295–1564 or
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) provides grants of federally-appropriated funds for civil legal services to low-income individuals and families. 42 U.S.C. 2996
LSC is making available up to $3.8 million for Pro Bono Innovation Fund grants commencing in October 2015. Current recipients of LSC funding with Basic Field—General, Basic Field—Migrant, or Basic Field—Native American grants may submit a Letter of Intent to Apply for these funds. The Request for Letters of Intent to Apply for 2015 Grant Funding with instructions and application guidelines will be posted on January 23, 2015, at
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection notice is published to obtain comments from the public. In connection with NCUA's effort to streamline the process and increase feedback obtained from the public on service delivery, NCUA intends to amend, 3133–0188, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery”.
Comments will be accepted until March 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, by fax at Fax No. 703–837–2861, or by email at
NCUA intends to amend the current collection 3133–0188, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” The proposed amendment intends to increase the hours available to obtain feedback on services provided by NCUA offices. NCUA anticipates using a variety of methods to collect customer satisfaction feedback from credit unions, including, but not limited to, web and paper-based surveys or feedback forms, web-based polling or other interactive responses, comment cards, and social media. The information collection activity will garner qualitative stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with NCUA's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback is information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not a statistical survey that yields quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between NCUA and its stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission utilizing other information collections that are designed to yield quantitative results.
NCUA requests you send comments that address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection notice is published to obtain comments from the public. NCUA is requesting an
Comments will be accepted until March 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, or by Email at
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, or by Email at
NCUA is requesting an extension of the previously approved collection for 3133–0121. The Federal Credit Union (FCU) Act specifically requires all federally insured credit unions to notify NCUA at least 30 days prior to a change in official or senior executive officer if that credit union is newly chartered or in troubled condition. During that 30-day period, NCUA can disapprove the credit union's request. Since the last submission for 3133–0121, NCUA amended 12 CFR 701.14 to redefine “troubled condition” in relation to federally insured state chartered credit unions (FISCUs). The revised rule redefines a FISCU in “troubled condition” to be not only when its state supervisory authority (SSA) assigns it a “4” or “5” composite code rating, but also when either its SSA or NCUA assigns such a rating. Prior definitions of troubled credit unions did not include FISCUs rated a code 4 or 5 only by NCUA.
The FCU Act requires notice from the insured credit union to include certain personal information about the individual to determine the individual's fitness for the position. NCUA regulation at 12 CFR 701.14 implements Section 212. Section 701.14 requires that within 10 calendar days of receiving the notice, the Regional Director must inform the credit union either that the notice is complete or that additional specified information is required to be submitted within 30 calendar days. Additionally, this section requires the Regional Director or Director of Office of National Examinations and Supervision to issue a written decision of approval or disapproval to the individual and the credit union within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice. Otherwise, the individual is approved. NCUA's regulation at 12 CFR 741.205 requires federally insured state-chartered credit unions to follow section 701.14.
NCUA's regulations at 12 CFR part 747 (Subpart J) sets forth the rights an individual or a credit union may exercise and procedures to be followed in responding to a notice of disapproval by NCUA.
NCUA's forms 4063 and 4063a provide a uniform method for credit unions and individuals to submit information to NCUA regarding changes to officials and senior executive officers. NCUA uses the information to determine an individual's fitness for the position.
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.
NCUA requests you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 14, 2015.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
The NCUA intends to submit the following proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection notice is published to obtain comments from the public. This is related to NCUA's Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) regulation. NCUA uses the information provided to ensure the purpose of PCA is being carried out and that credit unions build adequate levels of net worth within a reasonable time.
Comments will be accepted until March 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, Email:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, or at
NCUA is requesting extension of the previously approved collection of information related to NCUA's regulation on PCA, 12 CFR part 702 (Part 702), which provides the requirements for PCA for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). Section 216 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1790d) mandates the requirements of PCA. Section 216 requires the NCUA Board to (1) adopt, by regulation, a system of PCA to restore the net worth of inadequately capitalized FICUs; and (2) develop an alternative system of PCA for new credit unions that carries out the purpose of PCA while allowing reasonable time to build net worth to an adequate level. Part 702 implements the statutory mandate by establishing a system of PCA to restore the net worth of inadequately capitalized FICUs. To achieve this, various information collections are required on occasion as the circumstances require.
NCUA requests that you send your comments on this information collection to the location listed in the
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment. Federally insured credit unions with more than $50 million in assets are required to have a written interest rate risk (IRR) policy and an effective IRR management program as a condition for insurance of accounts. The information collection is currently authorized under OMB Control Number 3133–0184. The information collection allows NCUA to determine whether a credit union's financial condition and policies regarding interest rate risk are both safe and sound and meet the requirements for insurance of accounts.
Comments will be accepted until February 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments to: (i) Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, 3133–0184, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10102, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri by mail at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, by fax at Fax No. 703–837–2861, or by email at
Section 741.3(b)(5) of NCUA Rules and Regulations (12 CFR 741.3(b)(5)) requires federally insured credit unions with more than $50 million in assets to have a written IRR policy and an effective IRR management program as a condition for insurance. In the appendix, the rule also provides guidance on how to establish an IRR policy and an effective program.
In the
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.
NCUA requests that you send your comments on the information collection requirements to the locations listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment. This is related to NCUA's regulation that prohibits, in certain circumstances, a federally insured credit union (FICU) from making golden parachute and indemnification payments to an institution-affiliated party (IAP). The regulation requires requests for a troubled FICU to make a severance or golden parachute payment to an IAP to be submitted in writing to NCUA.
Comments will be accepted until February 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments to: (i) Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, 3133–0183, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10102, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri by mail at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, by fax at Fax No. 703–837–2861, or by email at
NCUA is extending a previously approved collection of information for 12 CFR 750, Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments. Part 750 is NCUA's regulation that prohibits, in certain circumstances, a FICU from making golden parachute and indemnification payments to an IAP. The collection of information requirement applies to troubled FICUs seeking approval to make a severance or golden parachute payment to an IAP. Specifically, § 750.6 requires requests for an FICU to make nondiscriminatory severance plan payments under § 750.1(e)(2)(v) and golden parachute payments permitted by § 750.4 to be submitted in writing to NCUA.
In NCUA's experience, FICU requests to make severance and golden parachute payments within the scope of the rule do not occur often. NCUA estimates that, as of June 30, 2014, there are 6,429 FICUs. Of those, there were 278 problem FICUs with CAMEL 4 or 5 ratings. Of those, 229 FICUs had less than $50 million in total assets and an additional 22 FICUs had less than $100 million in total assets. These smaller FICUs are unlikely to seek NCUA approval to make severance or golden parachute payments because these payments are more typically seen in the executive compensation of larger, more complex FICUs. Of the remaining 27 larger problem FICUs, NCUA anticipates no more than 20 percent would seek NCUA approval to make a severance or golden parachute payment. Accordingly, NCUA estimates that on an annual basis and across all FICUs, only approximately five FICUs will need to solicit NCUA approval in advance of making a severance or golden parachute payment within the scope of the rule and that preparing the request for approval may take four hours. Five FICUs times four hours per respondent equals 20 annual burden hours.
In the
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.
NCUA requests that you send your comments on the information collection requirements to the locations listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment. NCUA is appointed the liquidating agent of a credit union when a credit union is placed into involuntary liquidation. NCUA is required to notify creditors of the liquidated credit union that they must submit claims, together with proof, to the liquidating agent. This is a one-time requirement to which creditors will respond by submitting the proposed Proof of Claim form.
Comments will be accepted until February 23, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments to: (i) Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, 3133–NEW, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10102, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri by mail at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428, by fax at Fax No. 703–837–2861, or by email at
Section 709.4(b) of NCUA's Rules and Regulations (
In the
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.
NCUA requests that you send your comments on this collection to the locations listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92–463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Dates & Times:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a January 21, 2014, request from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), from certain requirements to perform Type B testing (seal pressure test) of the containment emergency escape air lock doors. This exemption would permit the licensee to perform a door seal contact verification check in lieu of the currently required seal pressure test.
January 22, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0008 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:
•
•
•
Andrea George, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1081, email:
Entergy is the holder of renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–6, which authorizes operation of Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Unit 2. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect.
The ANO facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors, Units 1 and 2, located in Pope County, Arkansas.
Pursuant to § 50.12 of Title 10 of the
Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, defines Type B tests as pneumatic tests to detect and measure local leakage rates across pressure retaining, leakage-limiting boundaries, which include containment emergency escape air lock door seals. Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, also states that these boundaries, such as containment emergency escape air locks, must be pneumatically tested (1) prior to initial criticality, and (2) periodically thereafter at intervals based on the safety significance and historical performance of each boundary and isolation valve to ensure the integrity of the overall containment system as a barrier to fission product release.
The licensee stated that the exemption request is necessary due to the design characteristics of the ANO, Unit 2, containment emergency escape air lock doors, in that the door sealing capability relies, in part, on rising containment pressure to provide sufficient closing force to produce an effective seal. In order to perform between-the-seals testing for the doors in the absence of containment pressure, a strongback must be installed to simulate this sealing force.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of Type B testing in Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, is to verify containment integrity as a fission product barrier to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. The evaluations described in the following sections of this exemption show that the underlying purpose of the regulations is met by the proposed seal contact check for the ANO, Unit 2, containment emergency escape airlock doors. Specifically, due to the design of the doors at ANO, Unit 2, the currently required between-the-seals testing (for the annulus between the inner and outer emergency air lock doors), if done without the strongback installed, is unable to hold pressure at or near the Technical Specification (TS) required pressure, and so meaningful between-the-seals testing is not possible without installing the strongback or exerting significant closing torque to the door closure mechanism. The seal contact check, where chalk is applied to the air lock door seal face, the door is cycled open and closed, and the chalk outline left is representative of the door seal bead mating with the seal. If the chalk pattern does not show adequate contact, the seals are adjusted and the seal contact test is reperformed until a 360-degree seal results. The seal contact check and seal adjustments (if necessary), the practices for which have been incorporated into ANO, Unit 2, maintenance procedures, ensure that the containment emergency air lock doors are sealing properly and that seal integrity of the doors is maintained. The underlying purpose of Type B testing in Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, is achieved through application of the seal contact check for the air lock doors. Therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an exemption exist.
This exemption would allow the use of a seal contact check, in lieu of a seal pressure test, to verify the seal tightness of the ANO, Unit 2, containment emergency escape air lock doors. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 provided that special circumstances are present. As described above, the NRC staff has determined that special circumstances exist to grant the requested exemption. In addition, granting the exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
This exemption request is necessary due to the original design of the containment emergency escape air lock at ANO, Unit 2. The air lock consists of a steel cylinder with a circular door at each end, an outer door and inner door, with the inner door being directly in contact with the interior of the containment building. Both of the air lock doors open inward toward the containment building interior, and so, during between-the-seals pressure testing (between the two air lock doors), the increasing pressure tends to more tightly seat the outer air lock door and push the inner airlock door off of its seat. The licensee stated that though each air lock door is fitted with two latching pins, one for the top and one for the bottom, these pins are not designed to provide enough closing force for meaningful between-the-seals testing without a strongback installed. During a postulated design basis event, both air lock doors rely on rising containment building pressure to provide closing force for a sufficiently tight seal in order to constitute a fission product boundary.
In its application, the licensee stated that during trial testing, the annulus between the door seals could not be successfully tested without the door strongback installed, even at pressures as low as 12 pounds per square inch gauge. This indicates that the leak rates for between-the-seals testing on the emergency escape air lock doors cannot meet the acceptance criteria found in Section III.B.1.(c), Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, without the use of a strongback. The licensee stated that it has taken efforts to improve the test without the use of a strongback, and that these efforts have produced conflicting results. The licensee concluded that a complete change-out of the inner and outer bulkhead and door assemblies would be required to support incorporating an “O” ring seal design with a 3-pin latching configuration. Based on vendor information, the “O” ring seal design is superior to the flat seal profile design. Consideration was also given to a gear reduction design for the opening and closing mechanism. The licensee stated that while this option would increase sealing forces, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether such a modification would ensure future success with respect to between-the-seals pressure testing.
The licensee stated that in recent years, it has performed significant maintenance and modification activities on the air lock doors with onsite vendor support. By letter dated August 11, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14218A602), the NRC staff submitted a request for additional information to the licensee regarding whether seal design, seal material, seal shape, and seal operation conditions had been evaluated to address the between-the-seals testing difficulties. In its response dated September 24, 2014, the licensee stated that the following activities have been completed in recent years regarding the air locks: (1) Increased door to seal contact by adjusting door settings, (2) designed a torque amplifying device to assist in opening/closing the door due to increasing the contact pressures, (3) replaced door seals every refueling outage, (4) upgraded door locking bolt compression springs to allow for additional closing forces with improved ability to open the doors, (5) replaced locking bolt brackets and pins, and (6) obtained vendor support and expertise to maintain and adjust the door for optimum performance. The licensee also stated that the seal material currently in use is an ethylene-propylene-diamine-monomer, which is the vendor recommended and qualified material. The seals are a square cross-section shape design formed in a continuous circle to fit the bulk head frame seal channel. By design of the channel, the seal shape is limited. In addition, each door is designed with a “nose/sealing bar” that provides a continuous protrusion into the flat-faced seal for improved sealing contact. These features prevent seal design changes without extensive changes to the design and hardware of the hatch.
In its application, the licensee indicated that the vendor has clearly stated that the ANO, Unit 2, air lock design does not support testing without the use of a strongback and, to meet leak rate limits, the airlock's latching mechanism must generate a high latch contact such that it will maintain a residual compressive load on the gasket greater than the unseating effect produced by the test pressure.
The licensee has investigated the potential of substantial modifications to the air lock doors in order to meet the current seal pressure test requirements and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's requirements. Beyond the many components previously replaced, along with spring upgrades to help alleviate the excessive force now needed to operate the doors, the licensee has determined complete door replacement (retrofit) would be necessary to resolve the aforementioned issues and have the ability to perform a meaningful between-the-seals pressure test. The licensee stated that vendor proposals for door replacement reflect an extremely high estimated cost, without any guarantee that such a modification would resolve the issue of air lock seal pressure testing. The cost of pursuing such a modification is unwarranted because no appreciable increase in nuclear or public safety would be realized.
In its application, the licensee stated that past TS surveillance testing for the emergency escape air lock has shown that testing with strongbacks in place is successful; however, the pressure applied by the strongbacks, or the pressure applied to the outer door during the overall air lock pressure test, can cause door seals to take a set that reflects the shape of the seal grooves. With strongbacks installed or test pressure applied to the air lock barrel, the male portion of the door seal (the seal bead) can be pressed into the seal. The seal will remain in this compressed condition for the entire test period, causing the seal to take a set in the seal groove of the air lock bulkhead. After completion of an overall air lock barrel pressure test, both doors must be opened to verify proper seal contact with the door seal bead in order to ensure that the seals rebound to the pre-test condition. During the seal contact check, a seal adjustment may be required after testing because the force of the strongbacks on a given door and/or the force due to the air lock barrel test pressure on the outer door can draw the seal bead on the doors further into the seal groove than what would occur under normal door closure forces.
The seal contact check consists of applying chalk or other viable medium on the seal face and then closing and reopening the emergency escape air lock door. This will result in a pattern in the chalk (or other medium) that is representative of the door seal bead mating with the seal. If the chalk (or other medium) pattern does not show adequate contact, the seals are adjusted in the area of the gap. Following adjustment, the licensee performs a final seal contact check to verify the integrity of the sealing surface. The practice of verifying acceptable seal contact following performance of the overall air lock leak test and the acceptance criteria for this verification have been incorporated into the ANO, Unit 2, maintenance procedures.
The performance of the door seal contact check has led to the successful completion of subsequent emergency escape air lock full pressure tests since the procedural practice began. In a request for additional information dated August 11, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14218A602), the NRC staff requested that the licensee provide test results to show the effectiveness of the seal contact check. In its supplement dated September 24, 2014, the licensee provided the test results following seal contact checks for refueling outages from 2008 (2R19) to 2014 (2R23). In its supplement, the licensee stated that the results indicate that performance of the seal contact check is instrumental in the successful completion of subsequent leak testing. In its application, the licensee noted that acceptance criteria for containment building integrated leak rate testing (ILRT) has been met for each ILRT since initial plant startup, indicating that the emergency escape airlock door seals are meeting their design function when exposed to pressure in the correct (accident) direction.
As an alternative to the between-the-seals pressure test of the emergency escape air lock required by Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, the licensee has proposed a final door seal contact verification. This seal performance verification is completed following the full pressure airlock test, after the removal of the inner door strongback, and just prior to final closure of the airlock doors. The requested exemption would not affect compliance with the requirement to perform a full pressure emergency escape airlock test each refueling outage. Based on these results and information provided by the licensee, the NRC staff concludes that the containment building emergency airlock doors at ANO, Unit 2, function as designed using current methods of testing and maintenance, including seal contact checks. The NRC staff further concludes that the seal contact checks performed on the emergency escape airlock door seals ensure that the doors are sealing properly and will perform their design function to limit radiological release in the case of a postulated accident. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the between-the-seals testing required by Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50, is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule for the emergency escape air lock doors, given their current design. Since the above evaluations demonstrate that the underlying purpose of the rule will be met with the seal contact check, the NRC staff concludes that there is no undue risk to the public health and safety.
The licensee's exemption request is to utilize an alternative to the Type B containment emergency escape air lock door seal pressure testing requirement in Section III.B, Option B, Appendix J, 10 CFR part 50. This exemption request is not related to, and does not impact any security issues at ANO, Unit 2. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that this exemption does not impact, and is consistent with, the common defense and security.
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) because it is related to a requirement concerning the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20, and issuance of this exemption involves no significant hazards consideration, no significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR
The NRC staff evaluated whether the exemption involves no significant hazards consideration using the standards described in 10 CFR 50.92(c), as presented below:
1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would permit emergency escape air lock door seal leak integrity testing to be performed by a seal contact check in place of the between-the-seals pressure test. The seal contact check will be performed following emergency escape air lock door opening, overall full pressure test of the emergency escape air lock, or air lock door seal contact adjustments. The seal contact test method will result in a continuation of the established practice at ANO, Unit 2, which has provided a high degree of confidence in door seal performance. The performance of the door seal contact test method at ANO, Unit 2, has led to the successful completion of subsequent emergency escape air lock full pressure tests since the procedural practice began. Furthermore, the acceptance criteria for containment building ILRT has been met for each ILRT since initial plant startup, indicating that the air lock door seals are meeting their design function when exposed to pressure in the correct (accident) direction. At Palisades Nuclear Plant, emergency escape air lock door seals which have been inspected in accordance with the proposed methodology have passed subsequent full pressure emergency escape air lock leakage tests and have not interfered with successful Containment Building ILRT.
Since the proposed methodology can be used to successfully verify door seal condition and contact, the use of this methodology for testing will not cause an increase in the probability of a leaking emergency escape air lock door seal going undetected. The combination of the door seal contact check and the overall full pressure testing of the emergency escape air lock will provide high confidence of the air lock performing its design function under accident conditions.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is associated exclusively with testing of features related to Containment Building integrity. The change affects only the testing methodology of the emergency escape air lock door seals. The proposed testing method does not result in any physical alterations to the plant configuration, no new structure, system, or component (SSC) is added, no SSC interfaces are modified, and no changes to any design function of an SSC or the methods of SSC operation are being made. As the proposed change would not change the design, configuration, or operation of the plant, the change would not cause the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program to become an accident initiator.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is associated exclusively with testing of features related to Containment Building integrity. The change affects only the testing methodology of the emergency escape air lock door seals. The change is unrelated to an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed application of a door seal contact check in lieu of a between-the-seals pressure test along with continuation of the overall full pressure test of the emergency escape air lock will continue to provide high confidence that the Containment Building leakage rate criteria for the emergency escape air lock will not exceed the maximum allowable leakage rates defined in the TSs or assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin safety.
Based on the above evaluation of the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption involves no significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i) are met.
The proposed exemption would allow containment emergency escape air lock door seal pressure testing to be performed by a seal contact verification test. This change only affects the leakage integrity testing methodology of the door seals, and does not change the frequency at which the testing must be performed. The proposed testing methodology serves the same purpose as the pressure testing required by regulations. Therefore, the proposed alternative testing methodology will not significantly change the types of effluents that may be released offsite, or significantly increase the amount of effluents that may be released offsite. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(ii) are met.
The proposed exemption would allow containment emergency escape air lock door seal pressure testing to be performed by a seal contact verification test. This change only affects the leakage integrity testing methodology of the door seals and has no impact on, or change to, fuel or core design. Therefore, the proposed alternative testing methodology will not significantly increase individual occupational radiation exposure or significantly increase cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(iii) are met.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC's issuance of this exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, Section III.B, Type B testing (seal pressure test) to perform a seal contact verification test, in lieu of seal pressure testing, for the ANO, Unit 2, emergency escape air lock doors.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide: issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.138, “Laboratory Investigations of Soils and Rocks for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants.” This guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in the laboratory testing of soils and rocks needed to comply with NRC requirements for the siting and design of nuclear power plants.
January 22, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0183 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Scott Stovall, telephone: 301–251–7922, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 3 of RG 1.138 was issued with a temporary identification as draft regulatory guide (DG)–1256. The guide describes laboratory investigations and testing practices acceptable to the NRC staff for determining soil and rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and design of foundations and earthworks for nuclear power plants. The guide was reformatted and was revised to reflect changes in standards for testing procedures developed since 2003. The most significant change is in Section C.6.3, “Resonant Column Tests,” which provides an alternative method for resonant column and torsional shear testing of soil and rock samples.
The DG–1256 was published in the
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this guide in final form does not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109 10 of the
The guidance in this regulatory guide may be applied to applications for early site permits, combined licenses, and limited work authorizations issued under 10 CFR 50.10 (including information under 10 CFR 51.49(b) or (f)), any of which are docketed and under review by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide. The guidance in this regulatory guide may also be applied to applications for
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on February 4, 2015, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301–415–5844 or Email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
1 p.m., Wednesday, March 11, 2015.
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC
Hearing OPEN to the Public at 1 p.m.
Annual Public Hearing to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.
Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Friday, February 27, 2015. The notice must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, email, telephone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request an opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m. Friday, February 27, 2014. Such statement must be typewritten, double-spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.
A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
Information on the hearing may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438, or via email at
OPIC is a U.S. Government agency that provides, on a commercial basis, political risk insurance and financing in friendly developing countries and emerging democracies for environmentally sound projects that confer positive developmental benefits upon the project country while creating employment in the U.S. OPIC is required by section 231A(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”) to hold at least one public hearing each year.
Thursday, February 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.; and Friday, February 6, at 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.
Thursday, February 5 at 10:00 a.m.—Closed; Friday, February 6 at 8:30 a.m.—Open; and Friday, February 6 at 10:30 a.m.—Closed. (Via notational voting, the Temporary Committee of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting scheduled for February 5 and a portion of the meeting scheduled for February 6, 2015, in Washington, DC).
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Pricing.
3. Financial Matters.
4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board governance.
1. Remarks of the Chairman of the Temporary Emergency Committee.
2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO.
3. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.
4. Committee Reports and Assignments.
5. Quarterly Report on Financial Performance.
6. Quarterly Service Performance Report.
7. Tentative Agenda for the April 13 and 14 Meeting.
1. Continuation of Thursday's closed session agenda.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202–268–4800.
Under Section 7(b)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), and Section 5(c) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) any person aggrieved by a decision made by an office of the RRB on his or her application for an annuity or benefit under those Acts has the right to appeal to the RRB. This right is prescribed in 20 CFR 260 and 20 CFR 320. The notification letter, which is provided at the time of filing the original application, informs the applicant of such right. When an applicant protests a decision, the concerned RRB office reviews the entire file and any additional evidence submitted and sends the applicant a letter explaining the basis of the determination. The applicant is then notified that to protest further, they can appeal to the RRB's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The appeal process is prescribed in 20 CFR 260.5 and 260.9 and 20 CFR 320.12 and 320.38.
To file a request for an appeal the applicant must complete Form HA–1,
Under section 2(e)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), an annuity is not payable for any month in which a beneficiary works for a railroad. In addition, an annuity is reduced for any month in which the beneficiary works for an employer other than a railroad employer and earns more than a prescribed amount. Under the 1988 amendments to the RRA, the Tier II portion of the regular annuity and any supplemental annuity must be reduced by one dollar for each two dollars of Last Pre-Retirement Non-Railroad Employment (LPE) earnings for each month of such service. However, the reduction cannot exceed fifty percent of the Tier II and supplemental annuity amount for the month to which such deductions apply. The LPE generally refers to an annuitant's last employment with a non-railroad person, company, or institution prior to retirement, which was performed at the same time as railroad employment or after the annuitant stopped railroad employment. The collection obtains earnings information needed by the RRB to determine if possible reductions in annuities are in order due to LPE.
The RRB utilizes Form G–19L,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of rule change SR–CBOE–2014–040. There is no proposed change to the rule language.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 13, 2014, CBOE Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A were approved by the Securities Exchange Commission (SR–CBOE–2014–040).
Pursuant to SR–CBOE–2014–040, the Exchange issued CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14–171 on December 10, 2014, to announce the implementation date of Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A. However, SR–CBOE–2014–040 required the Exchange to announce the implementation date no later than 90 days following the effective date of the filing (
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of this filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A will aid the Exchange's efforts to prevent fraudulent and manipulate acts and practice with respect to tied to stock orders, because it will improve the Exchange's ability to tie executed non-option legs to the applicable option orders that were separately submitted for execution. Additionally, the Exchange believes the data provided pursuant to Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A will help to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, but only if TPHs have a better understanding of their obligations because a better understanding is likely to lead to more accurate data, which will permit CBOE to more efficiently and effectively conduct its regulatory surveillance. Therefore, the Exchange believes that if Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A is implemented on February 9, 2015, TPHs and CBOE will be negatively impacted.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to proposes to [sic] (i) amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of incoming market orders and marketable limit orders outside a specified parameter, and (ii) eliminate its Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms—Liquidity Replenishment Points (“LRPs”) and its Gap Quote Policy—and to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of incoming market orders and marketable limit orders outside a specified parameter (referred to as a “Trading Collar”). The Exchange also proposes to eliminate its Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms—LRPs and Gap Quote Policy—and to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Collars would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points, resulting in executions at prices that are away from the best bid or offer and potentially erroneous. As discussed further below, the discontinuation of the Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms were anticipated changes following implementation of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”).
Rule 1000 provides for the basic operative principles regarding the immediate, automatic execution of market orders and marketable limit orders against the Exchange's published quotation.
In March 2006, the Exchange implemented the LRP mechanism to address market volatility on the Exchange.
In 2013, to coincide with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange filed amendments to Rule 1000 that provided for the phasing out of the functionality associated with LRPs as the Plan was phased in across all NMS Stocks.
When an imbalance in a particular security exists, the manual process known as “gapping the quote” occurs—specifically, the DMM for the security widens the spread between the bid and
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution or routing of incoming market orders, including elected stop orders, and marketable limit orders
Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(i), a Trading Collar would be a specified percentage away from the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”), depending on whether it is a buy or sell order, and the specified percentage would vary depending on the NBBO at the time the order arrives and/or is executed. For buy orders, the Trading Collar would be a specified percentage above the National Best Offer (“NBO”). For sell orders, the Trading Collar would be a specified percentage below the National Best Bid (“NBB”). The proposed Trading Collars are set forth in the table below.
The Exchange notes that these proposed percentages are based on the current numerical guidelines for determining whether a clearly erroneous execution has occurred.
Consider an example where the NBBO is $24.95 x 25.01. In such scenario, the Trading Collar for buy orders would be $26.26 (
The Exchange proposes that if the NBBO is crossed, the Exchange would use the Exchange Best Offer (“BO”) instead of the NBO for buy orders, and the Exchange Best Bid (“BB”) instead of the NBB for sell orders.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to use the BB/BO when the NBBO is crossed as a crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an erroneously priced or stale bid and/or offer, and may not be appropriate reference prices for calculating Trading Collars. The Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection benefit of the Trading Collars. As proposed, in the event there is no NBB or BB, the lower boundary of the Trading Collar would be zero because there would be no reference price against which to determine the appropriate Trading Collar. Similarly, in the event there is no NBO or BO, the upper boundary of the Trading Collar would be set to the maximum price that the System could handle. Notwithstanding the Trading Collar, any incoming market orders or marketable limit orders would still be subject to the Plan and could not execute outside of the Upper (Lower) Price Band, as defined in Rule 80C.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(ii), an incoming market order, including an elected stop order, or marketable limit order would execute and/or route up or down to (and including) the Trading Collar and any remaining interest would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that Trading Collars, working in conjunction with the Plan, could help limit potential harm from extreme price volatility by preventing executions that could occur at a price significantly away from the contra side. As proposed, if the Trading Collar for incoming buy (sell) interest is lower (higher) than or equals the Upper (Lower) Price Band
The Exchange notes that if there is no execution opportunity at the Exchange for an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the NBO (NBB), the Exchange would not be obligated to route the order to an away market protected offer (bid) because the incoming order would not be trading through such protected quotation. The Exchange therefore proposes that if there is no execution opportunity at the Exchange for an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the NBO (NBB) and at or below (above) the Trading Collar, a buy (sell) order that is priced at or above (below) the Trading Collar would be cancelled. The Exchange further proposes that a similarly-priced, partially-executed order would also be cancelled.
For example, assume the NBO is 10.00, based on a quote from an away market, and therefore the proposed Trading Collar is 11.00. Assume further that the Exchange's best offer is 11.05 and with these conditions, the Exchange receives an incoming buy order priced at 11.02. Because there is no execution opportunity for the incoming buy order above the NBO and at or below the Trading Collar, and because the order's limit price exceeds the Trading Collar, the incoming buy order would be cancelled. The buy order would cancel rather than route because the Exchange would not trade through another market. Similarly, assuming the same facts, but the Exchange has non-displayed interest to sell priced at 9.99. An incoming buy order priced at 11.02 would execute against that 9.99 non-displayed sell interest, and then any remainder of the buy order would similarly be cancelled because there is no execution opportunity priced above the NBO of 10.00 or at or below the Trading Collar of 11.00.
Finally, pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(iii), during a Short Sale Price Test
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(b)(i), regarding price discretion or “d-Quotes,” which states that “[a] Floor broker may set a discretionary price range [that] specifies the prices at which the Floor broker is willing to trade.”
As noted above, by rule, the Exchange has already discontinued the use of LRPs for any security subject to the Plan. However, LRPs continue to be available for rights and warrants, which are not subject to the Plan. The Exchange believes that with the introduction of Trading Collars it will have in place appropriate price protections for rights and warrants and the Exchange will no longer need LRPs for those securities. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to complete the Exchange's discontinuation of LRPs in their entirety by deleting references to LRPs in the following Rules: 60, 79A, 104, 128, and 1000.
For similar reasons, the Exchange believes it appropriate to discontinue the Gap Quote Policy. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Gap Quote Policy in its entirety and to delete references thereto in the following Rules: 60, 79A, 104, and 1000.
Relatedly, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 1000(e) (Executions at and Outside the Exchange Best Bid or Offer) to add references to Trading Collars and/or Price Bands, in certain cases to replace deleted references to LRPs. The Exchange believes these proposed changes will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
In connection with the addition of the Trading Collar, the Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of market order, in Rule 13, to state that if a market order to sell has exhausted all eligible buy interest, any unfilled balance of the market order to sell will be cancelled. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate because it assures that a market order to sell will not be held at a price that it is not executable,
Finally, unrelated to issues raised in present filing, the Exchange is also proposing technical, non-substantive edits to delete from the Exchange rules the outdated/obsolete references to securities operating in “Non-Firm Mode,” including in Rule 60(c)(ii)(A) and Rule 1000(a)(i), or the block template, referred to in Rule 60(ii)(B), which is the “manual reporting of a block-sized transaction.” The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to “S-quotes” in Rule 60(d), 1000(a) and 1000(e)(iii)(A), as DMM interest is no longer solely referred to in this manner and the Exchange believes the proposed amendment will remove this outmoded and narrow reference. The Exchange also proposes to amend the last sentence of Rule 60(d), regarding “[a]utoquoting of highest bid/lowest offer,” to account for the impact of the Trading Collars.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Trader Update.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
As an initial matter, the Exchange notes that the proposed Trading Collar, which is designed to designed to promote the just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, is similar to the price protection features offered on other markets, including NYSE Arca Equities.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Collar assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points, thereby resulting in executions that are potentially erroneous, which, in turn, protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time. Specifically, the Exchange believes the Trading Collars will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because the Trading Collars will operate in tandem with the Plan and will only execute/route incoming market orders or marketable limit orders priced within the Trading Collars or within the Upper (Lower) Band set forth in the Plan, if the latter is more conservative. The Exchange believes this mechanism will mitigate the risk of potentially erroneous executions, which protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange also believes its use of the BB/BO when the NBBO is crossed assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets as a crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an erroneously priced bid and/or offer, and should not be considered reliable for the purposes of determining the specified percentages for a Trading Collar. The Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection benefit of Trading Collar functionality, which protects investors and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that affording Trading Collar price protection to d-Quotes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as the Trading Collar would prevent the execution of d-Quotes that are priced far away from the prevailing market price from causing significant price dislocation in the market, which, in turn, benefits investors and is in the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the technical, non-substantive proposed amendments and/or deletions related to the Trading Collar in rules other than Rule 1000, as described above, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules and will enhance the understanding of market participants by reducing potential confusion that the obsolete references would otherwise create.
Finally, the Exchange previously committed to discontinue the Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms; thus, the elimination of LRPs and the Exchange's Gap Quote Policy are expected changes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the adding of Trading Collar protection will provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to (i) amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of incoming market orders and marketable limit orders outside a specified parameter and (ii) eliminate its Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms—Liquidity Replenishment Points (“LRPs”) and its Gap Quote Policy—and to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000—Equities to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of incoming market orders and marketable limit orders outside a specified parameter (referred to as a “Trading Collar”). The Exchange also proposes to eliminate its Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms—LRPs and Gap Quote Policy—and to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Collars would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points, resulting in executions at prices that are away from the best bid or offer and potentially erroneous. As discussed further below, the discontinuation of the Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms were anticipated changes following implementation of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”).
Rule 1000—Equities provides for the basic operative principles regarding the immediate, automatic execution of market orders and marketable limit orders against the Exchange's published quotation.
In March 2006, the Exchange implemented the LRP mechanism to address market volatility on the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”) and, in 2008, adopted LRPs for use on the Exchange.
In 2013, to coincide with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange filed amendments to Rule 1000 that provided for the phasing out of the functionality associated with LRPs as the Plan was phased in across all NMS Stocks.
When an imbalance in a particular security exists, the manual process known as “gapping the quote” occurs—specifically, the DMM for the security widens the spread between the bid and offer and publishes a new gapped quote. Order imbalances may occur when the Exchange receives a sudden influx of orders for a particular security on the same side of the market within a short time interval, or when one or more large-size orders for a security are entered, and there is insufficient offsetting interest. The Exchange first implemented its policies and procedures for gapping the quote in 1994 and updated the Gap Quote Policy in 2010.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000—Equities to add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution or routing of incoming market orders, including elected stop orders, and marketable limit orders
Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(i), a Trading Collar would be a specified percentage away from the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”), depending on whether it is a buy or sell order, and the specified percentage would vary depending on the NBBO at the time the order arrives and/or is executed. For buy orders, the Trading Collar would be a specified percentage above the National Best Offer (“NBO”). For sell orders, the Trading Collar would be a specified percentage below the National Best Bid (“NBB”). The proposed Trading Collars are set forth in the table below.
The Exchange notes that these proposed percentages are based on the current numerical guidelines for determining whether a clearly erroneous execution has occurred.
Consider an example where the NBBO is $24.95 × 25.01. In such scenario, the Trading Collar for buy orders would be $26.26 (
The Exchange proposes that if the NBBO is crossed, the Exchange would use the Exchange Best Offer (“BO”) instead of the NBO for buy orders, and the Exchange Best Bid (“BB”) instead of the NBB for sell orders.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to use the BB/BO when the NBBO is crossed as a crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an erroneously priced or stale bid and/or offer, and may not be appropriate reference prices for calculating Trading Collars. The Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection benefit of the Trading Collars. As proposed, in the event there is no NBB or BB, the lower boundary of the Trading Collar would be zero because there would be no reference price against which to determine the appropriate Trading Collar. Similarly, in the event there is no NBO or BO, the upper boundary of the Trading Collar would be set to the maximum price that the System could handle. Notwithstanding the Trading Collar, any incoming market orders or marketable limit orders would still be subject to the Plan and could not execute outside of the Upper (Lower) Price Band, as defined in Rule 80C—Equities.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(ii), an incoming market order, including an elected stop order, or marketable limit order would execute and/or route up or down to (and including) the Trading Collar and any remaining interest would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that Trading Collars, working in conjunction with the Plan, could help limit potential harm from extreme price volatility by preventing executions that could occur at a price significantly away from the contra side. As proposed, if the Trading Collar for incoming buy (sell) interest is lower (higher) than or equals the Upper (Lower) Price Band
The Exchange notes that if there is no execution opportunity at the Exchange for an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the NBO (NBB), the Exchange would not be obligated to route the order to an away market protected offer (bid) because the incoming order would not be trading through such protected quotation. The Exchange therefore proposes that if there is no execution opportunity at the Exchange for an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the NBO (NBB) and at or below (above) the Trading Collar, a buy (sell) order that is priced at or above (below) the Trading Collar would be cancelled. The Exchange further proposes that a similarly-priced, partially-executed order would also be cancelled.
For example, assume the NBO is 10.00, based on a quote from an away market, and therefore the proposed Trading Collar is 11.00. Assume further that the Exchange's best offer is 11.05 and with these conditions, the Exchange receives an incoming buy order priced at 11.02. Because there is no execution opportunity for the incoming buy order above the NBO and at or below the Trading Collar, and because the order's limit price exceeds the Trading Collar, the incoming buy order would be cancelled. The buy order would cancel rather than route because the Exchange would not trade through another market. Similarly, assuming the same facts, but the Exchange has non-displayed interest to sell priced at 9.99. An incoming buy order priced at 11.02 would execute against that 9.99 non-displayed sell interest, and then any remainder of the buy order would similarly be cancelled because there is no execution opportunity priced above the NBO of 10.00 or at or below the Trading Collar of 11.00.
Finally, pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(iii), during a Short Sale Price Test,
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(b)(i)—Equities, regarding price discretion or “d-Quotes,” which states that “[a] Floor broker may set a discretionary price range that specifies the prices at which the Floor broker is willing to trade.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend this Rule to provide that d-Quotes are subject to the Trading Collar and/or the Price Bands and, thus, pursuant to the amended rule, Floor Brokers may use discretion to initiate or participate in a trade with interest capable of trading at a price within the discretionary price range “unless the interest reaches a Trading Collar or Price Band, whichever is reached first.”
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 512—Equities to state that Trading Collars would apply to UTP Securities.
As noted above, by rule, the Exchange has already discontinued the use of LRPs for any security subject to the Plan. However, LRPs continue to be available for rights and warrants, which are not subject to the Plan. The Exchange believes that with the introduction of Trading Collars it will have in place appropriate price protections for rights and warrants and the Exchange will no longer need LRPs for those securities. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to complete the Exchange's discontinuation of LRPs in their entirety by deleting references to LRPs in the following Equities Rules: 60, 79A, 104, 128, 501, 508, 512, and 1000.
For similar reasons, the Exchange believes it appropriate to discontinue the Gap Quote Policy. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate its Gap Quote Policy in its entirety and to delete references thereto in the following Equities Rules: 60, 79A, 104, 501, 508, and 1000.
Relatedly, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 1000(e) (Executions at and Outside the Exchange Best Bid or Offer) to add references to Trading Collars and/or Price Bands, in certain cases to replace deleted references to LRPs. The Exchange believes these proposed changes will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
In connection with the addition of the Trading Collar, the Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of market order, in Rule 13—Equities, to state that if a market order to sell has exhausted all eligible buy interest, any unfilled balance of the market order to sell will be cancelled. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate because it assures that a market order to sell will not be held at a price that it is not executable,
Finally, unrelated to issues raised in present filing, the Exchange is also proposing technical, non-substantive edits to delete from the Exchange rules the outdated/obsolete references to securities operating in “Non-Firm Mode,” including in Rule 60(c)(ii)(A) and Rule 1000(a)(i), or the block template, referred to in Rule 60(ii)(B), which is the “manual reporting of a block-sized transaction.” The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to “S-quotes” in Rule 60(d), 1000(a) and 1000(e)(iii)(A), as DMM interest is no longer solely referred to in this manner and the Exchange believes the proposed amendment will remove this outmoded and narrow reference. The Exchange also proposes to amend the last sentence of Rule 60(d), regarding “[a]utoquoting of highest bid/lowest offer,” to account for the impact of the Trading Collars.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Trader Update.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
As an initial matter, the Exchange notes that the proposed Trading Collar, which is designed to designed to promote the just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, is similar to the price protection features offered on other markets, including NYSE Arca Equities.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Collar assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points, thereby resulting in executions that are potentially erroneous, which, in turn, protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time. Specifically, the Exchange believes the Trading Collars will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because the Trading Collars will operate in tandem with the Plan and will only execute/route incoming market orders or marketable limit orders priced within the Trading Collars or within the Upper (Lower) Band set forth in the Plan, if the latter is more conservative. The Exchange believes this mechanism will mitigate the risk of potentially erroneous executions, which protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange also believes its use of the BB/BO when the NBBO is crossed assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets as a crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an erroneously priced bid and/or offer, and should not be considered reliable for the purposes of determining the specified percentages for a Trading Collar. The Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection benefit of Trading Collar functionality, which protects investors and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that affording Trading Collar price protection to d-Quotes as well as to UTP Securities would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as the Trading Collar would prevent the execution of d-Quotes and UTP Securities that are priced far away from the prevailing market price from causing significant price dislocation in the market, which, in turn, benefits investors and is in the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the technical, non-substantive proposed amendments and/or deletions related to the Trading Collar in rules other than Rule 1000—Equities, as described above, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules and will enhance the understanding of market participants by reducing potential confusion that the obsolete references would otherwise create.
Finally, the Exchange previously committed to discontinue the Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms; thus, the elimination of LRPs and the Exchange's Gap Quote Policy are expected changes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the adding of Trading Collar protection will provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous executions. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Monthly Market Maker Cap
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 purpose of this filing is to amend certain Specialist and Market Maker pricing located in the Exchange's Pricing Schedule in Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options” in order to
Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a Monthly Market Maker Cap of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered
The Exchange proposes to decrease the Monthly Market Maker Cap from $550,000 to $500,000 and amend the types of trades that qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap to exclude fees specifically responding to a PIXL auction. While the Exchange is excluding fees related to responding to a PIXL auction as eligible transactions to reach the Monthly Market Maker Cap, the Exchange believes that lowering the cap to $500,000 will continue to incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to transact greater displayed liquidity on the Exchange to be eligible for the Monthly Market Maker Cap and, in turn, will benefit Phlx members and the Phlx market.
The Exchange is also proposing to amend the fees applicable to Specialists and Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order, and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap to assess: a $0.00 per contract Fee for Adding Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options; a $0.17 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options; and a $0.17 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange is proposing to amend the language to state: “Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order,
The Exchange would therefore exclude responses to a PIXL auction from the Monthly Market Maker Cap and those responses would be subject to the pricing in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule, as is the case today for all other Specialists and Market Makers that do not qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap, as well as all other market participants. Today, Specialists or Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer PIXL Order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed $0.00 per contract in the following symbols: AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX, and XLF and $0.17 per contract in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options. With this proposal, an Initiating Order would be assessed $0.07 per contract or $0.05 per contract if Customer Rebate Program Threshold Volume defined in Section B is greater than 100,000 contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange also proposes to expand and modify the $0.00 per contract pricing that today is available to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in the following symbols: AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX, and XLF to all Penny Pilot Options, provided the Specialist or Market Maker is adding liquidity. The Exchange will continue to assess a $0.17 per contract fee to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap for Penny Pilot Options, when removing liquidity and for Non-Penny Pilot Options when either adding or removing liquidity. Finally, the Exchange would also assess $0.17 per contract in a non-Complex electronic auction, including the Quote Exhaust auction and, for purposes of this fee, the opening process.
The Exchange believes that Specialists and Market Makers will
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Monthly Market Maker Cap from $550,000 to $500,000 is reasonable because by lowering the cap, Specialists and Market Makers will be able to take advantage of lower fees presumably earlier in the month because the cap is lower.
The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Monthly Market Maker Cap from $550,000 to $500,000 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this benefit would be uniformly applied to all Specialists and Market Makers that qualified for the Monthly Market Maker Cap. Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
The Exchange's proposal to amend the types of trades that qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap to exclude responses to a PIXL auction and assess Specialists and Market Makers the PIXL pricing located in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable because all other market participants on Phlx, including Specialists and Market Makers that are not subject to the Monthly Market Maker Cap, are currently subject to the PIXL pricing located in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule. Pursuant to this proposal, all market participants will be uniformly assessed the same fees when responding to a PIXL auction. The Exchange believes that Specialists and Market Makers will continue to be incentivized to participate in PIXL, as is the case today with Specialists and Market Makers that do not qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap and are subject to Section IV, A pricing.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the types of trades that qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap to exclude fees related to responding to a PIXL auction and assess Specialists and Market Makers the PIXL pricing located in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is proposing to assess all market participants, including Specialists and Market Makers, the same PIXL pricing located in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the pricing in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule will continue to encourage market participants to transact a greater number of PIXL Orders. The proposed PIXL pricing is competitive with other rates assessed to Specialists and Market Makers to transact similar orders on other options exchanges with price improvement mechanisms.
Further, the Exchange's proposal to assess Specialists and Market Makers the PIXL pricing in Section IV, A provides market participants the opportunity to lower fees by transacting a greater number of Customer orders. When the PIXL Order is contra to the Initiating Order a Customer PIXL Order will be assessed $0.00 per contract and non-Customer PIXL Orders will be assessed $0.30 per contract. When a PIXL Order is contra to a PIXL Auction Responder, a Customer PIXL Order will be assessed $0.00 per contract, other market participants will be assessed $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options or $0.38 per contract in non-
The Exchange's proposal to expand the $0.00 per contract pricing that today is available to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in certain symbols
The Exchange's proposal to expand the $0.00 per contract pricing that today is available to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in certain symbols
The Exchange's proposal to continue to assess a $0.17 per contract fee to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap for Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options provided the Specialist or Market Maker is removing liquidity is reasonable because the Exchange will be assessing the same fee as today. The $0.17 per contract fee will continue to be assessed to remove liquidity. Further, this fee subsidizes Customer rebates offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to continue to assess a $0.17 per contract fee to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap for Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options provided the Specialist or Market Maker is removing liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
The Exchange's proposal to continue to assess a $0.17 per contract fee to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in a non-Complex electronic auction, including the Quote Exhaust auction and, for purposes of this fee, the opening process is reasonable because the Exchange will be assessing the same fee as today. The $0.17 per contract fee will continue to be assessed to these auctions and the opening process. Further, this fee subsidizes Customer rebates offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to add the words “per contract” in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes the addition of the words “per contract” will add clarity to the Pricing Schedule to avoid any confusion as to the fee.
The Exchange's proposal to continue to assess a $0.17 per contract fee to Specialists and Market Makers that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in a non-Complex electronic auction, including the Quote Exhaust auction and, for purposes of this fee, the opening process is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
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 because Specialists and Market Makers will be offered the opportunity to cap certain transaction fees and pay lower
The Exchange does not believe that amending the types of trades that qualify for the Monthly Market Maker Cap by excluding certain transaction fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or assessing Specialists and Market Makers the PIXL pricing located in Section IV, A of the Pricing Schedule will impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange's proposal results in all market participants on Phlx being assessed the same PIXL pricing.
The Exchange's proposal for Specialists and Market Makers to pay no fees after they have satisfied the obligations related to the Monthly Market Maker Cap, in all Penny Pilot Options, provided they have added liquidity, and to pay lower fees for all other types of transactions, including those transacted in auctions and during the opening process, also does not provide an undue burden on competition. As noted above Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations to the market that do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend certain rules to adopt or align system functionality with that currently offered by BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”, and collectively with BZX, “BATS”) in order to provide a consistent technology offering amongst the Exchange and its affiliates. These changes, which are described in detail below, propose to clarify for Members
On July 15, 2014, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that described its use of data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance (the “Initial Proposal”) with the Commission.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On June 5, 2014, Chair White requested that all national securities exchanges develop proposed rule changes to disclose their use of data feeds to execute and route orders and comply with regulatory requirements.
Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent company of BATS (the Exchange, together with BZX, BYX and EDGA, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
The proposed amendments are intended to align certain system functionality with that currently offered by BATS in order to provide a consistent technology offering for Users
To ensure proper context and a complete filing describing the Exchange's procedures in this area both prior to and after the technology migration, the Exchange has repeated relevant information from the Initial Proposal and supplemented such information as necessary. In each section below the Exchange first describes its pre-integration functionality, which will be in place until the technology migration is complete, followed by a description of post-integration functionality. The Exchange anticipates completing the technology migration on or about January 12, 2015.
These SIP feeds contain the best (top-of-book) prices in round lot quotations of each protected venue. The Exchange's ME consumes the SIP feeds to obtain the top-of-book quotes from each protected venue, including the Exchange's affiliates, EDGX, BZX, and BYX, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (“FINRA”) Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”). The SIP feeds do not display odd lot quotations; therefore, the ME does not use odd lot quotations to calculate the national best
The ME will also update the NBBO upon receipt of an Intermarket Sweep Order (“ISO”) with a time-in-force of Day (“Day ISO”). When a Day ISO is posted on the EDGX Book, the ME uses the receipt of a Day ISO as evidence that the protected quotes have been cleared, and the ME does not check away markets for equal or better-priced protected quotes.
The NBBO is utilized for order handling and execution. The Exchange looks to its calculation of the NBBO, based on the SIP feeds and the EDGX Book, when determining the price at which an order with a Pegged instruction,
The ME will include odd lot quotations in its calculation of the NBBO depending on the source of the quotation. Where a protected market center aggregates odd lot quotations at a single price level into round lot quotations and publishes such aggregated quotations to the SIPs, then the ME will include those odd lot quotations in its calculation of the NBBO. In addition, where a protected market center aggregates odd lot quotations across more than one price level and publishes such aggregated quotations to the SIPs, then the ME will include those odd lot quotations in its calculation of the NBBO.
In addition to receiving Direct Feeds and SIP feeds, the ME's calculation of the NBBO may be adjusted based on orders sent to other venues with protected quotations, execution reports received from those venues, and certain orders received by the Exchange (collectively “Feedback”). The Exchange does not include its quotes in the calculation of the Exchange's NBBO because the system is designed such that all incoming orders are separately compared to the Exchange's Best Bid or Offer and the Exchange calculated NBBO, which together create a complete view of the NBBO, prior to display, execution, or routing.
Feedback from the receipt of ISOs with a time-in-force of Day (“Day ISOs”) and feedback from the Exchange's routing broker/dealer, BATS Trading, Inc., (“BATS Trading”),
All Feedback expires as soon as: (i) one (1) second passes; (ii) the Exchange receives new quote information; or (iii) the Exchange receives updated Feedback information. With the exception of Day ISO Feedback, the Exchange currently generates Feedback where an order was routed using a routing strategy offered by the Exchange that accesses protected quotes of trading venues on the System Routing Table (“Smart Order Routing”).
As described above, the NBBO is utilized for order handling and execution. In determining the price where an order with a Pegged instruction,
In determining whether to route an order and to which venue(s) it should be routed, the RE uses quotes disseminated from Direct Feeds, including EDGA, EDGX, BZX and BYX, and the SIP feeds from those venues where the Exchange does not take the Direct Feeds, including FINRA's ADF.
The RE utilizes a third-party market data processor that consumes the Direct Feeds and the SIP feeds, aggregates the quantities of symbols by price level, and redistributes them to an internal quote processor (the “Quote Server”). The RE will request from the Quote Server a market data snapshot which includes the top-of-book and/or depth-of-book of each market center offering depth-of-book feeds. Depending on the source of the quotation, the Quote Server may include odd lot quotations if the market
Based on this snapshot, the RE determines where to route the order, allocating the shares to the venues at each price level up to the limit price of the order, starting with the best quotes subject to the Member's instructions. If there are any shares remaining after the response to the initial route is received, the RE will take another snapshot from the Quote Server and send out orders based on the same logic. If the full quantity of the order is not executed after multiple route attempts, the order is returned to the ME.
In addition, the RE utilizes in-flight order information in its routing methodology. The RE tracks the details of each in-flight order, including the quantity routed and the corresponding quote published by the routed venue. After the RE requests a market data snapshot from the Quote Server and the RE has already targeted this quote (identified by venue, symbol, price, quantity and time stamp), then the RE will subtract the routed quantity of in-flight orders from the quote size displayed in the market data snapshot. The RE will route an order for the remaining quantity to the venue. If there are no residual shares, the RE will bypass the quote.
The RE also utilizes responses from other venues displaying protected quotes in its routing methodology. When the RE receives a response from a venue that does not completely fill the order targeting a quote, and no subsequent quote update has been received from that venue at the same price level, the RE will mark that venue's quote as stale at that price level.
In determining whether to route an order and to which venue(s) it should be routed, the RE will make its own calculation of the NBBO using the Direct Feeds, SIP feeds, and Router Feedback, as described below.
The RE will not utilize Day ISO Feedback in constructing the NBBO; however, because all orders initially flow through the ME, to the extent Day ISO Feedback has updated the ME's calculation of the NBBO, all orders processed by the RE will take Day ISO Feedback into account. The RE will receive Feedback from all Smart Order Routing strategies.
There are three types of Router Feedback that contribute to the Exchange's calculation of the NBBO:
• Immediate Feedback. Where BATS Trading routes an order to a venue with a protected quotation using Smart Order Routing (a “Feedback Order”), the number of shares available at that venue will be immediately decreased by the number of shares routed to the venue at the applicable price level.
• Execution Feedback. Where BATS Trading receives an execution report associated with a Feedback Order that indicates that the order has fully executed with no remaining shares associated with the order, all opposite side quotes on the venue's order book that are priced more aggressively than the price at which the order was executed will be ignored.
• Cancellation Feedback. Where BATS Trading receives an execution report associated with a Feedback Order that indicates that the order has not fully executed (either a partial execution or a cancellation), all opposite side quotes on the venue's order book that are priced equal to or more aggressively than the limit price for the order will be ignored.
All Feedback expires as soon as: (i) one (1) second passes; (ii) the Exchange receives new quote information; or (iii) the Exchange receives updated Feedback information.
Pursuant to Regulation NMS, when an Exchange receives a Day ISO, the sender of the ISO retains the responsibility to comply with applicable rules relating to locked and crossed markets.
Declarations of self-help occur when the RE detects that an exchange displaying protected quotes is slow, as defined in Regulation NMS, or non-responsive to the Exchange's routed orders. In this circumstance, according to Rule 611(b) of Regulation NMS, the Exchange may display a quotation that may lock or cross quotations from the market that the Exchange invoked self-help against.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal to describe the Exchange's use of data feeds removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest because it provides additional specificity and transparency regarding both the current operation of the System and the operation of the System following the migration to BATS technology. The Exchange's proposal will enable investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The Exchange believes the additional transparency into the operation of the Exchange as described in the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance competition because describing the Exchange's use of data feeds enhances transparency and enables investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit Exchange participants in that it is one of several changes necessary to achieve a consistent technology offering by the BGM Affiliated Exchanges [sic]
The Exchange filed the Initial Proposal with the Commission on July 15, 2014, and it was published for comment in the
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010
This advance notice is filed by OCC in connection with a proposed change to its operations concerning the clearance of confirmed trades executed in extended and overnight trading sessions (hereinafter, “overnight trading sessions”) offered by exchanges for which OCC provides clearance and settlement services.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments on the advance notice were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the advance notice and none have been received.
This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed change to OCC's operations concerning the clearance of confirmed trades executed in overnight trading sessions offered by exchanges for which OCC provides clearance and settlement services. OCC currently clears overnight trading activity for CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (“CFE”).
OCC's standards for determining whether to provide clearing services for overnight trading sessions offered by an exchange and the implementation of a framework are designed to work in conjunction with the risk controls of the exchanges that offer overnight trading sessions. OCC would confirm an exchange's risk controls as well as its staffing levels as they relate to overnight trading sessions to determine if OCC may reasonably rely on such risk controls to reduce risk presented to OCC by the exchange's overnight trading sessions. Such exchange risk controls will consist of: (1) Price reasonability checks, (2) controls to prevent orders from being executed beyond a certain percentage (determined by the exchange) from the initial execution price, (3) activity based protections which focus on risk beyond price, such as a high number of trades occurring in a set period of time, and (4) kill switch capabilities, which may be initiated by the exchange and can cancel all open quotes or all orders of a particular participant. OCC believes that confirming the existence of applicable pre-trade risk controls as well as overnight staffing at the relevant exchanges is essential to mitigating risks presented to OCC from overnight trading sessions.
In order to mitigate risks associated with clearing for overnight trading sessions, clearing members that participate in such trading sessions would be required to provide contact information to OCC for operational and risk personnel available to be contacted by OCC during such sessions. In addition, OCC would require that clearing members participating in an overnight trading session to post additional margin in a designated account in order to mitigate against the risk that OCC cannot draft a clearing member's bank account during an overnight trading session.
With respect to providing operational and risk contacts, under OCC Rule 201, each clearing member is required to maintain facilities for conducting
OCC would impose upon clearing members qualified to participate in overnight trading sessions additional margin requirement in an amount of the lesser of $10 million or 10% of the clearing member's net capital (“Additional Margin”), which would be equal to the first monitoring risk threshold (described below) and which would be collected the morning before each overnight trading sessions. Clearing members must identify the proprietary account that would be charged the Additional Margin amount. The Additional Margin requirement is intended to provide OCC with additional margin assets should a clearing member's credit risk increase during overnight trading sessions.
Moreover, OCC also would confirm that an exchange offering overnight trading sessions has adopted a procedure whereby such exchange would contact OCC when a trader requests trading privileges during overnight trading sessions. The purpose of this contact is to verify that the trader's clearing firm (
OCC plans to implement system changes so that trades submitted to OCC during overnight trading sessions that have been executed by clearing members not approved for such trading sessions would be reviewed by OCC staff after acceptance but before being processed (each such trade a [sic] being a “Reviewed Trade”). OCC would contact the submitting exchange regarding each Reviewed Trade in order to determine if the trade is a valid trade. If the exchange determines that the Reviewed Trade was in error such that, as provided in Article VI, Section 7(c), new or revised trade information is required to properly clear the transaction, OCC expects the exchange would instruct OCC to disregard or “bust” the trade. If the exchange determines that the Reviewed Trade was not in error, then OCC would clear the Reviewed Trade and take appropriate disciplinary action against the non-approved clearing member, as described below. OCC believes that clearing the Reviewed Trade is appropriate in order to avoid potentially harming the clearing member approved for overnight trading sessions that is on the opposite side of the transaction.
OCC plans to implement additional overnight monitoring in order to better monitor clearing members' credit risk during overnight trading sessions. Such monitoring of credit risk is similar to existing OCC practices concerning futures cleared during overnight trading hours and includes automated processes within ENCORE to measure, by clearing member: (i) The aggregate mark-to-market amounts of a clearing member's positions, including positions created during overnight trading, based on current prices using OCC's Portfolio Revaluation system, (ii) the aggregate incremental margin produced by all positions resulting from transactions executed during overnight trading, and (iii) with respect to options cleared during overnight trading hours, the aggregate net trade premium positions resulting from trades executed during overnight trading (each of these measures being a “Credit Risk Number”). Hourly credit reports would be generated by ENCORE containing the Credit Risk Numbers expressed in terms of both dollars and, except for the mark-to-market position values, as a percentage of net capital for each clearing member trading during overnight trading sessions. The Credit Risk Numbers are the same information used by OCC staff to evaluate clearing member exposure during regular trading hours and, in addition to OCC's knowledge of its clearing members' businesses, are effective measures of the risk presented to OCC by each clearing member. OCC's Operations staff would review such reports as they are generated and, in the event that any of the Credit Risk Numbers for positions established by a clearing member during an overnight trading session exceeds established thresholds, staff would alert OCC's Market Risk staff
With respect to OCC's escalation thresholds, if any Credit Risk Number of a clearing member approved for overnight trading sessions is $10 million
If any Credit Risk Number of a clearing member approved for overnight trading sessions is $50 million or more, or equals 25% or more of the clearing member's net capital, Operations staff would be required to contact, by telephone: (i) Market Risk and Member Services, (ii) the applicable exchange for secondary review, and (iii) the clearing member's designated contacts. The on-call Market Risk duty officer would also consider if additional action is necessary, which may include contacting a designated executive officer in order to issue an intra-day margin call, increase the clearing member's margin requirement in order to prevent the withdrawal of a specified amount of excess margin collateral, if any, the clearing member has on deposit with OCC or contacting the exchange in order to invoke use of its kill switch. If any Credit Risk Number is $75 million or more, or equals 50% or more of the clearing member's net capital, Operations staff would be required to contact, by telephone, Market Risk staff, the on-call Market Risk duty officer and a designated executive officer. Such officer would be responsible for reviewing the situation and determining whether to implement credit controls, which are described in greater detail below and include: issuing an intra-day margin call, increasing a clearing member's margin requirement in order to prevent the withdrawal of a specified amount of excess margin collateral, if any, the clearing member has on deposit with OCC, whether further escalation is warranted in order for OCC to take protective measures pursuant to OCC Rule 305, or contact the exchange in order to invoke use of its kill switch. OCC chose the above described escalation thresholds based on its analysis of historical overnight trading activity across the futures industry. OCC believes that these thresholds strike an appropriate balance between effective risk monitoring and operational efficiency.
In order to address credit risk associated with trading during overnight trading sessions, and as described above, OCC would collect Additional Margin from clearing members as well as monitor and analyze the impact that positions established during such sessions have on a clearing member's overall exposure. Should the need arise based on threshold breaches described above, and pursuant to OCC Rule 609, OCC may require the deposit of additional margin (“intra-day margin”) by any clearing member that increases its incremental risk as a result of trading activity during overnight trading sessions. Accordingly, a clearing member's positions established during such sessions will be incorporated into OCC's intra-day margin process. Should a clearing member's exposure significantly increase while settlement banks are not open to process an intra-day margin call, OCC has the authority under OCC Rule 601 to increase a clearing member's margin requirement which would restrict its ability to withdraw excess margin collateral. The implementation of these measures is discussed more fully below.
In the event that a clearing member's exposure during overnight trading sessions causes a clearing member to exceed OCC's intra-day margin call threshold for overnight night trading sessions, OCC would require the clearing member to deposit intra-day margin equal to the increased incremental risk presented by the clearing member. Specifically, if a clearing member has a total risk charge
In addition to, or instead of, requiring additional intra-day margin, OCC Rule 601
Moreover, a designated executive officer may call an exchange offering overnight trading sessions to invoke use of its kill switch. The kill switch would prevent a clearing member (or the market participant clearing through a clearing member) from executing trades on the exchange during a given overnight trading session or, if needed, stop all trading during a given overnight trading session. Finally, pursuant to OCC Rule 305, the Executive Chairman or the President of OCC, in certain situations, has the authority to impose limitations and restrictions on the transactions, positions and activities of
In order to deter clearing members from attempting to participate in overnight trading sessions without authorization as well as appropriately enforce the above described processes, OCC would ensure that any attempt by a clearing member to participate in overnight trading sessions without first obtaining the necessary approval would result in the initiation of a rule enforcement action against such clearing member. As described above, clearing members not approved for overnight trading sessions who trade during such overnight sessions would have their trades reviewed by OCC staff. Clearing members who attempted to participate in overnight trading sessions that did not obtain the necessary approval to do so would be subject to a minor rule violation fine.
Clearing transactions executed in overnight trading sessions may increase risk presented to OCC due to the period of time between trade acceptance and settlement, the staffing levels at clearing members during such trading sessions and the deferment of executing intra-day margin calls until banking settlement services are operational. However, OCC would expand its risk management practices in order to mitigate these risks by implementing, and expanding, the various tools discussed above. For example, OCC would enhance its monitoring practices in order to closely monitor clearing members' credit risk from trades placed during overnight trading sessions as well as implement processes so that OCC takes appropriate action when such credit risk exceeds certain limits. OCC would also use its existing authority to require adequate clearing member staffing during such trading sessions, in order to mitigate the operational risk associated with clearing members trading while they are not fully staffed. These risk management functions would work in tandem with risk controls, including the implementation of kill switch capabilities, adopted by the exchanges operating overnight trading sessions or by clearing FCMs, as applicable.
In addition to the above, OCC would adapt existing processes so that such processes can be used to mitigate risk associated with overnight trading sessions. Specifically, OCC would exercise its authority to issue margin calls, and prevent the withdrawal of excess margin on deposit at OCC, as a result of activity during such trading sessions as a means of reducing risk. OCC also would implement a systemic function to identify trades executed during overnight trading sessions by clearing members not approved for such trading sessions for further review prior to allowing such trades to proceed further through OCC's clearance processing, and therefore mitigate the risk of losses from erroneous trades. Finally, OCC would be able to assess the need to take protective action pursuant to OCC Rule 305 as a result of clearing member activity during such sessions.
OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the Commission receives the notice of proposed change, or (ii) the date the Commission receives any further information it requests for consideration of the notice. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed change, is consistent with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision 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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–OCC–2014–812 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2015.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
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 the “Customer Rebate Program,” in Section B of the Pricing Schedule to: (i) Increase certain Category B rebates; and (ii) increase the additional Category B Tier 2 and 3 rebates paid to Specialists
Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of five tiers that pays Customer rebates on two Categories, A
The Exchange pays the following rebates:
The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier 4 and 5 Category B rebates from $0.19 to $0.20 per contract.
Currently, the Exchange offers Specialists and Market Makers, or its affiliate under Common Ownership,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Tier 4 and 5 Category B rebates will encourage market participants to send a greater amount of Customer liquidity to Phlx. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Tier 4 and 5 Category B rebates is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied to all market participants in a uniform matter. All members are eligible to receive the rebate provided they submit a qualifying number of electronic Customer volume.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay an increased $0.03 per contract Category B rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate, to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap is reasonable because the Exchange intends to continue to encourage Specialists and Market Makers to transact Customer Complex Orders on the Exchange to receive the enhanced rebate. The Exchange will continue to encourage Specialists and Market Makers to transact Customer Simple Orders on the Exchange by offering the additional $0.02 per contract Category A rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay an increased $0.03 per contract Category B rebate, in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate, to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pay Specialists and Market Makers different rebates for transacting Simple versus Complex Orders. Today, the Exchange pays different Category A (Simple Order) and Category B (Complex Order) rebates. The Exchange also differentiates pricing for Simple and Complex Orders transaction fees in Section I as do other options exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow to be directed to the Exchange. Certain market participants will receive higher Tier 4 and 5 Category B rebates for transacting the same Customer order flow as today. The Exchange believes that the
The Exchange does not believe that offering Specialists and Market Makers an enhanced Category B rebate of $0.03 per contract in addition to the applicable Tier 2 or 3 rebate creates an undue burden on competition because Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 29, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by iShares U.S. ETF Trust (“Trust”),
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Funds and its investment strategies, including other portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
The High Yield Bond Fund will seek to mitigate the interest rate risk of a portfolio composed of U.S. dollar-denominated, high yield corporate bonds with remaining maturities of less than five years. This Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances,
The High Yield Bond Fund intends to initially invest a substantial portion of its assets in one underlying fund, the iShares 0–5 Year High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (the “Underlying High Yield Corporate Bond Fund”). This Fund will attempt to mitigate the interest rate risk primarily through the use of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and interest rate swaps. The High Yield Bond Fund may also take short positions in other interest rate futures contracts, including but not limited to, Eurodollar and Federal Funds futures.
BFA will utilize a model-based proprietary investment process to assemble an investment portfolio composed of (i) long positions in the Underlying High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, (ii) long positions in U.S. dollar-denominated high yield corporate bonds, (iii) long positions in U.S. Treasury securities, and (iv) short positions in U.S. Treasury futures, other interest rate futures contracts, and interest rate swaps. The Exchange notes that the short positions are expected to have, in the aggregate, approximately equivalent duration to the underlying securities in the Underlying High Yield Corporate Bond Fund and to the high yield corporate bonds. By taking these short positions, BFA will seek to mitigate the potential impact of rising interest rates on the performance of the Underlying High Yield Corporate Bond Fund and the high yield corporate bonds (conversely also limiting the potential positive impact of falling interest rates). The short positions will not be intended to mitigate other factors influencing the price of high yield bonds, such as credit risk, which may have a greater impact than rising or falling interest rates. Relative to a long-only investment in the same high yield bonds, the High Yield Bond Fund's investment strategy is designed to outperform in a rising interest rate environment and underperform in a falling interest rate environment.
The Credit Bond Fund will seek to mitigate the interest rate risk of a portfolio composed of investment-grade U.S. corporate bonds and U.S. dollar-denominated bonds, including those of non-U.S. corporations and governments, with remaining maturities greater than ten years. This Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances,
The Credit Bond Fund intends to initially invest a substantial portion of its assets in one underlying fund, the iShares 10+ Year Credit Bond ETF (the “Underlying Credit Bond Fund”). The Credit Bond Fund will attempt to mitigate the interest rate risk primarily through the use of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and interest rate swaps. The Credit Bond Fund may also invest in other interest rate futures contracts, including but not limited to, Eurodollar and Federal Funds futures.
BFA will utilize a model-based proprietary investment process to assemble an investment portfolio composed of (i) long positions in the Underlying Credit Bond Fund, (ii) long positions in U.S. dollar-denominated investment-grade corporate bonds, (iii) long positions in U.S. Treasury securities, and (iv) short positions in U.S. Treasury futures, other interest rate futures contracts, and interest rate swaps. The short positions are expected to have, in the aggregate, approximately equivalent duration to the underlying securities in the Underlying Credit Bond Fund and to the investment-grade corporate bonds. By taking these short positions, BFA will seek to mitigate the potential impact of rising interest rates on the performance of the Underlying Credit Bond Fund and the investment-grade corporate bonds (conversely also limiting the potential positive impact of falling interest rates). Further, the short positions are not intended to mitigate other factors influencing the price of investment-grade bonds, such as credit risk, which may have a greater impact than rising or falling interest rates. Relative to a long-only investment in the same investment-grade bonds, the Credit Bond Fund's investment strategy is designed to outperform in a rising interest rate environment and underperform in a falling interest rate environment.
The Emerging Markets Bond Fund will seek to mitigate the interest rate risk of a portfolio composed of U.S. dollar-denominated, emerging market bonds. This Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances,
The Emerging Markets Bond Fund intends to initially invest a substantial portion of its assets in one underlying fund, the iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (the “Underlying Emerging Markets Bond Fund”). This Fund will attempt to mitigate the interest rate risk primarily through the use of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and interest rate swaps. It may also take short positions in other interest rate futures contracts, including but not limited to, Eurodollar and Federal Funds futures.
BFA will utilize a model-based proprietary investment process to assemble an investment portfolio composed of (i) long positions in the Underlying Emerging Markets Bond Fund, (ii) long positions in U.S. dollar-denominated emerging market bonds, (iii) long positions in U.S. Treasury securities, and (iv) short positions in U.S. Treasury futures, other interest rate futures contracts, and interest rate swaps. The short positions are expected to have, in the aggregate, approximately equivalent duration to the underlying securities in the Underlying Emerging Markets Bond Fund and to the emerging market bonds. By taking these short positions, BFA will seek to mitigate the potential impact of rising interest rates on the performance of the Underlying Emerging Markets Bond Fund and the emerging market bonds (conversely also limiting the potential positive impact of falling interest rates). Further, the short positions are not intended to mitigate other factors influencing the price of emerging market bonds, such as credit risk, which may have a greater impact than rising or falling interest rates. Relative to a long-only investment in the same emerging market bonds, the Emerging Markets Bond Fund's investment strategy is designed to outperform in a rising interest rate environment and underperform in a falling interest rate environment.
While each of the Funds, under normal circumstances,
The Funds may invest in repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements. The Funds may invest in money market instruments. The instruments in which the Funds may invest include: (i) Shares of money market funds (including those advised by BFA or otherwise affiliated with BFA); (ii) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities (including government-sponsored enterprises); (iii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), bankers' acceptances, fixed-time deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks (including non-U.S. branches) and similar institutions; (iv) commercial paper rated, at the date of purchase, “Prime-1” by Moody's® Investors Service, Inc., “F–1” by Fitch Inc., or “A–1” by Standard & Poor's® (“S&P®”), or if unrated, of comparable quality as determined by BFA; (v) non-convertible corporate debt securities (
Each of the Funds also may invest in options that are traded on a U.S. or non-U.S. exchange and that reference U.S. Treasury securities. To the extent that
Each of the Funds may invest in debt securities of non-U.S. issuers and may invest in privately-issued debt securities.
As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter from an anonymous commenter.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
Quotation and last-sale information for the Shares and the shares of the Underlying High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, Underlying Credit Bond Fund, the Underlying Emerging Markets Bond Fund, and any other exchange-traded funds held by any of the Funds will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. In addition, the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Indicative Value (“IOPV”), which is the Portfolio Indicative Value as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(3), will be widely disseminated at least every fifteen seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors.
In addition, for each of the Funds, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities required to be delivered in exchange for that Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) via National Securities Clearing Corporation. The NAV of each of the Funds will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4 p.m., Eastern Time) on each day the NYSE is open for business.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded portfolio assets, including investment companies, money market instruments, futures and options will be available from the securities exchanges and futures exchanges trading such securities and futures contracts, respectively; automated quotation systems; published or other public sources; or on-line information services, such as Bloomberg or Reuters or any such future service provider. The Funds' Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the High Yield Bond Fund, the Credit Bond Fund, and the Emerging Markets Bond Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information for the Funds.
The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that, for each Fund, the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in Shares will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable,
The Commission notes that the Funds and the Shares must comply with the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 for the Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-traded equity securities, futures and options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-traded equity securities, futures and options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-trade equity securities, futures and options contracts from ISG member markets or markets with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(4) With respect to its exchange-traded equity securities investments, the Funds will invest only in equity securities that trade in markets that are members of the ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. To the extent that any of the Funds invest in options, not more than 10% of such investment would be in options whose principal trading market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Funds will invest only in futures contracts that are traded on an exchange that is a member of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (e) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(6) For initial and continued listing, the Funds will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3 under the Act,
(7) Each of the Funds may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment).
(8) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for each of the Funds will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
(9) With respect to each Fund's investments in fixed-income securities, no fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities, government-sponsored-entity securities, and other exempted securities) will represent more than 30% of the weight of that Fund's total assets, and the five highest weighted fixed income securities held by such Fund (excluding Treasury Securities, government-sponsored entity and other exempted securities) will not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the weight of that Fund's total assets.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in Amendments No. 1 and No. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 are 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the amendments in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Department of State has submitted the information collections described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on these collections from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to 30 days from January 22, 2015.
Comments and questions should be directed to Mr. Robert Hart, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, who may be reached via the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the information collection title and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information to Mr. Robert Hart, PM/DDTC, SA–1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 20522–0112, who may be reached via phone at (202) 736–9221, or via email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 233, Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 233, Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics.
The meeting will be held February 18–19th 2015 from 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330–0662 or (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by City of San Antonio Aviation Department for San Antonio International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for San Antonio International Airport under Part 150 in conjunction with the noise exposure map, and that this program will be approved or disapproved on or before July 11, 2015.
DOT/FAA Southwest Region, John MacFarlane, Environmental Specialist, ASW–652B, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Telephone (817) 222–5681.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for San Antonio International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective January 12, 2015. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before July 11, 2015. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
Under 49 U.S.C., section 47503 (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
City of San Antonio Aviation Department submitted to the FAA on December 17, 2014 noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation that were produced during the Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update and Noise Compatibility Program Revision for San Antonio International Airport, December 2014. It was requested that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure maps, as described in section 47503 of the Act, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by City of San Antonio Aviation Department. The specific documentation determined to constitute the noise exposure maps includes: Figure 10—Existing (2014) NEM and Figure 11—Forecast (2019) NEM, Figure 3—Existing SAT Airport Layout, Figure 6—Representative Sample of Modeled Arrival Flight Tracks (2014 & 2019), Figure 7—Representative Sample of Modeled Departure Flight Tracks (2014 & 2019), Table 4—2014 Operations Summary, Table 5—Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations for 2014, Table 6—2019 Operations Summary, Table 7—Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations for 2019, Table 9—Modeled Average Daily Runway Use for 2014, Table 11—Modeled Average Daily Runway Use for 2019, and Table 13—
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for San Antonio International Airport, also effective on January 12, 2015. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before July 11, 2015.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 150, section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise exposure maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed noise compatibility program are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice; correction.
The FAA published a document in the
Kathy Franklin, 817–222–5634
In the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the proposed widening and reconstruction of US 34 in Henderson County, Illinois.
Catherine A. Batey, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, Phone: (217) 492–4600. Kensil A. Garnett, P.E. Acting Deputy Director of Highways, Region 3 Engineer, Illinois Department of Transportation, 401 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Phone: (309) 671–3333.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), will prepare a Supplemental EIS for the proposed widening and reconstruction of US 34 in Henderson County. The original EIS study limits were Carman Road (east of the Village of Gulfport) to the Village of Monmouth, Illinois, a total distance of approximately 24.8 miles, for which the Record of Decision was issued on August 18, 2003. The purpose of the project is to re-evaluate alternatives due to decertification of the Mississippi River levees in the portion near Gulfport. The anticipated project termini for this Supplemental EIS are from approximately one mile west of Carman Road to just east of TR 111 in Henderson County, a study area of approximately 8.2 miles.
The Supplemental EIS will evaluate alternatives including a No Action Alternative and various Build Alternatives. The Supplemental EIS will develop and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives with an ultimate outcome of a single preferred alternative that addresses the type of facility to be
The Supplemental EIS will evaluate potential effects on the social, economic, natural and physical environments, including land use and socioeconomic conditions, ecological resources, and cultural resources. Potentially affected resources include: Agricultural, residential and commercial properties; streams, wetlands and floodplains; forested areas and potentially historic properties. Preliminary measures to minimize harm, estimates of probable construction costs and estimated right-of-way requirements will be developed as part of this study.
Public involvement is a critical component of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project development process and will occur throughout the development of the environmental document. This document will be made available for review by federal and state resource agencies and the public. Public informational meetings, local government meetings, property owner meetings and other community organization meetings will provide opportunities for public input. A public hearing will be held at the time the Draft Supplemental EIS is made available for public and agency review and comment. Public notice will be given of the time and place of public meetings and hearings. Comments or questions regarding this proposed action and the Supplemental EIS are invited from all interested parties and should be directed to the FHWA or the IDOT at the addresses provided above.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed local assistance project, Bent Avenue Bridge [Federal Aid Number BRLS–NBIL(522)] and Via Vera Cruz Bridge [Federal Aid Number BRLS–5381(033)] in the City of San Marcos, in the County of San Diego, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Kevin Hovey, Chief, Environmental Branch D, California Department of Transportation—District 11, 4050 Taylor Street, San Diego, CA 92110, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 619–688–0240,
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans, have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
3. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU);
4. Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
5. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
6. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
7. Noise Control Act of 1970;
8. 23 CFR part 772 FHWA Noise Standards, Policies and Procedures;
9. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f);
10. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
11. Endangered Species Act of 1973;
12. Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
13. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970;
14. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;
15. Historic Sites Act of 1935;
16. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
17. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species; and,
18. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective February 5, 2015. Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2006–26066; FMCSA–2008–0340], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period 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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 11 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 11 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. 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.
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 for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6209; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 797). Each of these 11 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2006–26066; FMCSA–2008–0340), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that 14 individuals have applied for a medical exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on these requests. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant theses requests after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable 14 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0106 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366–4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105–178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). This standard 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).
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, to submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Arthurs, 27, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Ballard, 37, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Brandyberry, 33, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Friede, 39, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Nebraska.
Mr. Hivey, 80, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hoagland, 34, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Colorado.
Mr. Horning, 39, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lynch, 58, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Ohio.
Mr. McClain, 37, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. McKenzie, 36, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Mcleod, 50, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Mr. Morales-Contreras, 26, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Veronie, 35, holds a chauffeur's license in Louisiana.
Mr. Witcher, 54, holds a chauffeur's license in Michigan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business February 23, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective February 11, 2015. Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0337], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period 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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless
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 for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 70534; 78 FR 9772). Each of these 13 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2012–0337), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2 years in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–2014–0380 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366–4001, or via email at
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period 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 statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 15 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Broll is a 26 year-old class A CDL holder in Minnesota. He has a history of spontaneous subdural hematoma. He has no history of seizure. He takes anti-seizure medication as a prophylactic measure. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Broll receiving an exemption.
Mr. Brown is a 69 year-old class C CDL holder in Arizona. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Brown receiving an exemption.
Mr. Curtis is a 52 year-old class A CDL holder in Oregon. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Curtis receiving an exemption.
Mr. Durkee is a 64 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1977. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Durkee receiving an exemption.
Mr. Eyerly is a 59 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1981. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
Mr. Grafton is a 61 year-old class A CDL holder in Indiana. He has a history of a seizure in October 2014 secondary to a stroke. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Grafton receiving an exemption.
Mr. Griffin is a 28 year-old driver in North Carolina. He has a history of post-traumatic seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Griffin receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hineline is a 55 year-old class A CDL holder in Washington. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1979. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1988. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hineline receiving an exemption.
Mr. Lohman is a 26 year-old driver in Illinois. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2011. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Lohman receiving an exemption.
Mr. Malott is a 22 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since January 2014. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Malott receiving an exemption.
Mr. Mathis is a 28 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Mathis receiving an exemption.
Mr. McKenzie is a 45 year-old driver in Michigan. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. McKenzie receiving an exemption.
Mr. Plummer is a 60 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a history of a movement disorder with symptoms of unsteadiness and muscle twitching. He has no history of seizure. He takes anti-seizure medication for his movement disorder and his physician states his symptoms remain stable. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Plummer receiving an exemption.
Mr. Reineke is a 44 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Reineke receiving an exemption.
Mr. Sheller is a 21 year-old class A CDL holder in Indiana. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1996. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sheller receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the notice.
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline And Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given of the actions on special permits applications in (October to October 2014). The mode of transportation involved are identified by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1-Motor vehicle, 2-Rail freight, 3-Cargo vessel, 4-Cargo aircraft only, 5-Passenger-carrying aircraft. Application numbers prefixed by the letters EE represent applications for Emergency Special Permits. It should be noted that some of the sections cited were those in effect at the time certain special permits were issued.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the two individuals and one entity identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on January 16, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On January 16, 2015, the Director of OFAC designated the following two individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. BILAKHIA, Aziz Moosa; DOB 03 Apr 1960; alt. DOB 1958; POB Mumbai, India; nationality India (individual) [SDNTK].
2. KASKAR, Shaikh Anis Ibrahim (a.k.a. KASKAR, Anees Ibrahim; a.k.a. “EBRAHIM, Sayed Omar Haji”; a.k.a. “IBRAHIM, Haji Anees”), Pakistan; DOB 05 May 1960; POB Mumbai, India; nationality India (individual) [SDNTK].
3. MEHRAN PAPER MILL, F–11, S.I.T.E., Kotri, Sindh, Pakistan; Tax ID No. 25735349 (Pakistan) [SDNTK].
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Under OMB Review.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 23, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate critical habitat for
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 23, 2015. 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
The coordinates, plot points, or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are available at
Acting Field Supervisor Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; by telephone 772–562–3909; or by facsimile 772–562–4288. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
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 government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
(b) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range currently occupied by the species,
(c) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features
(d) Special management considerations or protections that may be needed in the critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change, and
(e) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
All comments submitted electronically 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
Previous Federal actions for
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for
The current range of
The current range of
Although
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 Act, on which are found those physical or biological features:
(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, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we may designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential for the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include, but are not limited to, the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both 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.
In the proposed rule to list
In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of designation 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, the area is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question;
(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 species.
Therefore, we have reevaluated our prudency determination for both cacti and have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to either species and may provide some measure of benefit. Accordingly, we determine that designation of critical habitat is prudent for both species.
Having determined that designation of critical habitat is prudent for both species, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species are located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available. Based on our review of this information, we conclude that critical habitat is determinable for
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing may be designated as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographic and ecological distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
The habitats identified above as physical or biological features also provide a plant community with associated plant species that foster a competitive regime suitable to
According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, and storm-deposited sediment.
(B) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate with a thin layer of highly organic soil covering limestone or organic matter that accumulates on top of the limestone.
(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate with calcareous marl muds, calcareous sands, or limestone rock.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of
(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain viable populations in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators that visit the flowers of
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection.
Special management considerations or protection are necessary throughout the critical habitat areas proposed here to avoid further degradation or destruction of the habitat that provides those features essential to the species' conservation. The primary threats to the physical or biological features that
(1) Habitat destruction and modification by development and sea level rise;
(2) Competition with nonnative, invasive plant and animal species;
(3) Wildfire; and
(4) Hurricanes and storm surge.
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management considerations or protection while others (
The following measures or management activities can ameliorate threats to
(1) Protecting habitats from residential, commercial, or recreational facility development;
(2) Avoiding ditching or filling that may alter hydrological conditions;
(3) Nonnative plant and animal species control programs to reduce competition, predation, and prevent habitat degradation; and
(4) Hardwood reduction to maintain the open vegetation structure of the species habitats.
The reduction of these threats will require the implementation of special management actions within each of the critical habitat areas identified in this proposed rule. All proposed critical habitat will need management to address the ongoing threats listed above and those presented in the
The Service, National Park Service (NPS), State of Florida, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and several local governments own and manage conservation lands within the range of
NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1 prohibit visitors from harming or removing plants, listed or otherwise, from Everglades National Park (ENP) or Biscayne National Park (BNP).
The Service, NPS, State of Florida, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and several local governments conduct nonnative species control efforts on sites that support, or have suitable habitat for
Reintroductions of
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether designating additional areas—outside
We have proposed units throughout the historical range of
As discussed above we are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the geographical area presently occupied by the species,
The wild populations of
Small plant populations with limited, fragmented distributions, such as
Habitat fragmentation can have negative effects on populations, especially rare plants, and can affect survival and recovery (Aguilar
In selecting areas to propose for critical habitat designation, we utilized the Shaffer and Stein (2000) methodology for conserving imperiled species known as the `three Rs': Representation, resiliency, and redundancy. Representation, or preserving some of everything, means conserving not just a species but its associated plant communities. Resiliency and redundancy ensure there is enough of a species so it can survive into the future. Resiliency means ensuring that the habitat is adequate for a species and its representative components. Redundancy ensures an adequate number of sites and individuals. This methodology has been widely accepted as a reasonable conservation strategy (Tear
We have addressed representation through the primary constituent elements (as discussed above) and by identifying areas of habitat for the expansion of
To determine the location and boundaries of critical habitat, the Service used the following sources of information and considerations:
(1) Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) population records and ArcGIS geographic information system software to spatially depict the location and extent of documented populations of
(2) Reports prepared by botanists with the Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC), NPS, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (Some of these were funded by the Service; others were requested or volunteered by biologists with the NPS or FDEP.);
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are referenced in the above-mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by Monroe County; and
(5) Aerial images of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The presence of primary constituent elements was determined through the use of GIS spatial data depicting the current habitat status. These habitat data for the Florida Keys were developed by Monroe County from 2006 aerial images, and ground conditions for many areas were checked in 2009. Habitat data for BNP were provided by the NPS. The areas that contain the primary constituent elements follow predictable landscape patterns and have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery.
We have identified areas to include in this proposed designation by applying the following considerations. The amount and distribution of critical habitat being proposed for designation would allow existing and future established populations of
(1) Maintain their existing distribution;
(2) Expand their distribution into previously occupied areas (needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to changing nature of coastal habitat including sea level rise) and support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties are diminished; and
(5) Maintain their ability to withstand local or unit-level environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
The proposed occupied critical habitat designation for
(1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional nature of the occupied habitats (
(2) Some areas will require special management to be able to support a higher density of the plant within the occupied space. These areas generally are habitats where some of the primary constituent elements have been lost through natural or human causes. These areas would help to offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to development.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for
Units were proposed for designation based on sufficient elements of physical or biological features being present to support
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are proposing four units as critical habitat for
(1) FSC1 Swan Key in Biscayne National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida;
(2) FSC2 Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida;
(3) FSC3 Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida; and
(4) FSC4 Little Torch Key in Monroe County, Florida.
Land ownership within the proposed critical habitat consists of Federal (28 percent), State (58 percent), County (1 percent), and private and other (14 percent). Table 1 shows these units by land ownership, area, and occupancy.
Two (FSC1 and FSC2) of the four critical habitat units proposed for
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for
Unit FSC1 consists of approximately 37 ac (15 ha) in Miami-Dade County. This unit is composed entirely of lands in Federal ownership, 100 percent of which are located on Swan Key within Biscayne National Park. The unit includes all upland rockland hammock habitat on Swan Key, most of which is located on the eastern side of Swan Key, surrounded by the island's mangrove fringe. A second, smaller area is located on the island's elongate western half and is also surrounded by mangroves.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and the coastal hardwood hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant and animal species and sea level rise. However, in most cases these threats are being
Unit FSC2 consists of approximately 3,434 ac (1,389 ha) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal lands within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (702 ac (284 ha)); State lands within Dagny Johnson Botanical State Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (2,331 ac (943 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (17 ac (7 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (384 ac (155 ha)). This unit extends from near the northern tip of Key Largo, along the length of Key Largo, beginning at the south shore of Ocean Reef Harbor near South Marina Drive and the intersection of County Road (CR) 905 and Clubhouse Road on the west side of CR 905, and between CR 905 and Old State Road 905, then extending to the shoreline south of South Harbor Drive. The unit then continues on both sides of CR 905 through the Crocodile Lake NWR, Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park, and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The unit then terminates near the junction of U.S. 1 and CR 905 and Garden Cove Drive. The unit resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from South Andros Road to Key Largo Elementary; then from the intersection of Taylor Drive and Pamela Street to Avenue A; then from Sound Drive to the intersection of Old Road and Valencia Road; then resumes on the east side of U.S. 1 from Hibiscus Lane and Ocean Drive. The unit continues south near the Port Largo Airport from Poisonwood Road to Bo Peep Boulevard. The unit resumes on the west side of U.S. 1 from the intersection of South Drive and Meridian Avenue to Casa Court Drive. The unit then continues on the west side of U.S. 1 from the point on the coast directly west of Peace Avenue south to Caribbean Avenue. The unit also includes a portion of El Radabob Key in Largo Sound located directly east of Avenue A, extending south to a point directly east of Mahogany Drive.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and the rockland hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for Crocodile Lake NWR promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and animals, especially imperiled species that are found only in the Florida Keys, but does not identify
Unit FSC3 consists of approximately 772 ac (313 ha) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of Federal land within the National Key Deer Refuge (NKDR) (508 ac (205 ha)); State land managed as part of the NKDR (172 ac (70 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (11 ac (5 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (81 ac (33 ha)). This unit extends from near the northern tip of Big Pine Key along the eastern shore to the vicinity of Hellenga Drive and Watson Road; from Gulf Boulevard south to West Shore Drive; Big Pine Avenue and Elma Avenues on the east, Coral and Yacht Club Road, and U.S. 1 on the north, and Industrial Avenue on the east from the southeastern tip of Big Pine Key to Avenue A.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and the coastal berm, rockland hammock, and buttonwood forest primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for the Lower Florida Keys NWRs (NKDR, Key West NWR, and Great White Heron NWR) promotes the enhancement of wildlife populations by maintaining and enhancing a diversity and abundance of habitats for native plants and animals, and provides specifically for maintaining and expanding populations of candidate plant species including
Unit FSC4 consists of approximately 168 ac (68 ha) in Monroe County. This unit is composed of State lands (47 ac (19 ha)); lands owned by Monroe County (10 ac (4 ha)); and parcels in private and other ownership (111 ac (45 ha)). This unit extends along State Highway 4A, from Coral Shores Road, south to County Road, resuming at Linda Street and extending south to the Overseas Highway. South of the Overseas Highway, the unit includes areas west of Kings Cove Road, and an area comprising the southern tip of Little Torch Key that includes portions of The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) John J. Pescatello Torchwood Hammock Preserve.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species and the coastal hardwood hammock and buttonwood forest primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. TNC's 1994 Management Plan calls for monitoring,
We have determined that the following physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of
The habitats identified above as physical or biological features also provide a plant community with associated plant species that foster a competitive regime that is suitable for
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds.
(A) Coastal strand habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments of stabilized coastal dunes.
(B) Coastal grassland habitat that contains:
(1) No canopy and an open understory; and
(2) Substrate of sand and shell fragments.
(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of coarse, calcareous, storm-deposited sediment.
(D) Maritime hammock habitat that contains:
(1) Canopy gaps and edges with an open to semi-open canopy, subcanopy, and understory; and
(2) Substrate of calcareous sand and shell fragments.
(E) Shell mound habitat that contains:
(1) Open to semi-open canopy and understory; and
(2) Substrate of soil derived from calcareous shells deposited by Native Americans during prehistoric times.
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of
(iii) Canopy openings in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats that are created by the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain viable populations in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators that visit the flowers of
Management considerations or protection are necessary throughout the critical habitat areas proposed here to avoid further degradation or destruction of the habitat that provides those features essential to the species' conservation. The primary threats to the physical or biological features that
(1) Habitat destruction and modification by development and sea level rise;
(2) Competition with nonnative, invasive plant species;
(3) Herbivorous nonnative animal species;
(4) Wildfire; and
(5) Hurricanes and storm surge.
Some of these threats can be addressed by special management considerations or protection while others (
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include the monitoring and minimization of impacts from recreational activities, nonnative species control, and protection from development. Precautions are needed to avoid the inadvertent trampling of
The Service, State of Florida, and Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee Counties own and manage conservation lands within the historical range of
Nonnative species control is currently lacking at Manasota Beach Park and Kitchen Key in areas that support
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by
We have determined that all habitat known to be occupied at the time of listing should be proposed for critical habitat designation. However, realizing that occupied habitat is not adequate for the conservation of
(1) FNAI population records and ArcGIS software to spatially depict the location and extent of documented populations of
(2) Reports prepared by botanists with the IRC and the Service (Some of these were funded by the Service; others were requested or volunteered by biologists with the Service.);
(3) Historical records found in reports and associated voucher specimens housed at herbaria, all of which are also referenced in the above-mentioned reports from the IRC and FNAI;
(4) Digitally produced habitat maps provided by FNAI; and
(5) Aerial images of Manatee, Charlotte, Sarasota, and Lee Counties. The presence of primary constituent elements was determined through the interpretation of aerial imagery. The areas that contain primary constituent elements follow predictable landscape patterns and have a recognizable signature in the aerial imagery.
Only approximately 300 to 500 individuals and 12 populations of
The current distribution of
The occupied critical habitat units were delineated around documented extant populations. These units include the mapped extent of the population that contain one or more of the physical or biological features. We considered the following when identifying occupied areas of critical habitat:
(1) The delineation included space to allow for the successional nature of the occupied habitats (
(2) Some areas will require special management to be able to support a higher density of the plant within the occupied space. These areas generally are habitats where some of the primary constituent elements have been lost through natural or human causes. These areas would help to offset the anticipated loss and degradation of habitat occurring or expected from the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise) or due to development.
After completing the above analysis, we determined that occupied areas were not sufficient for the conservation of the species for the following reasons: (1) Restoring the species to its historical range and reducing its vulnerability to stochastic events such as hurricanes and storm surge requires reintroduction to areas where it occurred in the past but has since been extirpated; (2) providing increased connectivity for populations and areas for small populations to expand requires currently unoccupied habitat; and (3) reintroduction or assisted migration to reduce the species vulnerability to sea level rise and storm surge requires higher elevation sites that are currently unoccupied by
The unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species because they:
(1) Represent the historical range of
(2) Provide areas of sufficient size to support ecosystem processes for populations of
The amount and distribution of designated critical habitat will allow
(1) Maintain its existing distribution;
(2) Expand its distribution into historically occupied areas (needed to offset habitat loss and fragmentation);
(3) Use habitat depending on habitat availability (response to changing nature of coastal habitat including sea level rise) and support genetic diversity;
(4) Increase the size of each population to a level where the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties are diminished; and
(5) Maintain its ability to withstand local or unit-level environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates, plot points, or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are proposing 11 units as critical habitat for
(1) Unit APA1 Terra Ceia, Manatee County, Florida;
(2) Unit APA2 Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Florida;
(3) Unit APA3 Osprey, Sarasota County, Florida;
(4) Unit APA4 Manasota Key, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida;
(5) Unit APA5 Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County, Florida;
(6) Unit APA6 Gasparilla Island North, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida;
(7) Unit APA7 Gasparilla Island South, Lee County, Florida;
(8) Unit APA8 Cayo Pelau, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida;
(9) Unit APA9 Cayo Costa, Lee County, Florida;
(10) Unit APA10 Bocilla Island, Lee County, Florida; and
(11) Unit APA11 Sanibel Island and Buck Key, Lee County, Florida.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for
Unit APA1 consists of approximately 222 ac (90 ha) in Manatee County, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands within Madira Bickel Mound State Historical Park, Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System (66 ac (27 ha)); Manatee County lands at Emerson Point Preserve and parcels owned by the Manatee County Port Authority (70 ac (28 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (87 ac (35 ha)). This unit includes lands west of Highway 41 extending from just south of South Dock Street south to Snead Island. The unit also includes areas of Harbor Key, Mariposa Key, Horseshoe Key, Joe Island, Skeet Key, Paradise Island, Ed's Key, and Rattlesnake Key.
This unit was not occupied at the time the species was listed but is essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the species, and maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the species in Manatee County, and will provide population redundancy in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the species from the one or more locations where it is presently found.
The Management Plan for Madira Bickel Mound State Historical Park, Terra Ceia Preserve State Park, Cockroach Bay State Buffer Preserve, and the Tampa Bay Estuarine System calls for the protection and restoration
Unit APA2 consists of approximately 54 ac (22 ha) in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of parcels in private or other ownership. This unit includes lands west of Gulf of Mexico Drive, extending from 0.40 miles (mi) (0.6 kilometers (km)) south of the intersection of Bay Isles Parkway and Gulf of Mexico Drive, to the southern tip of Longboat Key. It also includes lands on the north side of Gulf of Mexico Drive, east of Longboat Club Key Drive, on the northwest tip of Longboat Key.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes, essential to the conservation of the species, and the primary constituent elements of coastal strand, coastal berm, and maritime hammock. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. Augmentation of the
Unit APA3 consists of approximately 116 ac (47 ha) in Sarasota County, Florida. This unit is composed of Sarasota County lands within Palmer Point County Park (50 ac (20 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (66 ac (27 ha)). This unit extends along the barrier island (Casey Key) from the south terminus of Blind Pass Road, south for approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) along North Casey Key Road. On the mainland, the unit includes lands bordered on the north by Vamo Way, to the east by Highway 41, and to the south by Palmetto Avenue.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the biological or physical features including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal strand, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species, and sea level rise. Augmentation of the
Unit APA4 consists of approximately 415 ac (168 ha) in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands within Stump Pass Beach State Park (58 ac (23 ha)); County lands within Blind Pass Park, Brohard Beach and Paw Park, Manasota Beach Park, Casperson Beach Park, and Service Club Park (111 ac (45 ha)); and parcels in private or other ownership (245 ac (99 ha)). This unit extends from Beach Road in the City of Venice, south along Manasota Key to the barrier islands southern tip, including a portion of Peterson Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal strand, coastal berm, and maritime hammock primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for Stump Pass Beach State Park calls for the protection and restoration of habitats, but does not identify actions specific to
Unit APA5 consists of approximately 51 ac (21 ha) in Charlotte County, Florida. This unit is composed entirely of State lands within the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. This unit includes the Big Mound, Boggess Ridge, and a shell mound located on the east side of Charlotte Harbor, south of the City of Charlotte Park. This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains all the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal berm and shell mound primary constituent elements.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park calls for the protection and restoration of habitats, and identifies actions specific to
Unit APA6 consists of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of State land (0.006 ac (0.02 ha)), county land (22 ac (9 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (77 ac (31 ha)). This unit includes most of Kitchen Key (Live Oak Key) and the area east of Gasparilla Road, from the intersection of Grouper Hole Road and Grouper Hole Court, south to 0.15 mi (0.24 km) north of Snail Island Court, from approximately 0.10 mi (0.21 km) south of 35th Street to 23rd Street, including the small island separated from Gasparilla Island by a canal; and from 22nd Street to 20th Street.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal berm and maritime hammock primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management
Unit APA7 consists of approximately 92 ac (37 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Federal land owned by the Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (3 ac (1 ha)), State lands within Gasparilla Island State Park (69 ac (28 ha)), Lee County lands (12 ac (5 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (8 ac (3 ha)). This unit includes lands located from south of 1st Street to the southern tip of Gasparilla Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal strand, coastal berm, and maritime hammock primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for Gasparilla Island State Park calls for the protection and restoration of habitats, but does not identify actions specific to
Unit APA8 consists of approximately 25 ac (10 ha) in Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida. This unit is composed of Lee County lands within Cayo Pelau Preserve, and parcels in private or other ownership (0.6 ac (0.2 ha)). This unit includes lands located from 0.13 mi (0.21 km) south of the northern tip of Cayo Pelau, extending south to the southeastern tip of Cayo Pelau.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains coastal berm and shell mound primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. Augmentation of the
Unit APA9 consists of approximately 1,702 ac (689 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of State lands within Cayo Costa State Park (1,379 ac (558 ha)), lands owned by Lee County (94 ac (38 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (230 ac (93 ha)). This unit includes lands located from the northern tip to the southern tip of Cayo Costa.
This unit was not occupied at the time the species was listed but is essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to protect habitat needed to recover the species, reestablish wild populations within the historical range of the species, maintain populations throughout the historic distribution of the species in Manatee County, and provide population redundancy in the case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to eliminate the species from the one or more locations where it is presently found. The Management Plan for Cayo Costa State Park calls for the protection and restoration of habitats and identifies actions specific to
Unit APA10 consists of approximately 33 ac (13 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Lee County lands within the Bocilla Preserve (32 ac (13 ha)) and parcels in private or other ownership (0.7 ac (0.3 ha)). This unit includes lands located on the undeveloped portion of Bokeelia Island from 0.02 mi (0.03 km) west of the terminus of Ebbtide Way, extending south and west to the northwest and southeast corners of Bokeelia Island.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains the coastal berm primary constituent element. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The Management Plan for Bocilla Preserve calls for the protection and restoration of habitats and identifies actions specific to
Unit APA11 consists of approximately 635 ac (257 ha) in Lee County, Florida. This unit is composed of Federal lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and Service lands within the JDDNWR (373 ac (151 ha)), State lands (47 ac (13 ha)), lands owned by Lee County (90 ac (36 ha)), and parcels in private or other ownership (126 ac (51 ha)). This unit includes lands on Buck Key, Runyan Key, and Sanibel Island. On Sanibel Island, the unit includes a portion of Bowman's Beach, from just south of Silver Key to the western terminus of Water's Edge Lane; uplands within JDDNWR; and a shell mound located near the northern terminus of Tarpon Bay Road.
This unit was occupied at the time the species was listed and contains the physical or biological features, including suitable climate, hydrology, substrate, associated native plant species, and disturbance regimes essential to the conservation of the species and contains the maritime hammock primary constituent elements. The physical or biological features in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats of nonnative plant species and sea level rise. The CCP for JDDNWR promotes the protection and restoration of habitats, and identifies actions specific to
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of roads, residential and commercial development, and recreational facilities, and trails.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and commercial development and road construction.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.” There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat for
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA) concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species.
The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
For this designation, we developed an Incremental Effects Memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for
The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species which may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for
(1) Federal lands management (National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management);
(2) Roadway and bridge construction;
(3) Dredging;
(4) Commercial or residential development;
(5) Recreation (including construction of recreation infrasturcture).
We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that will result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The proposed critical habitat designation for
Based on the available information, we anticipate no more than three consultations per year within the proposed critical habitat units. Communications with affected entities indicate that critical habitat designation is likely only to result in no more than just a few consultations, with minor conservation efforts that would likely result in relatively low probable economic impacts. Unit costs of such administrative efforts range from approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation (2014 dollars, total cost for all parties participating in a single consultation) (IEc 2014, p. 10). Applying these unit cost estimates, this analysis conservatively estimates that the administrative cost of considering adverse modification in section 7 consultation will result in incremental costs of up to $7,100 (2014 dollars) in a given year for
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are residential and commercial development that may occur on private lands. However, based on coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of $5,000 or less per consultation effort) and, therefore, would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of
The proposed critical habitat designation for
Based on the available information, we anticipate no more than four consultations per year within the occupied proposed critical habitat units. In the occupied areas, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
In the unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. Within the unoccupied critical habitat, few actions are expected to occur that will result in
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are residential and commercial development that may occur on private lands. However, based on coordination efforts with State and local agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $5,000 (occupied) or $15,000 (unoccupied) per consultation effort), and any costs from required conservation measures, therefore, would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of
The DEA also discusses the potential for incremental costs to occur outside of the section 7 consultation process, including costs associated with the potential triggering of additional requirements or project modifications under State laws or regulations, and perceptional effects on markets. For both species, it is unlikely that the designation of critical habitat will trigger additional State or local restrictions (IEc 2014, pp. 11–12). Public perception of critical habitat may result in landowners or buyers believing that the rule will restrict land or water use activities in some way and, therefore, valuing the resource less than they would have absent critical habitat. This is a perceptional, or stigma, effect of critical habitat on markets. Costs resulting from public perception of the impact of critical habitat, if they occur, are more likely to occur on private lands. However, based on the DEA, “possible costs resulting from public perception of the effect of critical habitat designation, when combined with section 7 costs, are unlikely to exceed the threshold for an economically significant rulemaking under [Executive Order] 12866” (IEc 2014, p. 13). Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must assess the potential costs and benefits of regulatory actions and quantify those costs and benefits if that action may have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more annually.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of these species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
We have determined that the Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys is the only HCP or other management plan that will be affected by either proposed designations. The Monroe County HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys, which covers a portion of unit FSC3, does not include
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We will consider all comments and information received during the comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under these circumstances only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal agencies are not small entities and to this end, there is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. We do not foresee any energy development projects that may affect the proposed critical habitat units for
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)–(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment,
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The government lands being proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by the Town of Longboat Key, the State of Florida, and the BLM, NPS, and the Service. None of these government entities fit the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Due to current public knowledge of the species protections and the prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the proposed areas, we do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the critical habitat designation. However, we have not yet finalized the economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is final, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we request information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida. From a Federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the 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
As discussed above (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
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the South Florida Ecological Services 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; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(A) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(
(
(B) Rockland hammock habitat that contains:
(
(
(C) Buttonwood forest habitat that contains:
(
(
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of
(iii) A disturbance regime, due to the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation, that creates canopy openings in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain viable populations in coastal berm, rockland hammocks, and buttonwood forest.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators that visit the flowers of
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located that exists within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4)
(6) Unit FSC1: Swan Key, Biscayne National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit FSC1 follows:
(7) Unit FSC2: Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit FSC2 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit FSC2 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit FSC2 follows:
(v) Map C of Unit FSC2 follows:
(vi) Map D of Unit FSC2 follows:
(vii) Map E of Unit FSC2 follows:
(viii) Map F of Unit FSC2 follows:
(8) Unit FSC3: Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit FSC3 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit FSC3 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit FSC3 follows:
(v) Map C of Unit FSC3 follows:
(vi) Map D of Unit FSC3 follows:
(vii) Map E of Unit FSC3 follows:
(9) Unit FSC4: Little Torch Key, Monroe County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit FSC4 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit FSC4 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit FSC4 follows:
(1) Critical habitat units for
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
(i) Areas of upland habitats consisting of coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammocks, and shell mounds.
(A) Coastal strand habitat that contains:
(
(
(B) Coastal grassland habitat that contains:
(
(
(C) Coastal berm habitat that contains:
(
(
(D) Maritime hammock habitat that contains:
(
(
(E) Shell mound habitat that contains:
(
(
(ii) A plant community of predominately native vegetation with no invasive, nonnative animal or plant species or such species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of
(iii) Canopy openings in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats that are created by the effects of strong winds or saltwater inundation from storm surge or infrequent tidal inundation.
(iv) Habitats that are connected and of sufficient size to sustain viable populations in coastal strand, coastal grassland, coastal berm, maritime hammock, and shell mound habitats.
(v) Habitats that provide populations of the generalist pollinators that visit the flowers of
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located that exists within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4)
(5) Index map of all critical habitat units for
(6) Unit APA1: Terra Ceia, Manatee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit APA1 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit APA1 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit APA1 follows:
(7) Unit APA2: Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA2 follows:
(8) Unit APA3: Osprey, Sarasota County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA3 follows:
(9) Unit APA4: Manasota Key, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit APA4 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit APA4 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit APA4 follows:
(v) Map C of Unit APA4 follows:
(10) Unit APA5: Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA5 follows:
(11) Unit APA6: Gasparilla North, Charlotte and Lee Counties, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA6 follows:
(12) Unit APA7: Gasparilla South, Lee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA7 follows:
(13) Unit APA8: Cayo Pelau, Lee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA8 follows:
(14) Unit APA9: Cayo Costa, Lee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA9 follows:
(15) Unit APA10: Bocilla, Lee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Map of Unit APA10 follows:
(16) Unit APA11: Sanibel Island and Buck Key, Lee County, Florida.
(i)
(ii) Index map of Unit APA11 follows:
(iii) Map A of Unit APA11 follows:
(iv) Map B of Unit APA11 follows:
(v) Map C of Unit APA11 follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposes to amend the requirements in Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) that govern the use of dispersants, other chemical and biological agents, and other spill mitigating substances when responding to oil discharges into waters of the United States (U.S.). The proposal addresses the efficacy, toxicity, environmental monitoring of dispersants, and other chemical and biological agents, as well as public, state, local, and federal officials' concerns regarding their use. Specifically, the proposal amends the Subpart J regulatory requirements for the NCP Product Schedule (Schedule) by adding new listing criteria, revising the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols, and clarifying the evaluation criteria for removing products from the Schedule. The Agency also proposes amended requirements for the authorities, notifications, monitoring, and data reporting when using chemical or biological agents in response to oil discharges to the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the high seas beyond the contiguous zone in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, activities under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or activities that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States, including resources under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. These requirements are anticipated to encourage the development of safer and more effective spill mitigating products, and would better target the use of these products to reduce the risks to human health and the environment. Further, the amendments are intended to ensure that On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and Area Committees have sufficient information to support agent preauthorization or authorization of use decisions.
Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0090, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general information, contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at 800–424–9346 or TDD at 800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at 703–412–9810 or TDD 703–412–3323. For more detailed information on this proposed rule contact Gregory Wilson at 202–564–7989 (
The contents of this preamble are:
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon underwater oil well blowout discharged significant quantities of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout discharged oil from one mile below the sea surface. Approximately one million gallons of dispersants over a three-month period were deployed on surface slicks over thousands of square miles of the Gulf, and approximately three quarters of a million gallons of dispersants were, for the first time, injected directly into the oil gushing from the well riser. This use of dispersants raised many questions about efficacy, toxicity, environmental trade-offs, and monitoring challenges that EPA seeks to address through the proposed revisions to Subpart J.
The proposed revisions to Subpart J address the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents to respond to oil discharges into waters of the U.S. Over the past several years, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has conducted research on improved laboratory protocols for dispersant and bioremediation efficacy, and revisions to Subpart J to address these new protocols were under consideration. As a result of this research and the Deepwater Horizon event, the new protocols in the proposed revisions, in addition to increasing the overall scientific soundness of the data, take into consideration not only the efficacy but also the toxicity, long-term environmental impacts, endangered species protection, and human health concerns raised during responses to oil discharges, including the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Additionally, area planning requirements for dispersant use authorization, toxicity thresholds and advanced monitoring techniques are also proposed. The proposed amendments are a major component of EPA's effort to inform the use of dispersants and other chemical or biological agents when responding to oil discharges. They incorporate lessons learned from the federal government's experiences in the Gulf, and address recommendations specific to agent testing and use in response to oil discharges from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Report to the President.
The proposed amendments would help to ensure that only products that perform effectively in laboratory testing would be listed on the NCP Product Schedule (Schedule) for use in mitigating the effects of oil discharges in the environment. Manufacturers would be required to provide more detailed product application materials, ecological toxicity data, and human health and safety information, including more detailed instructions for product application in the field. Prohibitions on using products in certain areas under certain conditions determined by On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and EPA would help ensure that first responders are better able to mitigate environmental effects when spills occur. The required submission of additional product toxicity information would aid OSCs and RRTs when evaluating specific product information and when deciding whether and which products to use to mitigate hazards to the environment and human health caused by discharges or threatened discharges of oil.
Specifically in this action, the Agency proposes, for the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EPA estimates industry may incur total incremental costs of approximately $668,000 to $694,000 annually. The benefits of the Subpart J amendments are assessed qualitatively. Such benefits include, for example, greater clarity of regulatory requirements, as well as less toxic products. This action does not pose significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Impact analysis, which can be found in the docket, provides more detail on the cost methodology and benefits of this action.
The list of potentially affected entities in the above table includes manufacturers and users of chemical and biological agents, and other oil spill mitigating devices and substances used as countermeasures against oil discharges. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in the preceding section entitled
Under sections 311(d) and 311(j) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by section 4201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Public Law 101–380, the President is directed to prepare and publish the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for removal of oil and hazardous substances. Specifically, section 311(d)(2)(G) requires the President to include a schedule identifying “dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out” the NCP. The authority of the President to implement this portion of the CWA is currently delegated to EPA in Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991). Subpart J of the NCP governs the use of dispersants, and any other chemical or biological agent to respond to oil discharges (40 CFR part 300 series 900).
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) first published the National Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan in 1970 (35 FR 8508). Among its elements was Annex X—Schedule of Dispersants and other Chemicals to Treat Oil Spills. Annex X provided a basic regulatory framework that included authorization of use, restrictions, and information requirements to be submitted to the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA). This initial schedule advocated mechanical and other control methods, and the removal and proper disposal of oil from the environment. It also specified that dispersants might be used in accordance with the schedule if other control methods are judged to be inadequate or infeasible, and if certain information requirements and usage requirements were met. As a listing requirement, manufacturers had to provide the FWQA with methods for analyzing the chemical components in fresh and salt water, or reasons why such analytical methods could not be provided. Except to prevent or substantially reduce the hazard to human life or limb, or substantial hazard of fire to property, dispersants were restricted from use on or in any: Distillate fuel oil; spill of oil less than 200 barrels in quantity; shoreline; waters less than 100 feet deep; waters containing major populations or breeding or passage for species of fish or marine life which may be damaged or rendered commercially less marketable by exposure to the dispersant or dispersed oil; waters where the winds and/or currents are of such velocity and direction that the dispersed oil mixtures would likely, in the judgment of the FWQA, be carried to shore areas within 24 hours; and waters where such use may affect surface water supplies. The CEQ revised the National Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan, renaming it the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) in 1971 (36 FR 16215). The NCP was amended again in 1971 (36 FR 18411) and 1972 (37 FR 28208), with no substantive changes to Annex X.
As a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92–500) of 1972, CEQ again revised the NCP, including revisions to Annex X (38 FR 21887, August 13, 1973). The title of Annex X changed to the “
In 1975 CEQ again revised the NCP, including Annex X (40 FR 6282). Annex X was now the “
In 1982, EPA amended the NCP; the revision included rewriting of Annex X as Subpart H of 40 CFR part 300 of the revised Plan (47 FR 31180). The Agency allowed OSCs to authorize the use of dispersants or other chemicals to treat discharges of oil, provided they were listed in the previous Annex X, with the following limitations:
• Authorization applies only to discharges of oil, not to releases of hazardous substances.
• OSCs may only authorize the use of dispersant or other chemicals on EPA's Acceptance list, which included the twenty-eight products tested and found acceptable for their intended purpose in the previous Annex X.
• State consultation provisions regarding the use of any dispersant or other chemicals in its waters required the OSC to obtain concurrence from the EPA representative to the RRT.
The new Subpart H of 40 CFR part 300 also provided for a case-by-case authorization by the EPA Administrator (“Administrator”) or designee of the use of dispersants or other chemicals not on EPA's Acceptance list in treating oil discharges or hazardous substances releases. However, EPA did not include testing procedures or a process for designation of dispersants or other chemicals as acceptable for use.
In 1984, EPA published amendments to Subpart H, including adding Appendix C (49 FR 29192). The amendments specified testing and data requirements for listing of dispersants, surface collecting agents, or biological additives on the Schedule to ensure sufficient data was available for the OSC. Standardized testing procedures generated comparable data regarding the products' effectiveness and toxicity. Appendix C detailed the methods and types of apparatus to be used in carrying out the revised standard dispersant effectiveness and toxicity tests, as well as the format required for summary presentation of product test data. Listing of a product on the Schedule was neither a recommendation nor authorization for use on an oil discharge, but rather a confirmation that data submission requirements had been satisfied. EPA's listing on the Schedule did not confirm its safety or effectiveness or constitute an endorsement; in fact, a new requirement was established that either a written disclaimer to this effect or EPA's written disclaimer be included in all product technical literature or advertisements. Products previously listed under Annex X were included on the new Schedule as the previous data requirements were sufficient to permit OSCs to make informed decisions about product use.
The amendments also provided for OSC authorization for use of burning agents on a case-by-case basis with the concurrence of the EPA RRT representative and the States, and prohibited the use of sinking agents in waters of the United States. They encouraged advance planning by allowing the OSC to act without the concurrence of the RRT and affected States if these parties have approved a plan identifying the products that may be used in specific contexts. The amendments also allowed the OSC to authorize the use of any product (including products not on the Schedule) without obtaining the concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT or the affected States if the use of a dispersant, surface collecting agent, or biological additive is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce hazard to human life, and there is not sufficient time to obtain concurrence. However, the OSC was to inform the EPA RRT representative and the affected States of the use of a product as soon as possible, and obtain their concurrences for the product's continued use in the situation once the threat to human life had subsided. These provisions were designed to eliminate delays in life threatening situations, such as spills of highly flammable petroleum products in harbors or near inhabited areas. Subpart H was re-designated as Subpart J with minor changes in 1990 (55 FR 8666), with those definitions present in Subpart H moved to Subpart A, and a new definition and data requirements for miscellaneous spill control agents added.
In 1994, EPA revised the NCP in response to the passage of the Oil Pollution Act in 1990 (59 FR 47384). The final rule significantly revised Subpart J to its current regulatory requirements with respect to authorization of use, data requirements, dispersant effectiveness and toxicity testing protocols, surface washing agent toxicity testing protocol, bioremediation agent effectiveness testing protocol, and requirements for adding products to the Schedule. As a result, several dispersants were re-classified as surface washing agents because they did not pass the dispersant efficacy test threshold, but were effective in removing oil from solid surfaces.
Section 300.910 of Subpart J addresses the authorization of the use of products on the Schedule and specifies the conditions under which OSCs may authorize the use of dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating substances. Sections 300.915 and 300.920 describe the data requirements and the process for adding products to the Schedule. To list a product on the Schedule, Subpart J currently requires the submission of technical data on the product to EPA. Data on dispersants, surface collecting agents, surface washing agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents must include the results of the toxicity test set for these products in Appendix C of the NCP. Data on dispersants must also include the results of the dispersant effectiveness test, while bioremediation agents must include results of the bioremediation effectiveness test, also set forth in Appendix C. These tests are conducted at the expense of the product manufacturers and must be performed by laboratories experienced with Appendix C protocols.
The raw data and a summary of the results from these tests are then submitted to EPA, where they are reviewed to confirm that the data are complete and that the specified procedures were followed. The data requirements for placement of a product on the Schedule are designed to provide sufficient data for the OSCs to judge whether and in what quantities a product may be used to control a particular discharge. Inclusion of a product on the Schedule means only that the data submission requirements have been satisfied. The listing of a product on the Schedule does not mean that the product is recommended or authorized for use on any specific oil discharge nor does it imply that EPA has in any other way endorsed the product for the use listed or for other
Under the current 300.910(a) regulation, RRTs and the Area Committees (ACs) are required to address, as part of their planning activities, the desirability of using appropriate dispersants, and other chemical or biological agents. The RRTs and ACs generally develop “preauthorization plans” which address the specific context in which products can be used under OSC direction. Preauthorization plans are approved with concurrences from EPA, Department of Interior (DOI) and Department of Commerce (DOC) natural resource trustees, and the state(s) with jurisdiction over the water to the area, which they apply. When a preauthorization plan approves in advance the use of certain products under specified circumstances, the OSC may authorize the use of the products without obtaining the specific concurrences described elsewhere in that section of the regulation. The use of chemical or biological agents is only one approach of many available, such as mechanical collection or
To facilitate the best possible response, it is important that the regional-level and area-level contingency planning efforts of the RRTs and ACs, respectively, are coordinated closely with each other and are consistent. Section 300.910(a) authorizes the RRTs to review and either approve, disapprove, or approve with modification the preauthorization plans developed by Area Committees that addresses dispersants or other spill mitigating substances. This advanced planning has allowed the OSC to authorize the use of products without obtaining the specific concurrences, if the RRT representatives from EPA and the states with jurisdiction over waters to which a preauthorization plan applies, and DOC and DOI natural resource trustees approve their use in advance. The OSC primarily uses the Schedule to confirm if a product is listed, analyze toxicity and efficacy data, note worker health and safety precautions, understand proper product application, and compare one product to another in order to make the most informed decision on how to mitigate an oil discharge.
AC responsibilities include enhancing contingency planning; ensuring preplanning of joint federal, state, and local response efforts; and expediting decisions on the use of dispersants and other spill mitigating devices and substances. The Area Contingency Plan (ACP) must list the equipment, dispersants or other spill mitigating substances, and personnel available to ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge. ACPs must also ensure the mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge; provide a description of the procedures to be followed for obtaining an expedited decision regarding the use of dispersants (which may be addressed in applicable preauthorization plans); and identify the means to monitor use of chemical countermeasures. Many coastal ACPs include some type of preauthorization zones for dispersants, while most Regional Contingency Plans (RCPs) address other product categories, such as bioremediation and surface washing agents. RRTs, in cooperation with the states and federal agencies, have addressed the requirements for the conduct of in-situ burns (ISB) of oil discharges in their RCPs.
This planning has allowed consideration of chemical agent use on oil discharges as a viable response tool in combination with other mitigation measures. These agents have increasingly been considered and used in the field, as evidenced by research and case studies presented at national and international oil spill conferences, research and development funding from private and government stakeholders, RRT efforts to plan for their use, requests for EPA and other federal experts to advise field personnel on the use of such products, and by the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. While many research efforts have helped to clarify issues and added information on the toxicity, efficacy, proper use, and human health impacts of these response technologies, uncertainties still arise. The Agency has an interest in resolving the issues that arise from the use of chemical and biological agents in spill responses, as its representatives are asked to concur with chemical and biological agent use for marine and freshwater spills.
The use of non-mechanical oil spill mitigating technologies, such as dispersants, surface washing agents, sorbents, solidifiers, bioremediation agents, and others are among the available oil response options that responders may consider in the United States and the world. The National Academies' National Research Council report titled “Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects” (2005), recommends that steps be taken to better support policymakers and spill responders faced with making choices regarding the use of dispersants as part of spill contingency planning efforts or during actual spills. The United States Coast Guard has promulgated new requirements for certain vessels to have only Schedule listed dispersant response capabilities while operating in designated dispersant preauthorization zones (74 FR 45004, August 31, 2009).
The proposed amendments are aimed at ensuring that chemical and biological agents have met efficacy and toxicity requirements, that product manufacturers provide important use and safety information, and that the planning and response community is equipped with the proper information to authorize and use the products in a judicious and effective manner.
This proposal addresses the efficacy, toxicity, environmental monitoring of dispersants, other chemical and biological agents, and other spill mitigating substances, as well as public, state, local, and federal officials concerns on their authorization and use. The sections below explain the proposed requirements and revisions, and EPA is requesting comments by section. Alternatives offered should include rationale and supporting information in order for the Agency to include the alternative in any final rule.
The Agency is proposing revisions to harmonize 40 CFR part 110.4 with the definitions for chemical and biological agents proposed for Subpart J. The current language in § 110.4 is specific to dispersants and emulsifiers. The proposal replaces the terms “dispersants and emulsifiers” with the broader terms of “chemical agent” and “biological agent” as proposed to be amended in § 300.5. The proposed definition for chemical agents includes elements, compounds, or mixtures designed to facilitate the removal of oil from a contaminated environment and mitigate any deleterious effects. The proposed definition for biological agents includes microorganisms (typically bacteria, fungi, or algae) or biological catalysts, such as enzymes, able to enhance the biodegradation of a contaminated environment. Chemical and biological agents would include both the dispersants and emulsifiers cited in § 110.4. By revising 40 CFR part 110, the Agency is clarifying that any chemical or biological agent added to a discharge of oil with the intent to circumvent any
The Agency is proposing revisions to § 300.5 that amend the definitions for Bioremediation agents, Burning agents, Chemical agents, Dispersants, Sinking agents, and Sorbents. The Agency proposes to revise the term Surface washing agent and amend its definition. Additionally, the proposal includes new definitions for Bioaccumulation, Bioconcentration, Biodegradation, Biological agents, Bioremediation, Herding agents, Products, and Solidifiers. Finally, the Agency is removing the definitions for Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent (MOSCA) and Surface collecting agents.
Additionally, the Agency requests comments on particulate materials (
Finally, EPA also requests comments on the qualifier phrase “that are generally collected and recovered from the environment.” For example, a natural organic and biodegradable sorbent (
The Agency is proposing to add several new definitions that serve as the foundation for the new proposed biological agent classification: Bioaccumulation, Bioconcentration, Biodegradation, Biological agents, and Bioremediation. The proposed definitions include basic terminology and are consistent with definitions of these terms generally understood by the scientific community.
The Agency is also proposing new definitions for the terms herding agents and solidifiers. The proposed definitions address types of agents originally captured under the surface collecting agent or the miscellaneous oil spill control agent categories respectively, and are terms that are more commonly used in industry. The definitions more specifically describe the specific process through which the product affects the oil for the categories and are consistent with definitions of these terms generally understood by the scientific community.
Finally, the Agency is proposing a new definition for the term product to clarify the difference between a specific product and an agent type or category. All of the proposed new definitions can be found in the § 300.5 of this action.
The Agency is proposing to remove the definitions for surface collecting agent and for miscellaneous oil spill control agent (MOSCA). The surface collecting agent definition is being removed and replaced with a new herding agent definition to better reflect the common terminology used in industry for these agents. The MOSCA definition is being removed and replaced with a number of new and/or revised definitions for types of agents. The original MOSCA category was used as a catchall for all types of products that did not meet other agent definitions. As the Agency adds new, more stringent testing requirements for listing products on the Schedule, there is a need for more specific category definitions to assist manufacturers in determining which of those testing requirements apply to their products. The Agency believes it has identified categories that capture all products to be listed on the Schedule; we request comment on whether the MOSCA category should be retained, and whether the proposed categories are appropriate, including sufficient information and rationale to support the addition of any new categories.
EPA is proposing to amend § 300.900 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c), and by adding paragraph (d) to reserve for “Releases of Hazardous Substances”. The proposed revisions clarify that Subpart J addresses not only chemical agents, but also those agents that now fall under the newly proposed biological agent category. The revisions reaffirms the notion that Subpart J is not only comprised of a Schedule of chemical and biological agents, but also includes testing requirements and authorization of use procedures. Consistent with current Subpart J regulatory requirements the Agency is proposing to reserve a section for “Releases of Hazardous Substances” to take place of the current placeholder in § 300.905, which is proposed to be removed. Based on all relevant circumstances, testing data and information, and in accordance with the authorization of use procedures (including the appropriate concurrences and consultations), the waters and
Section 300.910 sets forth the provisions for the authorization of use of products on the Schedule in response to oil discharges. Subpart J does not state or imply that chemical or biological agents are preferred over other response options such as mechanical recovery devices. EPA believes that the circumstances surrounding oil discharges and the factors influencing the choice of response methods are many. During the DWH response, a priority countermeasures scheme was established to first use mechanical recovery via skimming/booming or in-situ burning followed by subsea dispersant and lastly surface dispersant use. Following DWH, EPA and the NRT issued Interim Actions regarding the use of dispersants on oil spills to NRT members and RRT co-chairs
EPA is amending § 300.910 by revising paragraphs (a) through (f); and by adding paragraphs (g), (h) and (i). EPA is not proposing major changes to the current authorities granted to OSCs, RRT representatives to the RRTs, States, DOC, DOI, or other National Response Team decision makers with regards to the authorization and application of chemical or biological agents. However, EPA recognizes that the planning for and prolonged use and monitoring of chemical agents, especially dispersants, may require additional planning activities and monitoring requirements. Thus, the Agency is proposing to reorganize this section; to add titles to the paragraphs for ease of use; to add several requirements addressing the storage and use of agents, notification of agent use and recovery from the environment; and to revise language to clarify established EPA policy. The proposed revisions and clarifications are highlighted for each paragraph under § 300.910.
EPA is also confirming, consistent with the intent of the NCP, that use of chemical or biological agents in response to oil discharges to waters of the U.S. or its adjoining shorelines must be authorized by an OSC in accordance with Subpart J. The unauthorized use can result in violations of section 301 and 311 of the CWA. Section 301(a) makes unlawful “the discharge of any pollutant by any person,” except in compliance with certain provisions of the CWA. In addition, section 311(b) establishes penalties for persons who fail or refuse to comply with any regulation issued under section 311(j) of the CWA.
The Agency is proposing revisions to § 300.910(a) of Subpart J to address the preauthorized use of chemical and biological agents identified on the Schedule. The proposed revisions clarify the process for preauthorization, the responsibilities of all involved parties, and the factors to consider during the preauthorization process, including the authorization for the use of agents by the OSC at the time of a discharge. EPA is also proposing to reorganize paragraph (a) to provide greater clarity by making the regulatory text easier to read and follow. The Agency believes that the proposed revisions do not change its fundamental policies regarding roles of Federal, state and local representatives involved in planning for and responding to an oil discharge, but rather clarify the current requirements and further explain the responsibilities for each party. The Agency is also proposing added procedures and review requirements intended to ensure preauthorization plans are up-to-date so they are most effective when implemented in case of a discharge.
EPA believes RRTs and ACs must work together in order to effectively and successfully manage contingency planning. Thus, the proposed revisions continue to require that, as part of their planning activities, RRTs and ACs address in the preauthorization plan whether the use of chemical and biological agents listed on the Schedule on certain oil discharges is appropriate. The Agency believes that the proposed revision clarifies the meaning of the desirability of using appropriate chemical or biological agents. The Agency is removing “. . . the desirability of using appropriate burning agents.” from paragraph (a) and addressing the use of burning agents under paragraph (c) to provide greater flexibility to OSCs for authorization of use.
Under the current paragraph (a), ACs are responsible for developing preauthorization plans. ACs are also responsible for developing ACPs, providing a forum to evaluate the environments within a jurisdiction and establishing protection priorities. The information gathered during the ACP development process should inform the development of preauthorization plans. Identified representatives from the RRTs are responsible for approving or requesting modifications of preauthorization plans developed by the ACs. ACs can advocate for local
ACPs generally describe discharge situations for the geographical area for which they apply. Discharge situations developed as part of area contingency planning activities may consider likely scenarios from vessels, and onshore or offshore facilities. While RRTs and ACs should consider the discharge scenarios described in ACPs when identifying discharge situations in developing preauthorization plans, the Agency believes they should also have the flexibility to consider other discharge scenarios. The proposed language states preauthorization plans must specify limits for the quantities and duration of use, and use parameters for water depth, distance to shoreline, and proximity to populated areas for discharge situations identified in which agents may be used. The Agency believes that clearly stating the use parameters in a preauthorization plan will make it easier for planners to address concerns of preauthorizing agent use and in turn for responders to authorize their use.
In meeting these provisions, the preauthorization plans should document how both regional and logistical factors were addressed when establishing dispersant use limits and parameters. Regional factors include the likely sources and types of oil that might be discharged, various discharge scenarios, and the existence and location of environmentally sensitive resources or restricted areas that might be impacted by discharged oil. Logistical factors include inventory, storage locations and manufacturing capability of available agents, availability of equipment needed for agent use, availability of adequately trained operators, and the availability of appropriate means to monitor agent use. While the proposed revisions simplify the language and clarify the requirements, the Agency believes it is necessary to keep in place the fundamental elements that should be considered. The proposed factors generally parallel those under the current 300.910(a) regulation. Several revisions include identifying some factors as “regional” and others “logistical.” The Agency is identifying “logistical” factors to ensure the availability of chemical and biological agents to address discharge situations identified in the preauthorization plan. The Agency added “various discharge scenarios” as a regional factor to be considered because preauthorization plans may cover more than one ACP with multiple discharge scenarios that RRTs and/or ACs may want to consider. The Agency also added the existence and location of “restricted areas” along with “environmentally sensitive resources” as a factor to consider. Environmentally sensitive resources would include fish, wildlife and their habitats, and other special areas of ecological sensitivity that may be adversely affected by a discharge. While “restricted areas” may include “environmentally sensitive resources” some areas may be restricted from certain activities because of biologically sensitive topographic features or critical habitats, such as submerged rock formations colonized by species (
The proposal revises the phrase “potential sources and types of oil that might be spilled” to “likely sources and types of oil that might be discharged.” EPA believes the phrase “likely sources and types of oil” better focuses on the sources and types of oil specific to the preauthorization plan for which agents may be used. In addition, the proposal revises “spill” to “discharge” to be consistent with terminology in the NCP. The proposal also revises the phrase “the available means to monitor product application and effectiveness” to “means to monitor agent use in the environment” as the Agency believes it provides for additional flexibility for the RRTs and/or the ACs to consider the scope of the monitoring, and to include other endpoints beyond product application and effectiveness. The Agency is proposing to eliminate the “available” qualifier, as it believes it is unnecessary. Likewise, the Agency proposes to eliminate the “available” qualifier before “product and storage locations” and revise the phrase “product and storage location” to the broader “inventory, storage locations and manufacturing capability of available agents” to address lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon incident, including the challenges posed by the potential sustained use of dispersants.
When developing preauthorization plans, RRTs and ACs should use the best available scientific information to assess environmental trade-offs, including those identified by conducting an ecological risk assessment. Environmental trade-offs should be considered in determining response options that provide the greatest environmental protection. The RRTs and ACs should identify the affected biological resources and their habitats likely to be negatively impacted, as well as those that are expected to benefit. The natural resource trustees are critical partners that can assist in conducting these analyses.
As previously stated, all members of the RRT are afforded an opportunity to review and provide input on a draft preauthorization plan. However, only the RRT representatives from EPA and the state(s) with jurisdiction over the waters and adjoining shorelines within the preauthorization plan area and the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees may approve, disapprove, or approve with modification the draft preauthorization plan. The Agency believes this remains the correct approach. Given preauthorization plans are developed during the contingency planning phase, the Agency believes that DOC and DOI natural resource trustee concurrence is preferred over just consultation because it provides for sufficient time to identify and resolve natural resource concerns. As noted in the 1994 NCP final rule, the requirement for concurrence during the advanced planning phase ensures trustee involvement in decision-making (59 FR 47398). Addressing in advance concerns that might otherwise slow the action ensures that operations during a removal action can be carried out quickly and effectively. EPA believes natural resource trustee concurrence with preauthorization plans satisfies the consultation obligation since the preauthorization plans specify the use parameters for chemical or biological
The Agency is proposing to revise the “Approved preauthorization plans shall be included in the appropriate RCPs and ACPs” in the current § 300.910(a) regulation to “RRTs and ACs shall, as appropriate, include applicable approved preauthorization plans in RCPs and ACPs.” The Agency is proposing to modify the qualifier “approved” with “applicable” to clarify that RRTs and ACs need to include the preauthorization plans only in those RCPs and ACPs to which they apply, and remains consistent with current requirements.
The Agency considered adding specifically the EPA Administrator and the senior EPA representative to the NRT (
The Agency is clarifying that chemical or biological agents may only be used for their intended use, given the different listing requirements proposed for the various categories of chemical or biological agents. For example, a chemical agent that is listed on the Schedule solely as a surface washing agent cannot be authorized for use as a dispersant, nor can a chemical agent that is listed on the Schedule solely as a dispersant for use under saltwater conditions be used in freshwater.
The Agency is proposing specific procedures for concurrence withdrawals, allowing agencies to do so if they believe the preauthorization plan no longer addresses or reflects existing situations if it were to be implemented. While an agency with concurrence authority may now decide to withdraw concurrence from an approved preauthorization plan, there are currently no set procedures to promptly address those situations. The proposal would require the RRT and the ACs to address the withdrawal of approval of the preauthorization plan within 30 days of the withdrawal, allowing an opportunity to address the concerns. The proposal also calls for the RRT to notify the NRT of the final status of the preauthorization plan within 30 days from the withdrawal. The Agency requests comments on whether this 30 day notification requirement should also include notification to the public. In the event of an Agency withdrawing its concurrence from an approved preauthorization plan, EPA believes the advanced planning process should continue with consideration for all the elements specified in paragraph (a) of this section. While the absence of a preauthorization plan requires that authorizations for agent use be conducted according to paragraph (b) of this section, the Agency continues to believe that preauthorization plans serve as a valuable advanced planning tool that provides a strong foundation to support decision-making and strongly encourages the resolution of any withdrawal.
Finally, EPA proposes a new requirement for RRTs and/or ACs to review, and revise as needed, preauthorization plans: (a) At least every 5 years to address revisions of the Schedule; (b) after a major discharge or a spill of national significance (SONS); (c) to reflect new listings of threatened and/or endangered species or; (d) after any other change such as a new or revised worst case discharge estimate that may impact the conditions under which the use of chemical and biological agents is preauthorized. A 5-year review cycle is consistent with facility response planning requirements; as those plans are revised and updated, it seems reasonable that preauthorization plans should be reviewed and revised accordingly. The Agency recognizes that development of preauthorization plans can be resource intensive; however, once developed, a periodic review and revision as needed should require much less effort. EPA welcomes comment on this timeframe and suggestions with supporting information for alternatives.
This review requirement is intended to ensure that preauthorization plans are actively maintained and updated to reflect revisions to the Schedule. Preauthorization plans, as well as the facility and vessel response plans reflected in them, may include information on products listed on the Schedule. A review at least every 5 years is expected to provide greater consistency not only between any Schedule revisions, but also between any ACPs, facility, and vessel response plans. For example, an ACP revision that results in a change in the worst-case discharge scenario could trigger a preauthorization plan review. Additionally, the requirement specifically includes plan review and revision requirements as appropriate to reflect new listings of threatened and/or endangered species that may occur. The EPA RRT representative, the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees, and, as appropriate, the RRT representative from the state(s) with jurisdiction over the waters of the area to which a preauthorization plan applies must review and either approve, approve with modification, or disapprove any revisions to the preauthorization plans. This review and approval is intended to focus on any revisions, and is not intended as a requirement for review and approval for those portions that do not require modifications.
The Agency is proposing revisions to § 300.910(b) of Subpart J to address use of chemical or biological agents identified on the Schedule for discharge situations that have not been addressed in preauthorization plans. The proposed revisions clarify the authorities and responsibilities of all involved parties,
The proposed revisions maintain, with the appropriate concurrences and consultations, the OSC's authority to authorize the use of chemical or biological agents on the oil discharge, provided that the agents are listed on the NCP Product Schedule. The concurrence of the EPA representative to the RRT and, as appropriate, the concurrence of the RRT representatives from the states with jurisdiction over the waters and adjoining shorelines threatened by the release or discharge is maintained. The requirement for consultation with the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees is also maintained. However, the language is amended by removing “when practicable” with respect to consultation with the DOC and DOI natural resource trustees. The Agency believes that the case-by-case decision making should include consultations with natural resource trustees since these discharge situations may present unique challenges when selecting a response option that involves chemical or biological agents. While the Agency recognizes the time-critical nature of decision making during a response, advances in communication technology (
The preauthorization plan requirements in paragraph (a) proposes to remove the term “specific context” currently used and instead clearly establish what the term refers to. The proposal specifically identifies the parameters that must be considered by the OSC for authorizing agent use. Similar requirements are proposed under paragraph (b). Thus, in meeting the provisions of § 300.910(b), the OSC must consider and document the parameters for the use of agents including, but not limited to, quantities to be used, the duration of use, the depth of water, the distance to shoreline and proximity to populated areas, and should address factors such as environmentally sensitive resources or restricted areas that might be impacted, agent inventory and storage locations, agent manufacturing capability, availability of equipment needed for agent use, availability of adequately trained operators and appropriate means to monitor agent use in the environment. These considerations are parallel to those proposed under paragraph (a) for preauthorization and planning purposes. While the Agency is not including other factors that may inform preauthorization planning development, such as various discharge scenarios, this does not mean these factors cannot or should not be considered if RRTs and/or ACs choose to develop expedited decision making plans. The Agency believes these are fundamental elements that would inform an assessment of the overall ecological risks for the OSC to consider when authorizing the use of chemical or biological agents.
Finally, while not required, EPA strongly recommends advanced planning for expedited decision making for cases where the discharge situation is not addressed in the preauthorization plans. Some RRTs have developed expedited approval guidelines that are not part of the preauthorization plans, but that offer an opportunity for advanced contingency planning by gathering information on the key parameters discussed above. Because discharge situations not covered by preauthorization plans need incident specific (
The Agency is proposing to replace the current authorization of use for burning agents in § 300.910(c) with a provision that provides greater flexibility to OSCs for authorizing the use of burning agents. Specifically, the Agency proposes that OSCs may authorize the use of burning agents for authorized in-situ burns. The proposed amendments recognize that relatively small quantities of burning agents are ignited prior to or immediately after they are introduced to an oil discharge. Furthermore, they are composed of substances that are expected to rapidly burn off during use, which serves to remove them from the water. The Agency also recognizes that ISB has become an important response option that is used more frequently and the proposed revisions would allow OSCs to authorize the use of burning agents for authorized burns. For example, a significant number of ISBs were conducted during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
The proposed rule maintains the provision allowing OSCs to authorize the use of any agent, including products not on the Schedule, when it is determined that the use of the agent is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce a threat to human life. The proposed revisions do not change previous policy, but rather clarify the intent of the exception. The Agency believes that the protection of human life is the primary consideration in responding to an oil discharge. Life-
The proposed revisions also specify that the OSC immediately notify, and document the reasons for the use of an agent to the EPA RRT representative and the affected states as soon as possible, and must obtain their concurrences where continued use of chemical or biological agents extends beyond 48 hours. The Agency believes that advances in communication technologies (
The Agency is maintaining the current prohibition for the authorization of use of sinking agents, and is clarifying that this prohibition also applies to any other chemical agent, biological agent, or any substance that acts as a sinking agent when mixed with oil. While certain chemical and biological agents may submerge oil below the water surface (
The Agency is also proposing to add a prohibition from listing on the Schedule and from authorizing use of any chemical or biological agents that contain nonylphenol (NP) or nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) as components. This prohibition reflects the Agency's concern for these substances, as presented in the
Alternatively, EPA considered a broader prohibition from listing and from authorizing the use of chemical or biological agents formulated with any endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC). EDCs impact exposed organisms by altering the hormonal and homeostatic systems that allow them to interact with and respond to their environment. The group of molecules identified as potential endocrine disruptors is highly varied and may be present in chemicals used as industrial solvents or surfactants that can be found in dispersants and surface washing agents. Because of the common properties of these compounds and the similarities of the receptors and enzymes involved in the synthesis, release, and degradation of hormones, no endocrine system is immune to endocrine disrupting compounds.
The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act directed EPA to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans; the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act authorized EPA to screen substances that may be found in sources of drinking water for endocrine disruption potential. In response to these mandates, the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is developing requirements for the screening and testing of pesticides, commercial chemicals, and
However, because NP and the NPE are extremely or highly toxic to aquatic organisms, the Agency is proposing a prohibition specific to Subpart J products containing NP and NPE as components. The Agency is not proposing to include a broad prohibition on Subpart J products that contain substances in which at least part of the toxic mode of action may include disruption of the organism's endocrine system, but is requesting comments on prohibiting similar substances that may be found in products/agents that could be listed on the Schedule, or to what the criteria should be in order to make that determination. As an alternative, the Agency could require that all product components be tested for a toxic mode of action that includes disruption of the organism's endocrine system and is requesting comment on this approach as well.
The Agency believes the proposed prohibitions are appropriate in all cases, notwithstanding the proposed provisions for case-by-case use authorization of burning agents under § 300.910(c), or for authorization of use of any chemical or biological agent when it is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce an immediate threat to human life under § 300.910(d). There are chemical and biological agent alternatives to sinking agents and to agents containing NP or NPE, as well as mechanical methods for responding to oil discharges, including those situations that pose extreme threats or are time critical.
Section 300.915 currently requires that information be provided on recommended conditions of storage and use for each product at the time an application for listing a product under Subpart J is submitted to the Agency. This information is summarized in EPA's
The Agency proposes to add a new paragraph (f) to this section that complements the existing information requirements for the person or entity submitting a product for listing (“submitter”). The proposed requirements focus on the use of this information by the responder and the OSC. Specifically, the revised provisions require the OSC to only authorize for use those products that are stored under the conditions specified by the submitter of the product for listing, including the maximum, minimum and optimum temperatures, humidity and any other relevant conditions. Additionally, the Agency proposes to require that the OSC only authorize for use those products whose date of use does not exceed the expiration date listed on the container's label at the time of an incident, unless the responsible party
This proposal maintains RRT authority in that they may require supplementary toxicity and efficacy testing, or available data or information that addresses site, area, or ecosystem specific concerns relative to the use of a product for both planning and authorization of use. While parallel to the current provisions, the proposed revisions provide added flexibility. The current provisions allow RRTs to require supplementary toxicity and efficacy testing of products, in addition to those specified as technical requirements following the test methods described in Appendix C to part 300, due to existing site-specific or area-specific concerns when developing preauthorization plans. EPA proposes to remove the qualifier “When developing preauthorization plans” to provide greater flexibility for RRTs to require supplementary toxicity and efficacy testing, or available data or information that addresses site, area, or ecosystem specific concerns relative to the use of a product for situations even when preauthorization plans are not being developed. For example, RRTs may need additional testing or information for situations that fall under paragraph (b) of this section, including when developing an expedited decision making plan. The proposed revision also allows for RRTs to require supplementary product toxicity and efficacy testing, or available data or information for both planning and authorization of use situations, and based on that information may consider establishing limitations for the use of products in certain areas. The Agency is including “available data and information” to compliment the supplementary toxicity and efficacy testing provision recognizing that existing data or information that addresses site, area, or ecosystem specific concerns relative to the use of a product may be available. The Agency is also proposing to include “ecosystem” with area and site specific concerns, as RRTs may want to gather additional information on the use of certain products when assessing the use of a product relative to the biological communities specific to their area. The proposal removes “in addition to the test methods specified in § 300.915 and described in appendix C to part 300.” While RRTs may want to use the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols specified in Appendix C of the NCP for comparative purposes, the proposed revisions clearly establish the RRTs authority to require tests using parameters beyond those specified in Appendix C. Furthermore, there may be supplementary toxicity and efficacy testing information based on recognized standard testing methods already available that RRTs may want to consider when addressing site, area, or ecosystem specific concerns.
This proposal also provides the RRT authority to request that the OSC require a responsible party to conduct additional monitoring associated with the use of a product during a discharge incident. The proposed revision compliments the proposed monitoring requirements for dispersant use, but also including other chemical or biological agents, or other testing endpoints. The Agency believes the RRT must be afforded the ability to request that the OSC direct the responsible party to conduct additional monitoring under Subpart J for the use of a product in the environment. The RRT may request that the OSC consider additional monitoring during an oil discharge response to support operational decisions on dispersant use. For example, the RRT may want to monitor the exposure of marine mammals to oil constituents, including dispersed oil, or to monitor toxicity in the water column using biological assays. The Agency requests comments on these proposed revisions.
The proposal identifies certain agent categories and substances intended to be removed from the environment following their use: Solidifiers, sorbents and surface washing agents. For those categories, the Agency expects the agents to be recovered from the environment to minimize any potential adverse impact. The proposal adds a new requirement that charges the responsible party, under OSC oversight, to recover these products from the environment. Recovery activities after the use of these agents would include containment of the agents in the water, collection of the agents mixed with oil or any residual agent, storage of the oil-agent waste prior to disposal, and disposal of that oil-agent waste. The Agency also recognizes there may be situations where the safety of response personnel is threatened, or where additional harm to the environment could occur during recovery operations. Consequently, we are proposing these factors be considered when initiating recovery actions. While it is appropriate to have the OSC ensure these activities take place, it is ultimately the responsibility of the responsible party to conduct these activities and ensure that the agents are recovered from the environment. The Agency requests comments on this proposed requirement.
The proposal includes a new requirement for the OSC to provide to the RRT certain information after the use of a chemical or biological agent within 30 days of completion of agent operations. The information required in this report includes the information on any chemical or biological agent used, including product name, the quantity and concentration of the agent used during the response, the duration of use, the locations where the agent was used, and any data collected and analysis of efficacy or environmental effects. The proposal allows this information to be provided in the OSC report to the NRT or RRT as required under section 300.165 of the NCP, if such a report has been requested. While other existing notification requirements serve to activate an immediate response to an event, the proposed requirement gathers information that will be useful in specifically evaluating the use of chemical or biological agents in the response. It will also inform the review of preauthorization plans and provide a basis for any necessary changes to improve environmental protection. Given that response and removal actions can greatly vary depending on the discharge situation, the Agency requests comments on whether it would be appropriate to allow the timeframe for submitting the report to be agreed upon by the RRT, rather than establishing a set timeframe. The Agency is requesting comments on this proposed new requirement, including on the proposed timeframe.
The goal of establishing a Schedule under the NCP is to protect the environment from possible damage related to spill mitigating products used in response to oil discharges. The proposal establishes a regulatory approach under Subpart J that includes test data and information requirements
Each oil discharge represents a unique situation with distinct conditions, which may require various response methods. When dispersants are applied to an oil discharge, field monitoring can be used to inform operational decisions by gathering site-specific information on the overall effectiveness, including the transport and environmental effects of the dispersant and the dispersed oil. The revisions to product test data and information requirements are intended to provide OSCs, RRTs, and ACs with the best information available when selecting products for use on an oil discharge. While laboratory test protocols allow for comparison between different products under standardized laboratory conditions and may be useful during the monitoring and assessment of a discharge event and/or for selection of the agents used in the response, they do not necessarily reflect field conditions. Monitoring of agents in the field informs the OSC and other agencies on the overall effectiveness of dispersant use, including the environmental effects and transport of dispersed oil.
The Agency believes that comprehensive monitoring in certain discharge situations is necessary to determine the overall effectiveness of dispersants and should transcend from the initial dispersant application to include the transport and environmental effects of the dispersant and dispersed oil in the water column. Monitoring the overall effectiveness of dispersant use in the field provides those Agencies with responsibility for authorizing the use of dispersant product information for decision-making during subsurface or prolonged surface dispersant applications. Adverse effects on ecological receptors from exposures to dispersed oil depend on the length of time and concentration of the exposure, which in turn is dependent on the transport of dispersed oil. Because these exposures may vary depending on the discharge situation, the Agency believes comprehensive monitoring is important for certain discharge situations. This monitoring data will enhance the information needed for an effective response without delaying the use of agents under these conditions.
Equipment is being contemplated to inject dispersants subsurface, directly into the oil near the source of the discharge.
The proposed rule adds § 300.913 establishing requirements for the responsible party to monitor any subsurface use of dispersant in response to an oil discharge, surface use of dispersants in response to oil discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring within 24 hours, and surface use of dispersants for more than 96 hours in response to an oil discharge, as directed by the OSC. The purpose of monitoring subsurface application is to characterize the dispersed oil, follow the plume integrity and transport with the underwater current, and identify and assess the potential adverse effects from the dispersed oil. The proposal requires the responsible party to implement monitoring for any subsurface dispersant use in response to an oil discharge upon initiation and for the duration of subsurface dispersant use. The Agency believes monitoring subsurface use of dispersants is critical to inform response actions to minimize potential environmental effects.
While surface application of dispersants is not a new approach and understood for small, short duration discharges, the Agency believes it is appropriate to require comprehensive monitoring for situations where dispersants are used for an extended period of time or in cases of major oil discharges. The Agency chose 100,000 U.S. gallons as a threshold criterion for a major oil discharge because the NCP classifies a discharge of more than this quantity to coastal waters as major. In addition, EPA is proposing to this quantity monitoring of dispersant use in response to major oil discharges occurring within 24 hours since a larger quantity of dispersant may be required in a short time frame for an incident of this scale. The Agency also believes comprehensive monitoring should be required when surface dispersant is used for more than 96 hours because of potentially longer exposures of biological aquatic resources to dispersant and dispersed oil. Further, many acute toxicity studies use 96-hour exposure durations, including the acute toxicity tests using
The proposal requires the responsible party to document the characteristics of the source oil; best estimate of the oil discharge flow rate, periodically reevaluated as conditions dictate, including a description of the method, associated uncertainties, and materials; dispersant(s) product used, rationale for dispersant choice(s), including the results of any efficacy and toxicity tests, recommended dispersant-to-oil ratio; and the application method and procedures, including a description of the equipment to be used, hourly application rates, capacities, and total amount of dispersant needed. For subsurface discharges, the proposal also
Because of the many factors that influence the selection of a dispersant product (
The biodegradation of petroleum constituents may result in a reduction in the dissolved oxygen concentration in the water column that could lead to hypoxia, which could be detrimental to marine organisms. The best estimate of the oil discharge flow rate, periodically reevaluated as conditions dictate, is an important consideration for monitoring dispersant use since the estimated amount of oil discharged may be used to provide insight into the potential oxygen demand exerted on the water column and to characterize the potential oil distribution. The proposal would also require the responsible party to document the best estimate of the discharge flow rate of any associated volatile petroleum hydrocarbons for subsurface applications. Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (
The proposal requires the documentation of the dispersant application method and procedures to include a description of the equipment to be used, including hourly application rates, capacities, and total amount of dispersant needed. Dispersant and equipment should be available to maintain the hourly dispersant application rate without significant deviation from the set rate. The Agency believes this information will assist in ensuring a consistent dispersant application rate. Dispersant application rates outside of established parameters may result in their over or under use, altering their effectiveness. Significant fluctuations in dispersant application rates could also indicate equipment malfunctions, requiring a reassessment of the response technique. EPA welcomes comment on the proposed requirements for dispersant application. Alternatives must include a rationale in order for the Agency to consider them for final action.
The proposal requires the responsible party to collect representative background samples from the water column at the closest safe distance determined by the OSC from the discharge, and in any direction of likely transport. The sampling should consider surface and subsurface currents and oil properties. Establishing background information prior to oil contamination from the discharge source provides reference data to compare against the results from water samples taken during the response. In establishing the background information, the responsible party should consider other potential sources of petroleum hydrocarbons (
The Agency is requiring that sample collection follow established standard operating and quality assurance procedures that are reliable and defensible. An accurate assessment of environmental data depends on the reliability, timeliness, and integrity of the data collected. Standard operating procedures should describe the appropriateness of the sampling method; the equipment needed for sample collection; a description of potential interferences, problems that may be encountered and corrective actions that would be taken; the sample collection procedure, including the preparation steps, representative sampling considerations, and sampling steps for each sampling device used; sample preservation, containers, handling, and storage; decontamination of sampling equipment; and record keeping and quality control procedures. These elements are generally described in various guidance documents on standard operating and quality assurance procedures for environmental sampling.
In addition to the background water sample collection, the proposal requires the responsible party to collect water column samples daily in the dispersed oil plume at such depths and locations where dispersed oil is likely to be present. EPA believes the dispersed oil plume captures the presence of oil from either the subsurface or the surface application of dispersant, including where oil could be rising to the surface from a subsurface discharge or the dispersed oil plume at the water surface as a result of surface dispersant application. The responsible party also would need to analyze for:
•
•
• Fluorescence signatures. In addition to
• Dissolved oxygen (DO). Dissolved oxygen is an important variable to monitor in the application of dispersants, particularity in subsurface waters that may inform operational decisions. For surface dispersant application, dissolved oxygen is expected to be higher in the mixed layer in the surface water. Dissolved and/or dispersed oil represents a readily available carbon source for microbial oxidation, and this metabolic activity can lead to a decrease in the DO content in the water column. The oil degrading community in the water is an important DO sink for the mass transfer of hydrocarbons in the subsurface, and advantage can be taken of this fact during a response. The decline in DO due to hydrocarbon biodegradation could approach or exceed levels of concern (
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons, individual resolvable constituents, including volatile organic compounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, monocyclic, polycyclic, and other aromatic hydrocarbons, including alkylated homologs, and hopane and sterane biomarker compounds. The Agency is proposing that the responsible party analyze each water sample collected for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), individual resolvable constituents, including volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, and branched and normal aliphatic hydrocarbons. The analysis would also include monocyclic, polycyclic and other aromatic hydrocarbons (
• Carbon Dioxide (subsurface only). The aerobic biodegradation of oil constituents not only consumes dissolved oxygen, but would also produce carbon dioxide. Increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide that coincide with decreases in the concentration of dissolved oxygen would provide credible evidence that biodegradation of oil is occurring. Thus, the Agency believes that measuring the
• Methane if present (subsurface only). The microbial degradation of methane may contribute to a reduction in dissolved oxygen. Thus, the Agency believes that, when present, subsurface
• Heavy metals analysis, including nickel and vanadium. Crude petroleum oil may contain certain heavy metals, including nickel and vanadium.
• Turbidity. Turbidity is a general measure of water clarity. Turbidity is determined by measuring how much material suspended in water decreases the passage of light through the water.
• Water temperature. Water temperature typically is measured using an electronic thermometer on the conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) instrument. When combined with salinity and pressure, temperature measurements are used to calculate water density, which may change along the vertical profile. Along with the horizontal subsurface currents and the rise velocity of the dispersed oil, the ambient density gradient is an important factor in determining the behavior of dispersed oil in the water column. Water temperature is also an important variable that may influence the effectiveness of dispersant applications. For example, cold temperatures may, among other environmental factors, impact the effectiveness of dispersants as it affects certain oil properties (
• pH. The pH is a simple standard measurement used to analyze water quality that can affect chemical or biological processes in water. pH also determines the solubility and biological availability of chemical constituents such as heavy metals.
• Conductivity. Conductivity is measured by passing a current through the water in a CTD instrument, which is then compared against known salinities to obtain the water salinity. When combined with temperature, and pressure, salinity measurements are
The proposal requires that the responsible party, in consultation with the OSC and using best available technologies, characterize the dispersant effectiveness and oil distribution, considering the condition of the oil, dispersant, and dispersed oil components from the discharge location. EPA believes this is necessary to inform sampling locations by assessing the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the dispersed oil plume and the direction of likely transport. The majority of the sampling can then be focused on known or suspected locations and depths of the dispersed oil. Based on the initial water sampling results to characterize the boundaries of the dispersed oil, the sampling design can be tailored to optimize sampling. The Agency proposes that the responsible party characterize the dispersant effectiveness to determine the changes in the condition of the oil due to weathering, which can include changes in oil viscosity due to water uptake (
The Agency proposes that the responsible party characterize the ecological receptors (
The proposal requires the responsible party to consult with the OSC to determine an acute toxicity level of concern for the dispersed oil using available dose/response information relevant to potentially exposed species. The envisioned approach would be to monitor acute toxicity in the water column concurrently with dispersed oil sampling for fluorometry, particle size, and water quality (
While EBs may have already been established during the development of contingency plans, they can also be derived at the time of an incident. One approach is to use a species sensitivity distribution (SSD),
The proposal requires the responsible party to immediately report to the OSC any deviation of more than 10 percent of the mean hourly subsurface dispersant use rate for the total dispersant volume authorized for that 24 hour use, and the reason for the deviation (
The Agency also is proposing to require the immediate reporting of ecological receptors, including any threatened or endangered species that may be exposed to dispersed oil based on trajectory modeling and the estimated acute toxicity level of concern. Results from daily sampling (
The proposal requires daily reporting of sampling and data analyses collected within the timeframe necessary to make operational decisions (
The Agency is proposing to revise the data and information requirements for listing products on the Schedule in § 300.915 of Subpart J. The proposed amendments revise the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols and listing criteria for all chemical and biological agents on the Schedule. Additionally, the Agency proposes revisions to the requirements for general product information, Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, submission package contents, EPA review and listing procedures, requests for decision review, changes to products, transitioning products from the current Schedule to the new Schedule, mandatory product disclaimer, and removal of products from the Schedule.
The Agency is proposing to consolidate the general submission requirements applicable to all types of agents that may be listed on the Schedule in paragraph (a) of § 300.915. Subsequent regulatory paragraphs in this section are proposed to include requirements specific to each product category. Additionally, the Agency is proposing to require some additional information, as applicable, regarding products that are submitted for Schedule listing consideration. The proposed general information requirements for all products are proposed to be revised as follow:
• Submitter: Name, physical address, email, telephone number, identity of submitter (
• General Product: All name(s), brand(s), and/or trademark(s) under which the product is to be sold; Safety Data Sheet (SDS); sample product labels for all name(s), brand(s), and/or trademark(s); chemical or biological agent categories under which the product is submitted for listing, including information on the specific process(es) through which the product affects the oil, and the specific environment (waters and/or adjoining shorelines) on which it is intended to be used.
• Supplier: Names, physical addresses, emails and telephone numbers of the primary distributors, vendors, importers, and/or designated agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer.
• Product Storage: Maximum, minimum and optimum temperature, humidity and other relevant conditions for product storage; impact on product performance if the product is not stored within recommended limits; and anticipated shelf life at the recommended storage conditions.
• Product Use: Recommended procedures, including product concentrations, application ratios, types of application equipment, conditions for use, and any application restrictions. The procedures must address variables such as weather, water salinity, water temperature, types and weathering states of oils or other pollutants, and product and oil containment, collection, recovery and disposal, and include supporting documentation and standard methods used to determine them.
• Environmental Fate: Known measured data and supporting documentation on the persistence, bioconcentration factor, bioaccumulation factor, and biodegradability of the product and all of its components.
• Physical/Chemical Properties and Formulation: Physical state and appearance; vapor pressure; flash point; pour point; viscosity; specific gravity; particle size for solid components; pH; citation of standard methods used to determine the physical/chemical properties; identity of all components in the product, including each specific component name; corresponding Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number; the maximum, minimum, and average weight percent of each product component; and the intended function of each component (
• For products that contain microorganisms, enzymes and/or nutrients: All microorganisms and weight percent by current genus and species, including any reclassifications; all enzymes and their International Union of Biochemistry (I.U.B.) number(s); Enzyme Classification (EC) code numbers; the source of each enzyme, units, and specific oil-degrading activity; name(s) and maximum, minimum, and average weight percent of the nutrients contained in the product; citation or description of the methodology used to determine product components; certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain levels that exceed the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria lowest density value for the following: Bacterial, fungal, or viral pathogens or opportunistic pathogens, including, but not limited to, enteric bacteria such as Salmonella, fecal coliforms, Shigella, Coagulase positive
• National Water Quality Standard Contaminants: Certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain levels that exceed the National Water Quality Standards lowest aquatic life acute value for the following contaminants: Metals reasonably expected to be in the product including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, zinc; cyanide; chlorinated hydrocarbons; pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
• Certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain prohibited agents (sinking agents, nonylphenol, or nonylphenol ethoxylates).
• Testing Laboratory Information: Name, address, contact name, email, phone number; national or international accreditations.
• Laboratory Testing Data and Reports: All applicable information, data and analysis specified in the testing protocols, including raw test data and replicates, notes and observations, calculated mean values and standard deviations, summary of stock solution preparation, source and preparation of test organisms, test conditions, and chain of custody forms.
• Production capacity: Estimated annual production volume; average and maximum volume per day; time needed to reach that maximum production rate (days).
• Performance Capabilities/Benefits: Recognition received from, if applicable; national and/or international product testing or use data, recognitions (
The proposed revisions group together and simplify the general submission requirements applicable to all product types. EPA believes reorganizing the general requirements in a central location will clarify which requirements are applicable to all submissions, and which are specific to each product type by including them in separate sections. While most of the information listed above is currently required to be submitted under Subpart J, the Agency is proposing revisions to several of the existing general requirements and several new data and information requirements. The Agency believes the proposed revisions and added new requirements will better characterize the nature of the product and will assist EPA in product listing decisions. The information will also assist the RRTs in their area planning activities, and the OSCs in authorizing the appropriate use of chemical and biological agents. Details on the proposed additions and revisions are as follow:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Similarly, there are no restrictions on the use of environmentally persistent products. The Agency considered requiring the submitter to use estimation techniques/models, such as the EPA model EPI Suite
EPA believes environmental fate information is necessary to inform the OSCs when authorizing these products for use, given the potential for their extended use in significant quantities. However, given that the Agency can estimate these factors, it is only proposing to require that available information or data be submitted on the product rather than specific product testing, as specific product testing for these factors can add significantly to the testing cost for each product. The Agency requests comment on whether testing for products' bioconcentration, bioaccumulation and biodegradation should be required for listing purposes. Additionally, the Agency requests comment on whether thresholds for BCF and BAF should be established for listing a product on the Schedule.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
The Agency is proposing revisions to the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols, as well as establishing new thresholds for listing dispersants on the Schedule in § 300.915(b). The Agency proposes to define dispersants as typically mixtures of solvents, surfactants, and additives that promote the formation of small droplets of oil in the water column by reducing the oil-water interfacial tension. These droplets are driven into the water column by wave action. Emergency response personnel need to know whether a dispersant or any other type of chemical or biological agent on the Schedule could have negative environmental impacts relative to the oil before decisions are made about its use in a particular oil discharge situation. Consequently, it is essential to consider comparative information about the efficacy and the toxicity of these products. The proposed revisions are in response to concerns not only for an increase in the frequency of planning for the use of these agents, but also for their potential use in large quantities, such as when responding to oil discharges from
The Agency tested eight of the dispersants currently listed on the Schedule. Three of the eight dispersants clearly differentiated themselves from the other five dispersants for having the best DE
Additionally, the Agency is proposing that efficacy testing be conducted at two different temperatures, 5 °C and 25 °C, rather than at an ambient temperature range of 20–23 °C as currently required. The Agency recognizes the current and future interest in arctic and deepwater drilling, and the continued oil production in the southern, more tropical areas of the country. Given the potential range of locations where dispersants may be used, the Agency believes it is appropriate to have products tested at temperatures that would reflect that range. These temperatures are intended to capture dispersant use scenarios in a wide range of geographic locations and under different temperatures that may occur in the same geographical location (such as, for example, the deep sea and surface water in the Gulf of Mexico, where the temperatures are typically 5 and 25 °C, respectively).
The Agency is also proposing to replace the current SFT with the BFT, which is designed to be more representative of moderately turbulent sea conditions where dispersants are more likely to be successful when used. The revised testing protocol improves test repeatability and reproducibility within and between laboratories, as well as greatly reduces both the inherent error of the method and the human error associated with the current SFT, as discussed below. In addition, reporting the test results in terms of the product's LCL
• The new baffled trypsinizing flask design, fitted with a glass stopcock positioned at the bottom side, promotes less manipulation that could result in erroneous re-suspension of non-dispersed oil, as in the SFT. The re-suspension of oil when using the SFT test protocol was a major source of error. In the SFT, the flask has a side arm spout, requiring the analyst to pick up the flask and pour the contents out manually. Through that action, re-suspension of the dispersed oil can easily take place, leading to potentially erroneous results. In contrast, in the BFT, the flask contains a stopcock at the bottom, so the analyst need only open the stopcock to drain the contents from the flask without the potential of remixing or re-suspending the dispersed oil.
• The BFT provides more turbulent mixing and better enables more reproducible and repeatable dispersant
• The variability both between analysts and within analysts is substantially lower for the BFT compared to the SFT, as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV). The CV is defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean and is expressed in terms of percent; the higher the CV, the greater the variability.
The Agency considered establishing listing thresholds for efficacy based on the types of oil. The Schedule could list sub-categories of dispersants based on gravities of the oil (
Specifically, the Agency is proposing to require evaluations of dispersant toxicity using acute toxicity tests following existing USEPA effluent testing guidelines,
• Lethal concentration for 50% of the test species (LC
• Inhibition concentration for 50% of the test species (IC
• No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) equal to or greater than 1 ppm for sub-chronic toxicity.
The Agency proposes to conduct the oil-only acute toxicity tests for the two reference oils, with both
In addition to the criteria discussed above, the Agency considered calculating a toxicity threshold based on the ratio of the LC
The Agency also considered including geographically or ecologically representative species in the testing protocol. The Agency believes, however, that this issue is addressed by the proposed revisions to the supplemental testing and information requirements in section 300.910(g), with the decisions of testing geographically and ecologically representative species left to the discretion of the RRTs. While inclusion of species from different phyla and habitats would provide useful and important information on possible adverse effects of dispersant products and dispersed oil, the proposed testing protocols would need to be modified and validated. Further, the Agency is concerned about balancing the time and cost associated with the development of these tests on the part of the submitter rather than on the end users.
The Schedule currently requires no specific toxicity or efficacy tests for subsea dispersant listing or authorization of use. While the differences in toxicity values and efficacy may be affected by application in subsea environments, the Agency believes that the proposed requirements establish an adequate baseline for listing dispersants on the Schedule and for authorizing their use by responders in case of an incident. The Agency is addressing these concerns by proposing new provisions for dispersant monitoring for all subsea use, and requests comments on alternative testing and listing approaches to specifically address subsea concerns.
The Agency is proposing a conditional use listing for dispersants. The proposal specifies that dispersants may only be used in saltwater environments. Dispersants are typically designed and traditionally used for responding to oil discharges in saltwater. In general, the effectiveness of dispersants decreases as the salinity of the water decreases, given the same hydrophilic-lipophilic balance, and the effectiveness is minimal in freshwater environments. Surfactants, the main active ingredient in dispersants, sustain oil droplets in water by orienting the lipophilic side of its molecule in the oil and the hydrophilic side in the water. The hydrophilic side of the surfactant is generally more soluble in waters with higher salinity values, causing the oil droplets to be more stable in saline water environments. In waters with no salinity, many dispersants have shown a very low effectiveness or are sometimes completely ineffective.
The Agency is also concerned with using dispersants in freshwater environments because of the limited dilution typically available as compared with the open sea and because of the existence of water intakes in rivers, streams, and lakes for use in drinking water supplies. Using dispersants in freshwater has the potential for compounding the impacts caused by already discharged petroleum products, particularly near potable and non-potable subsurface water intakes. The Agency does recognize, however, that as a last resort, dispersants may have some limited applicability in freshwater. The provision for authorization of use under § 300.910(d) would allow for exceptions to the prohibition on the use of dispersants in freshwater in cases where there is an immediate threat to human life. The Agency is requesting comment on this proposed listing limitation.
The Agency is proposing to define Surface washing agents (SWA) as substances that separate oil from solid surfaces, such as beaches, rocks, or concrete, through a detergency mechanism that lifts and floats oil for collection and recovery from the environment with minimal dissolution, dispersion, or transfer of oil into the water column. For this agent category, the Agency is proposing to revise the toxicity testing protocols, to establish efficacy testing protocols, and to establish both toxicity and efficacy listing thresholds in § 300.915(c). The proposed revisions respond to concerns regarding their frequent use and the potential for residual impacts after their use.
The Agency's goal is to develop and evaluate a new bench-scale testing protocol that would provide a standard for EPA to use in SWA product
Consequently, because of the additional work needed to finalize its protocol, the Agency is proposing to allow the use of standard recognized efficacy testing methodologies for surface washing agents. An example of such a standard recognized methodology is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cleaning Agents.
The Agency is also proposing an efficacy threshold of 30% in either fresh or salt water or both depending on the intended product use. This is based on the efficacy data published in “Surface-washing Agents or Beach Cleaners.”
The proposed revisions to the testing protocols for surface washing agents are detailed in Appendix C to part 300. The proposed acute toxicity test protocol for surface washing agents is based on EPA's protocol,
The Agency is proposing provisions for conducting acute toxicity tests with dispersant-oil mixtures, but not for any other agent, including SWAs. EPA believes that non-dispersant products are not likely to be used in the same quantities or durations as dispersants and some may be recovered making a requirement to conduct toxicity tests of product/oil mixtures unnecessary. There may be concerns, however, for increased product toxicity because of their interaction with the oil. Thus, the Agency is requesting comment on the need for acute toxicity tests conducted with surface washing agents-reference oil mixtures. A protocol for preparation of product/oil mixtures for toxicity testing is available for review in the docket.
The Agency is proposing a conditional use listing for SWAs. The proposal specifies that these products may only be used in those water environments for which the product was tested and for which it met the listing threshold criteria. The Agency recognizes that products may yield effective results in certain environments and not in others. Products that may be
The Agency is proposing to define bioremediation agents as biological agents and/or nutrient additives deliberately introduced into a contaminated environment to increase the rate of biodegradation and mitigate any deleterious effects caused by the contaminant constituents. Bioremediation agents include microorganisms, enzymes, and nutrient additives such as fertilizers containing bioavailable forms of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. For this agent category, the Agency is proposing to revise the efficacy testing protocols, to establish toxicity testing protocols, and to establish both efficacy and toxicity listing thresholds in § 300.915(d).
•
•
•
Of note, these proposed thresholds for listing bioremediation products on the Schedule are similar to those established for Canadian efficacy testing, which are reductions of 30% for total aliphatics and 10% for total aromatics. The 30% reduction in total aliphatics (including all resolvable and non-resolvable but GC-detectable aliphatics) is approximately equivalent to an 80% reduction in total GC/MS-resolvable target n-alkanes, based on Canadian data. The 10% reduction in total aromatics is approximately equivalent to a 50% reduction of the 5-aromatic homologue group consisting of naphthalene, fluorene, dibenzothiophene, phenanthrene, and chrysene and their alkylated homologs. The U.S. aromatic series includes 2 other 4-ring aromatics in addition to those 5 aromatic series considered by Blenkinsopp et al.
Similarly to surface washing agents, the Agency is not proposing provisions for conducting acute toxicity tests with bioremediation agent-oil mixtures. The Agency is requesting comment on the need for acute toxicity tests conducted with bioremediation agents-reference oil mixtures. A protocol for preparation of product/oil mixtures for toxicity testing is available for review in the docket.
The Agency recognizes there may be oil discharge situations where it is determined that the addition of nutrients in the form of salts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (
The Agency considered proposing a definition of “fertilizer” to specifically capture the listed bioremediation agents proposed to be exempted. However, fertilizer is a term commonly used to describe organic nutrients, which may contain substances that do not play a role in mitigating oil discharges, and that may have deleterious effects on the environment. Some non-proprietary fertilizers, for example, comprised of activated sewage sludge or manure, could contain unwanted pathogens and trace metals that could further stress the environment if used in response to an oil discharge. Thus, instead of an exemption based on a fertilizer definition, EPA proposes to restrict the exemption under the bioremediation category only to those nutrients listed above in order to avoid any confusion. The Agency requests comments on this approach.
The proposal defines solidifiers as substances that cause oil to become a coherent mass, preventing oil from dissolving or dispersing into the water column, and which are collected and recovered from the environment. For this agent category, the Agency proposes to revise the toxicity testing protocol and to establish a listing threshold for toxicity in § 300.915(e). Although solidifiers are intended to be removed from the environment, the proposed revisions and new toxicity listing threshold respond to concerns regarding the general increase in the use of chemical and biological agents as tools available for oil discharge responses.
There are currently no efficacy testing requirements in the NCP Subpart J for solidifiers to determine listing eligibility on the Schedule. These agents would have been captured by the current MOSCA agent category, which currently has no efficacy testing requirements, and which the Agency is proposing to eliminate. While the Agency is aware of existing protocols to determine the effectiveness of solidifiers, its focus has been on reviewing the protocols for dispersants and bioremediation agents, given that their specific process for affecting the oil allows them to be left in the environment, whereas solidifiers are intended for removal from the environment. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing an efficacy testing methodology for solidifiers, but is requesting comment on available methodologies and/or performance criteria (
The proposed revisions to the testing protocols for solidifiers are detailed in Appendix C to part 300. The proposed acute toxicity test protocol for solidifiers is based on EPA's protocol,
Similarly to surface washing agents, the Agency is not proposing provisions for conducting acute toxicity tests with solidifiers-oil mixtures. The Agency is requesting comment on the need for acute toxicity tests conducted with solidifiers-reference oil mixtures. A protocol for preparation of product/oil mixtures for toxicity testing is available for review in the docket.
The Agency is proposing a conditional use listing for solidifiers. The proposal specifies that the listing of these products is limited to use only in those water environments for which the product was tested and for which it met the listing threshold criteria. The Agency recognizes that products may yield effective results in certain environments and not in others. Products that may be effective in freshwater may not necessarily be so in saltwater, and vice versa. The Agency is proposing this limitation to allow product manufacturers the flexibility to select which environment the product is to be tested and could be authorized for use, either saltwater, fresh water, or both. Therefore, the product would be listed and may only be authorized for use in those water environments for which it was tested and for which it met the listing criteria.
The proposal defines herding agents as substances that are used to control the spreading of oil across the water surface. For this agent category, the Agency proposes to revise the toxicity testing protocol and to establish a listing threshold for toxicity in § 300.915(f). While these agents are intended to be removed from the environment, the proposed revisions and new toxicity listing threshold respond to concerns regarding the general increase in the use of chemical and biological agents as tools available for oil discharge responses.
Currently, there is a test requirement for distinguishing surface collecting agents from other chemical agents (§ 300.915(c)(9),
There are currently no efficacy testing requirements in the NCP Subpart J for herding agents to determine listing eligibility on the Schedule. These agents would have been captured by the current surface collecting agent category, which currently has no efficacy testing requirements, and which the proposal eliminates. The Agency is not proposing an efficacy testing methodology for herding agents, but is requesting comment on available methodologies and/or performance criteria it can consider.
The proposed revisions to the testing protocols for herding agents follow the same procedures as described for surface washing agents and are detailed in Appendix C to part 300. The acute toxicity test protocol for herding agents is based on EPA's protocol,
Herding agents form a monolayer of surfactants on the water surface that result in the contraction of the oil slick.
Similarly to surface washing agents, the Agency is not proposing provisions for conducting acute toxicity tests with herding agents-oil mixtures. The Agency is requesting comment on the need for acute toxicity tests conducted with herding agents-reference oil mixtures. A protocol for preparation of product/oil mixtures for toxicity testing is available for review in the docket.
The Agency is proposing a conditional use listing for herding agents. The proposal specifies that these products may only be used in those water environments for which the product was tested and for which it met the listing threshold criteria. The Agency recognizes that products may yield effective results in certain environments and not in others. Products that may be effective in freshwater may not necessarily be so in saltwater, and vice versa. The Agency is proposing this limitation to allow product manufacturers the flexibility to select which environment the product is to be tested and could be authorized for use, either saltwater, fresh water, or both. Therefore, the product would be listed and may only be authorized for use in those water environments for which it was tested and for which it met the listing criteria.
The proposal defines sorbents as inert, insoluble substances that readily absorb and/or adsorb oil or hazardous substances. Sorbents would exclude those contaminated with substances that would interact with the environment beyond their absorption/adsorption capabilities (
The current Subpart J has no toxicity or efficacy testing requirements for sorbents. There are two ASTM standards for performance testing that could be applicable to sorbents: The ASTM F716–09
Currently, manufacturers may assert a claim of confidential business information (CBI) for any information in their product package submissions to EPA. Typically, manufacturers claim as CBI the chemical identity (
Due to the amount of dispersant used during the Deepwater Horizon incident, and the need for the public's right-to-know about chemicals intentionally discharged into the environment, EPA wanted to make public information about the chemicals in the dispersant used, the results of air and water monitoring for these chemicals, and the concerns for human and environmental impact. A number of stakeholders wanted to know the chemical makeup of not only the dispersant used during the incident, but also of all other dispersants on the Schedule. This resulted in both a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and a Notice of Intent to Sue for Failure to Perform Nondiscretionary Duties under the CWA, requesting that the Agency release CBI for all dispersants on the Schedule.
EPA worked with the manufacturer for the dispersant used on the Gulf in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident to make the product chemical information publicly available (see
EPA believes that when chemical agents are used on oil discharges, it is critically important for the public and all other stakeholders to have information regarding the chemicals being added to the environment, along with information about their toxicity and fate. This is particularly true for major discharge events where larger quantities of chemical or biological agents may be authorized for use. Prompt and accurate information will allow the public to evaluate and understand the potential human and environmental effects of these chemical agents. While EPA understands it is essential for companies to protect their investment in developing unique products, it is proposing limitations to what submitters are allowed to claim as CBI in an effort to balance public access to information with proprietary business needs. The proposal provides that if a company submits a product for listing on the Schedule, then it will only be allowed to claim CBI for the concentrations of all chemical components, microbiological cultures, enzymes, or nutrients; all other information submitted to EPA for listing a product on the Schedule will not be considered CBI and will be made public. While providing confidential treatment for the concentrations of product components, the proposal allows public access to the identity of chemical components and relevant health and environmental effects
Alternatively, the Agency considered maintaining the current approach of allowing CBI claims for any information in their submission. When the incident arises where affected stakeholders or the public wants access to specific information, the Agency would request that the company substantiate its claims and make a determination whether to honor the claim or release the information to the public as provided in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The Agency also considered modifying the current approach by making the component identity and concentration information public without further notice or action for major discharge events or SONS, or for events where a given amount of chemical or biological agent would be allowed for use. Finally, another option for modifying the current approach would be to allow manufacturers to waive CBI claims only for certain chemical components for monitoring purposes (
EPA also considered developing an aggregate list of components used in categories of chemical and biological agents for public disclosure. For example, a list of all the chemicals used in listed dispersants, a separate list for those substances used in surface washing agents, etc. This would allow information to be disassociated with specific products and protected from reverse engineering or duplication of products by competitors, while providing public access. The concern with this approach is how to update the aggregate list for new products without potentially revealing the components added to the list for that new product. Further, in the event of a major discharge or SONS, the interest will be for information and monitoring data specific to the product being used. Consequently, EPA is not adopting this approach, but requests comments on these and other options to handle CBI while balancing all interests.
The proposal establishes the requirements for submitters to request a product be listed on the Schedule in § 300.955. It provides administrative information, such as the address where to submit the package, as well as details of the requirements for a complete submission package. Additionally, it addresses how a submitter may request a listing determination review and the requirements when there are changes in a listed product. Finally, the proposal addresses the process the Agency will follow to review all new submissions, requests for review of decisions and product changes, as well as how it will transition from the current Schedule to a new one that reflects the new and amended testing and data requirement.
• A company letter certifying all testing was conducted on representative product samples at a nationally or internationally accredited laboratory, that it was conducted in accordance with all technical rule requirements, and that all test results and product technical data and information reported are true and accurate;
• A numbered Table of Contents showing all required information and data submitted;
• All required data and information (both general and product category specific) in the order the requirements appear in the rule; and
• A separate inner envelope labeled: “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION—TO BE OPENED BY THE PRODUCT SCHEDULE MANAGER ONLY”, if applicable.
Because of their intended function in responding to oil discharges, products listed on the Schedule will certainly impact the environment. It is important that the information provided by the submitter is true and accurate, as it serves as the basis for evaluating those potential environmental impacts. The Agency believes that it is appropriate for the submitter to be held accountable for the technical data and information provided to make these listing determinations. Thus, the proposal requires the submitter to certify the accuracy of the information submitted, and will reject any submission that is determined to be incomplete or non-compliant, misleading, or inaccurate.
The requirements for a Table of Contents and for the information to be organized as it appears in the regulation are intended to make the Agency review process as efficient as possible. These requirements will assist the Agency in conducting a quick and accurate review, both during the transition period, as well as for future submissions, by generally simplifying the review process.
While the Agency needs to process packages containing information claimed to be CBI with additional safeguards, it is the responsibility of the submitter to ensure that this information comes to the Agency clearly identified as such. Therefore, the proposal requires a separate and clearly marked envelope for CBI to ensure proper handling.
EPA will first review the package for completeness and compliance with all data and information requirements and will contact the submitter to verify information, or to request clarification or additional information, including a product sample, as necessary. The Agency will make product listing determinations based on a technical evaluation of all data and information submitted, any relevant information on impacts or potential impacts of the product or any of its components on human health or the environment, and on the intended use of the product. The Agency reserves the right to make a determination on whether the product will be listed, and under which category. For products that may meet more than one category (
The current requirements provide that the listing of a product on the Schedule does not constitute approval or endorsement of the product. To avoid possible misinterpretation or misrepresentation, the Agency currently requires that any label, advertisement, or technical literature that refers to the placement of the product on the Schedule must either reproduce in its entirety EPA's written notification that it will add the product to the Schedule
Products that are not properly used in the field may cause harm to human health and the environment, and may constitute violations of the CWA, and other federal, state, or local laws. Misleading, inaccurate, or incorrect statements within a product submittal package or within language that refers to the listing of a product on the Schedule may result in their improper or incorrect use. Falsification of federal documents, unsupported toxicity or efficacy claims, submission of incorrect product composition or use information, or withholding technical product data are some examples of these acts. To minimize potential misuse of listed products, the Agency believes it is appropriate to further clarify the criteria for the removal of a product from the Schedule. In § 300.970 the proposal specifically includes, but does not limit, as causes for removal from the Schedule: Any misleading, inaccurate, or incorrect statements within the product submission to EPA or to any person or private or public entity regarding the composition or use of the product to remove or control oil discharges, including on labels, advertisements, or technical literature; any alterations to the chemical components, concentrations, or use conditions of the product without proper notification to EPA as required by § 300.955(e); the failure to print the disclaimer provided in § 300.965 on all labels, advertisements, or technical literature; or any new or previously unknown relevant information concerning the impacts or potential impacts of the product to human health or the environment. It also establishes a process for removal if the Agency obtains evidence of cause for removal. EPA would notify the submitter in writing, at the address of record, of its reasons for removal of the product from the Schedule. The proposal would allow for an appeals process similar to the one set forth for listing determinations. Appeals must be received within 30 days of receipt of EPA's removal notification and must contain a clear and concise statement with supporting facts and technical analysis demonstrating why the submitter believes EPA's decision was incorrect. Written notification from the Administrator will be sent to the submitter within 60 days of any appeal, or within 60 days of receipt of any requested additional information. However, if no appeal is received within the 30 days of receipt of EPA's removal notification, the product would be delisted without further notice. The Agency requests comments on the proposed clarification of criteria for removal of products from the Schedule, and on the associated appeals process.
The Agency is proposing to revise the current Appendix C—
The 1994 revisions to the NCP established Appendix E,
The Agency proposes to remove Appendix E. While having all of the information pertaining to oil discharges compiled in one location may offer useful guidance, it is not necessary that this guidance be codified as a regulatory appendix to the NCP. The provisions in the appendix do not alter any NCP requirement; however, they do contain variations from the main NCP requirements in order to have the appendix be relevant solely to oil discharges. While EPA carefully reviewed the appendix and the relevant sections of the NCP at the time it was established to ensure consistency in policy, instructions, guidance and requirements, there were intentional minor variations. These may result in having responses to oil discharges
Because all requirements in Appendix E are part of the NCP, any revisions to the NCP necessitate revisions to this appendix. This adds burden not only for the Agency in revising and ensuring consistency, but also for the regulated community in reviewing redundant and duplicative requirements. While it may be a useful tool to have all of the oil discharge specific requirements in one location, the Agency has reconsidered its position and believes that this is more appropriately achieved through a separate guidance document, one that does not codify duplicative regulatory requirements. The Agency requests comments on the proposal to remove Appendix E from the NCP regulation, and whether it should continue to offer similar guidance through other formats.
This section summarizes the proposed changes to 40 CFR parts 110 and 300. Subpart J has been renumbered to include new, consolidated, and revised sections. Some of the rule sections have been retained, removed, or moved in their entirety. The Table below provides an overview of the existing rule and proposed rule citations for a quick reference of the proposed changes.
Section 110.4, Dispersants, would be revised to link the rule with the new and amended regulatory definitions for Subpart J product categories.
Section 300.5, Definitions, would be revised to include new, amended, and deleted definitions.
Subpart J—Use of Dispersants, Chemicals, and Bioremediations Agents, heading would be revised to reflect new and amended regulatory definitions for product categories.
Section 300.900, General, paragraphs (a) and (c) would be revised to reflect new and amended regulatory definitions for product categories.
Section 300.905, NCP Product Schedule, would be removed.
Section 300.910, Authorization of Use, would be revised and new paragraphs added to clarify planning and preauthorization responsibilities.
• Paragraph (a) would be revised to clarify the requirements, including process, responsibilities, and factors to consider for preauthorization; and add new requirements for preauthorization plan review, concurrence, and withdrawal procedures.
• Paragraph (b) would be revised to clarify the requirements for using a listed product not addressed by a preauthorization plan and add new parameters for use considerations.
• Paragraph (c) would be revised to clarify the requirements for authorizing the use of burning agents by an OSC for authorized in-situ burns.
• Paragraph (d) would be revised to clarify the exception requirements and add specific time frames for notification of continued agent use.
• Paragraph (e) would be revised to expand the prohibition to include nonylphenol (NP) or nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) as components of chemical or biological agents.
• Paragraph (f) would be revised to add new regulatory requirements for agent storage and use. Existing paragraph (f) requirements would be moved to new paragraph (g), Supplemental Testing, Monitoring, and Information.
• New paragraph (g), Supplemental Testing, Monitoring, and Information, would revise the regulatory text to clarify the requirements for supplemental testing, monitoring and information.
• New paragraph (h), Recovery of Oil and Agents from the Environment, would add regulatory requirements for recovery of oil and agents from the environment.
• New paragraph (i), Reporting of Agent Use, would add regulatory requirements for notification of agent use on an oil discharge.
New section 300.913, Monitoring the Use of Dispersants, would add regulatory requirements for monitoring certain prolonged surface and subsurface use of dispersants.
Section 300.915, Data Requirements, would be revised to consolidate general submission requirements applicable to all product categories. The section would be restructured to include new testing and listing requirements for specific product categories.
• Paragraph (a), Dispersants, would be revised to consolidate general testing and listing requirements from existing paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (f). The paragraph would include revisions and new requirements for the identification of and testing for all product categories designated for listing. Existing paragraph (a) requirements specific to dispersants would be moved to new section 300.915(b), Dispersant Testing and Listing Requirements. The paragraph would also be revised to add new toxicity and efficacy testing requirements, limitations for use, and new criteria for listing a dispersant to the Schedule. Existing paragraph (b) would be moved to new paragraph (c), Surface Washing Agent Testing and Listing Requirements.
• Paragraph (b), Surface Washing Agents, would be moved to new paragraph (c), Surface Washing Agent Testing and Listing Requirements. The paragraph would be revised to add new toxicity and efficacy testing requirements, limitations for use, and new criteria for listing a surface washing agent to the Schedule. Existing paragraph (c), Surface Collecting Agents, would be deleted.
• Paragraph (d), Bioremediation Agents, would be revised to add new toxicity and efficacy testing requirements, limitations for use, and new criteria for listing a bioremediation agent to the Schedule. Existing paragraphs (d)(9) and (10) were moved to new paragraph (a), General Product Information.
• Paragraph (e) would be revised to add new regulatory requirements for submission and listing of a solidifier. Existing paragraph (e), Burning Agents, would be deleted.
• Paragraph (f) would be revised to add new toxicity testing requirements, limitations of use, and criteria for listing a herding agent on the Schedule. Existing paragraph (f), Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agents, would be deleted.
• Paragraph (g), Sorbents, would be revised to add new exceptions for listing a sorbent to the Schedule.
Section 300.920, Addition of Products to Schedule, would be moved to new section 300.955, Addition of a Product to the Schedule.
• Paragraph (a) would be revised to include submission instructions for all product categories. Existing paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) regulatory text specific to dispersant applications would be moved to new §§ 300.915(b) and 300.955(c) and (d).
• Paragraph (b) would be revised to add new regulatory text for preparation of complete submission packages. Existing paragraph (b) regulatory text would be moved to new § 300.955(c) and (d).
• Paragraph (c) would be revised to add regulatory text for EPA's review of submission packages and decision criteria for listing. Existing paragraph (c) would be moved to new § 300.950, Submission of Confidential Business Information (CBI).
• Paragraph (d) would be revised to add regulatory text for requesting a listing decision review. Existing paragraph (d) would be moved to new § 300.955(e), Changes to a Listed Product.
• Paragraph (e) would be revised to add new regulatory text for notification of changes to a listed product. Existing paragraph (e) would be moved to new
• New paragraph (f) would add new regulatory requirements for transitioning products on the current Schedule to the new Schedule.
New § 300.950, Confidential Business Information (CBI), would revise and clarify the allowable CBI claims in a submission package.
New § 300.965, Mandatory Product Disclaimer, would clarify the regulatory text for including a disclaimer statement on all product labels and literature.
New § 300.970, Removal of a Product from the Schedule, would add basis for removal of products from the Schedule, EPA notification of decision, and appeals process.
Revised Appendix C to Part 300—Requirements for Product Testing Protocols and Summary Test Data: Dispersant Baffled Flask Efficacy and Toxicity Tests; Standard Acute Toxicity Test for Bioremediation Agents, Surface Washing Agents, Herding Agents, and Solidifiers; and Bioremediation Agent Efficacy Test.
Removed Appendix E to Part 300—Oil Spill Response.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” This action raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
The Agency expects the proposed rule would not cause a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The total incremental costs are estimated as $667,610 to $694,343 annually at 3% and 7% ($2011) annualization rates, respectively. The benefits of this action are assessed qualitatively and include, for example, greater clarity of regulatory requirements, as well as less toxic products. The resulting ratio of compliance cost to annual sales revenue for the proposed rule for existing and new product manufacturers would be less than one percent in most instances.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the proposed regulations. EPA believes that the activities required are necessary and, to the extent possible, has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. The minimum requirements specified in the proposed rule are intended to ensure that, when needed, products are used properly in the field to respond to an oil discharge in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) As defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are product
Nonetheless, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities in developing the regulatory requirements that balance the costs and burden, while addressing the environmental protection concerns. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small business entities and welcome comments on the issues related to such impacts.
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. UMRA excludes from the definition of “Federal intergovernmental mandate” and “Federal private sector mandate” duties that arise from conditions of Federal assistance. UMRA generally excludes from the definition of “Federal intergovernmental mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program. UMRA also excludes from the definition of “Federal private sector mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Since the decision on whether to request that a product be included on the Schedule is voluntary, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposal does not alter the general procedures already defined in the NCP of how state, local, and federal agencies cooperate in responding to oil spills and how to consult with the OSC and RRT when considering the use of products on the Schedule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law, similarly to the effect on states. EPA will be consulting with tribal officials as it develops this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Consultation will include conference calls, webinars, and meetings with interested tribal representatives to ensure that their concerns are addressed before the rule is finalized. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish environmental standards, such as limits on levels of pollutants in the water, that are intended to directly mitigate health or safety risks.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposal focuses on maintaining the availability of certain response tools that can be considered when responding to oil discharges, minimizing any potential adverse impacts from their use, and resulting in greater overall environmental protection. Thus, the proposed rule would not cause reductions in the supply or production of oil, fuel, coal, or electricity; nor would it result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629 (February 11, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 12898, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3–17). To address this goal, EPA conducted a qualitative analysis of the environmental justice issues under this proposed rule.
Under the NCP, RRTs and ACs are required to address, as part of their planning activities, the desirability of using appropriate chemical or biological agents, or other spill mitigating devices. In addition, the OSC, under authority granted by the NCP, must respond to an oil spill in a diligent and effective manner to protect human health and the environment. If chemical or biological agents are needed, the OSC must coordinate with the RRT and ACs before their use is authorized. In all cases, the RRT, ACs and OSC will address a broad array of oil spill response and mitigation issues, including the potential for environmental justice concerns. Historically, EPA has not found any evidence that the use of chemical or biological agents on the Schedule on oil spills in the U.S. has had any disproportionate effect on any environmental justice communities. However, EPA will continue to monitor the implementation of the rule to ensure the planned or actual use of chemical or biological agents has no disproportionate effect on any EJ communities.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Specifically, the proposed rule provides additional safeguards before any product can be listed on the Schedule, as well as allows OSCs and RRTs to request additional information to ensure that the use of any chemical or biological agent, or any other spill mitigating substance, in responding to oil discharges is protective of human health and the environment. This proposed rule is consistent with EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy and the OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda.
Environmental protection, Oil pollution, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air pollution control, Area contingency planning, Bioremediation, Chemicals, Dispersants, Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil spills, Oil spill mitigating devices, Regional response teams, Sorbents, and Surface washing agents.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 110 and 300 to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3) and (b)(4) and 1361(a); E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR parts 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793.
Addition of any chemical or biological agent, as defined in § 300.5, to oil to be discharged that would circumvent the provisions of this part is prohibited.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) Natural organic substances (
(2) Inorganic/mineral compounds (
(3) Synthetic compounds (
(a) Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to prepare a schedule identifying dispersants, other chemicals, other spill mitigating devices and substances if any, that may be used in carrying out the NCP; and the waters and quantities in which they may be used. This subpart establishes a schedule identifying chemical and biological agents, and procedures that, when taken together, identify the waters and quantities in which such dispersants, other chemicals, or other spill mitigating devices and substances may be used.
(c) This subpart applies to the use of chemical and biological agents as defined in Subpart A of this part, or other substances that may be used to remove, control, or otherwise mitigate oil discharges.
(d) [Reserved]
Use of chemical or biological agents in response to oil discharges to waters of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines must be authorized by the OSC in accordance with the provisions of this section:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Sinking agents, or any other chemical agent, biological agent, or any substance that acts as a sinking agent when mixed with oil; and
(2) Chemical or biological agents that have either nonylphenol (NP) or nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) as components.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
As directed by the OSC, the responsible party must monitor any subsurface use of dispersant in response to an oil discharge, surface use of dispersant in response to oil discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring within 24 hours, and surface use of dispersant for more than 96 hours in response to an oil discharge, and submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan for approval to the OSC covering the collection of all environmental data. When these dispersant use conditions are met, and for the duration of dispersant operations, the responsible party shall:
(a) Document the characteristics of the source oil; best estimate of the oil discharge flow rate, periodically reevaluated as conditions dictate, including a description of the method, associated uncertainties, and materials; dispersant(s) product used, rationale for dispersant product choice(s) including the results of any efficacy and toxicity tests specific to area or site conditions, recommended dispersant-to-oil ratio (DOR); and the application method and procedures, including a description of the equipment to be used, hourly application rates, capacities, and total amount of dispersant needed. For subsurface discharges also document the best estimate of the discharge flow rate of any associated volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, periodically reevaluated as conditions dictate, including a description of the method, associated uncertainties, and materials.
(b) In areas not affected by the discharge of oil, collect a representative set of background water column samples following standard operating and quality assurance procedures, at the closest safe distance from the discharge as determined by the OSC and in any direction of likely transport considering surface and subsurface currents and oil properties for the variables listed below. In the dispersed oil plume, collect daily water column samples following standard operating and quality assurance procedures, at such depths and locations where dispersed oil is likely to be present and analyze for:
(1) In-situ oil droplet size distribution, including mass or volume mean diameter for droplet sizes ranging from 2.5 to 2,000 μm, with the majority of data collected between the 2.5 and 100 μm size;
(2) In-situ fluorometry and fluorescence signatures targeted to the type of oil discharged and referenced against the source oil;
(3) Dissolved oxygen (DO);
(4) Total petroleum hydrocarbons, individual resolvable constituents including volatile organic compounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, monocyclic, polycyclic, and other aromatic hydrocarbons including alkylated homologs, and hopane and sterane biomarker compounds;
(5) Carbon dioxide (CO
(6) Methane, if present (subsurface only);
(7) Heavy metals, including nickel and vanadium;
(8) Turbidity;
(9) Water temperature;
(10) pH; and
(11) Conductivity.
(c) In consultation with the OSC, and using best available technologies, characterize the dispersant effectiveness and oil distribution, considering the condition of oil, dispersant, and dispersed oil components from the discharge location;
(d) In consultation with the OSC, characterize the ecological receptors (
(e) Immediately report to the OSC any:
(1) Deviation of more than 10 percent from the mean hourly dispersant use rate for subsurface application, based on the dispersant volume authorized for 24 hours use, and the reason for the deviation; and
(2) Ecological receptors, including any threatened or endangered species that may be exposed based on dispersed plume trajectory modeling and level of concern information.
(f) Report daily to the OSC water sampling and data analyses collected in § 300.913(b) and include:
(1) Specific hourly dispersant application rate and the total amount of dispersant used for the previous reporting period established by the OSC with concurrence from the EPA representative to the RRT;
(2) All collected data and analyses of those data within a timeframe necessary to make operational decisions (
(3) For analyses that take more than 24 hours due to analytical methods, provide such data and results within 5 days, unless an alternate timeframe is authorized by the OSC; and
(4) Estimates of the daily transport of dispersed and non-dispersed oil and associated volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, and dispersants, using the best available trajectory modeling.
If you are submitting an application for listing a product to the Schedule, you must provide EPA the information required under § 300.955. Your submission must contain:
(a)
(2) Your identity as the manufacturer of the product, a vendor, importer, or distributor of the product, and/or a designated agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer. Provide documentation of such identity;
(3) All name(s), brand(s), and/or trademark(s) under which the product is to be sold;
(4) Names, physical addresses, emails and telephone numbers of the primary distributors, vendors, importers, and/or designated agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer;
(5) A Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the product;
(6) The maximum, minimum and optimum temperature, humidity and other relevant conditions for product storage and a brief description of the consequences to performance if the product is not stored within these limits;
(7) The anticipated shelf life of the product at the storage conditions noted in paragraph (a)(6) of this section and documentation for this determination;
(8) A sample product label for all name(s), brand(s), and/or trademark(s) under which the product is to be sold that includes manufacture and expiration dates, and conditions for storage. You may use an existing label provided it already contains the required dates and storage information;
(9) The chemical or biological agent category under which you want the product to be considered for listing on the Schedule, including detailed information on the specific process(es)
(10) Recommended product use procedures, including product concentrations, use ratios, types of application equipment, conditions for use, and any application restrictions. These procedures must address, as appropriate, variables such as weather, water salinity, water temperature, types and weathering states of oils or other pollutants, and product and oil containment, collection, recovery and disposal, and include supporting documentation and standard methods used to determine them;
(11) Environmental fate information, including any known measured data and supporting documentation, on the persistence, bioconcentration factor, bioaccumulation factor, and biodegradability of the product and all of its components in the environment;
(12) The physical/chemical properties of the product, as appropriate, and a citation for the standard methods used to determine them, including:
(i) Physical state and appearance;
(ii) Vapor pressure;
(iii) Flash point;
(iv) Pour point;
(v) Viscosity;
(vi) Specific gravity;
(vii) Particle size for solid components; and
(viii) pH.
(13) The identity and concentration of all components in the product, including each specific component name; corresponding Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number; the maximum, minimum, and average weight percent of each component in the product; and the intended function of each component (
(14) For products that contain microorganisms, enzymes and/or nutrients, provide the following along with a citation or a description of the methodology used to determine:
(i) The name of all microorganisms by current genus and species, including any reclassifications, and any physical, chemical, or biological technique used to manipulate the genetic composition and the weight percent of each genus in the product;
(ii) The name of all enzymes and their International Union of Biochemistry (I.U.B.) number(s); Enzyme Classification (EC) code numbers; the source of each enzyme; units; and specific oil-degrading activity;
(iii) The name(s), maximum, minimum, and average weight percent of the nutrients contained in the product; and
(iv) Certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain, at levels that exceed the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria lowest density value, bacterial, fungal, or viral pathogens or opportunistic pathogens including, but not limited to: enteric bacteria such as
(15) Certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain, at levels above National Water Quality Standards lowest acute value for aquatic life:
(i) Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, zinc, and any other heavy metal reasonably expected to be in the product;
(ii) Cyanide
(iii) Chlorinated hydrocarbons;
(iv) Pesticides;
(v) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); and
(vi) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
(16) Certification, including data, methodology, and supporting documentation, indicating that the product does not contain any of the prohibited agents identified in § 300.910(e);
(17) Information about the laboratory that conducted the required tests, including:
(i) Name of the laboratory, address, contact name, email, and phone number; and
(ii) The national and/or international accreditations held by the laboratory.
(18) All test data and calculations, including:
(i) Raw data and replicates, including positive controls;
(ii) Notes and observations collected during tests;
(iii) Calculated mean values and standard deviations;
(iv) Reports, including a summary of stock solution preparation;
(v) Source and preparation of test organisms;
(vi) Test conditions; and
(vii) Chain of custody forms.
(19) An estimate of the annual product production volume, the average and maximum amount that could be produced per day, and the time frame needed to reach that maximum production rate (days);
(20) Recognition received from EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) if applicable; and
(21) International product testing or use data or certifications, if available, informing the performance capabilities or environmental benefits of the product.
(b)
(i) 55% for Intermediate Fuel Oil 120 (IFO–120) at 5 °C;
(ii) 65% for IFO–120 at 25 °C;
(iii) 70% for Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil at 5 °C; and
(iv) 75% for ANS at 25 °C.
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(2)
(g)
(1) For sorbent products that consist solely of the following materials, or any combination thereof, no technical data are required and no further action is necessary for use as a sorbent:
(i) Feathers, cork, peat moss, and cellulose fibers such as bagasse, corncobs, and straw;
(ii) Volcanic ash, perlite, vermiculite, zeolite, and clay; and
(iii) Polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, and polyester.
(2) If the product consists of one or more natural organic substances, inorganic/mineral compounds, and/or synthetic compounds not specifically identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section but you believe the product meets the definition of a sorbent then, as applicable under § 300.955(a) and (b), you must submit the following information for consideration for listing it as a sorbent on the Sorbent Product List:
(i) The information required under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8), and paragraph (a)(13) of this section;
(ii) The certifications required under paragraphs (a)(14)(iv), (a)(15), and (a)(16) of this section; and
(iii) Information, including data, to support the claim your product meets the sorbent definition under § 300.5.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all product information submitted to EPA as required under § 300.915 will be disclosed to the public.
(b) You may only claim the concentration and the maximum, minimum, and average weight percent of each chemical component or microorganism in your product, as identified in § 300.915(a)(13) or (14), to be CBI. EPA will handle such claims in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
(1) You must make your CBI claim at the time you submit your information to EPA to be listed on the Schedule.
(2) You must redact the CBI from all submitted information but include the CBI separately with your submission package. Clearly identify and mark the information as “Confidential Business Information” and place it in a separate inner envelope in your submission package labeled with “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION—TO BE OPENED BY THE PRODUCT SCHEDULE MANAGER ONLY.”
(a)
(b)
(1) A cover letter on company letterhead signed and dated by you certifying that:
(i) All testing was conducted on representative product samples;
(ii) Testing was conducted at a nationally or internationally accredited laboratory in accordance with the
(iii) All test results and product technical data and information are true and accurate.
(2) A numbered Table of Contents showing the information and data submitted under § 300.915(a) through (g);
(3) All required data and information arranged in the same order as specified in § 300.915(a) through (g); and
(4) A separate envelope containing Confidential Business Information as specified in § 300.950(b), if applicable.
(c)
(1) Review the package for completeness and compliance with all data and information requirements in §§ 300.915, 300.950, and this section, verify information, and request clarification or additional information as necessary;
(2) Make a product listing determination based on a technical evaluation of all data and information submitted, relevant information on impacts or potential impacts of the product or any of its components on human health or the environment, and the intended use of the product. EPA reserves the right to make a determination on whether the product will be listed, and under which category; and
(3) Notify you, in writing, of its decision to list the product on the Schedule and in which category or categories, or of its decision and supporting rationale to reject the submission. If your submission is rejected:
(i) You may revise the submission package to address test results, data, or information deficiencies and resubmit it.
(ii) EPA's 90-day review will not start until a complete package is resubmitted.
(d)
(1) The EPA Administrator or designee may request additional information from you and may offer an opportunity for you to meet with EPA.
(2) The EPA Administrator or his designee will notify you in writing of the decision within 60 days of receipt of your request, or within 60 days of receipt of requested additional information.
(e)
(f)
The listing of a product on the Schedule does not constitute approval or recommendation of the product. To avoid possible misinterpretation or misrepresentation, any label, advertisement, or technical literature for the product must display in its entirety the disclaimer shown below. The disclaimer must be conspicuous and must be fully reproduced on all product literatures, labels, and electronic media including Web site pages.
(a) The EPA Administrator may remove your product from the Schedule for reasons including, but not limited to:
(1) Misleading, inaccurate, or incorrect statements within the product submission to EPA or to any person or private or public entity regarding the composition or use of the product to remove or control oil discharges, including on labels, advertisements, or technical literature; or
(2) Alterations to the chemical components, concentrations, or use conditions of the product without proper notification to EPA as required by § 300.955(e); or
(3) Failure to print the disclaimer provided in § 300.965 on all labels, advertisements, or technical literature, or
(4) New or previously unknown relevant information concerning the impacts or potential impacts of the product to human health or the environment.
(b) EPA will notify you in writing, at your address of record, of its reasons for deciding to remove the product from the Schedule. If EPA receives no appeal from you in 30 days, the product will be removed from the Schedule without further notice to you.
(c) You may appeal the decision to remove your product from the Schedule within 30 days of receipt of EPA's notification. Your appeal must contain a clear and concise statement with supporting facts and technical analysis demonstrating why you believe EPA's decision was incorrect. The EPA Administrator will notify you in writing of his decision within 60 days of your appeal, or within 60 days of receipt of any requested additional information.
1.0
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5.1
Use the reference oils and the specific dispersant being tested for a particular set of experimental test runs. Prepare the stock solution of dispersant-oil mixture in DCM, starting with 2 ml of the oil, then adding 80 µl of the dispersant followed by 18 ml of DCM. Two sets of standards are needed, one for each oil and dispersant combination.
2.5.2 Six
2.6
2.6.1 Six replicates of each oil and test dispersant are required at each temperature plus two additional tests of method blanks (artificial seawater without oil and dispersant), one at each temperature. A completed test consists of 26 baffled flask tests (a total of six replicates for each of two reference oil/test dispersant combinations at two temperatures (5 °C and 25 °C), plus two method blanks).
2.6.2 A positive control run of 6 replicates of a dispersant with known dispersion efficacy (see 2.3.4 above for how to obtain) is prepared with both oils at both temperatures to verify the protocol is being correctly performed. The lab must certify that a positive control was successfully conducted within a year of any testing submitted for a dispersant listing.
2.6.3 Attach a 3-inch length of Teflon tubing to the stopcock of each of the 150-mL baffled flasks. Add 120 mL of artificial seawater to each flask. Put screw cap on flasks and place them at the appropriate temperature (either 5 °C or 25 °C) for equilibration.
2.6.4 Calibrate and adjust the shaker table to 250 ± 10 rpm.
2.6.5 Prepare and time separately each baffled flask. Sequentially add 100 µL of oil and 4 µL of dispersant to the flask layering them onto the center of the seawater to give a dispersant-to-oil ratio (DOR) of 1:25. Avoid any oil or dispersant splashing on the flask walls, as it may reduce efficacy or cause errors in the calculated results. Discard the sample and repeat the setup if: (1) Any oil or dispersant splashing occurs during the additions, or (2) the dispersant contacts the water first rather than the oil.
2.6.6 For the oil, fill the tip of the pipettor, using a wipe to remove any oil from the sides of the tip. Holding the pipettor vertically, dispense several times back into the reservoir to ensure that the oil flows smoothly. Insert the syringe tip vertically into the baffled flask, and let the bottom of the pipettor rest on the neck of the flask. Slowly and carefully dispense the oil one time onto the center of the water's surface. IFO 120 takes longer to drip, and ANS will splash if dispensed too fast. The remainder of the oil can either be returned to the oil bottle or set aside for use in the next test flask. Note to 2.6.6: If a Brinkmann Eppendorf repeater pipettor is used for dispensing the oil, attach a 5-mL syringe tip, and set the dial to 1.
2.6.7 For the dispersant, use the same procedure as for the oil to dispense onto the center of the oil slick surface. As the dispersant first contacts the oil, it will usually push the oil to the sides of the flask. Replace the screw cap onto the flask.
Note to 2.6.7: If a Brinkmann Eppendorf repeater pipettor is used for dispensing the dispersant, attach a 100-μL syringe tip, and set the dial to 2.
2.6.8 Carefully place flask securely onto the shaker and agitate for 10 ± 0.25 minutes at 250 ± 10 rpm.
2.6.9 Remove the flask from the shaker table and allow a stationary, quiescent period of 10 ± 0.25 minutes to allow undispersed and/or recoalesced oil droplets to refloat to the surface.
2.6.10 Carefully open the screw cap, then the stopcock at the bottom, and discard the first several mL of seawater into a waste beaker to remove non-mixed water-oil initially trapped in the stopcock tubing. Collect a volume slightly greater than 30-mL into a 50-mL graduated cylinder. Adjust the collected volume to the 30-mL mark by
2.6.11 Transfer the water-oil sample from the graduated cylinder into a 125-mL glass separatory funnel fitted with a Teflon stopcock.
2.6.12 Add 5 mL DCM to the separatory funnel. Start shaking, releasing pressure into the fume hood by loosening the glass stopper. Shake vigorously at least 20 times for 15 seconds.
2.6.13 Allow the funnel to remain in a stationary position for 2 minutes to allow phase separation of the water and DCM.
2.6.14 Drain the DCM layer from the separatory funnel into a 25 mL mixing cylinder. Avoid pulling any emulsion phase into the DCM extract as it may cloud the DCM extract.
2.6.15 Repeat the DCM-extraction process two or three additional times until the DCM is clear. Collect each extract in the graduated cylinder. After the final extraction, lightly shake the separatory funnel sideways once or twice to dislodge entrained bubbles of DCM and drain.
2.6.16 Adjust the final volume to a known quantity, 20 or 25 mL, in the mixing cylinder. IFO 120 samples may require dilution when dispersed chemically because of their high absorbance properties. Using a syringe, dispense 2.5 mL or 5.0 mL of an IFO 120 sample into a 10-mL volumetric flask, and fill with DCM to make either a 1:4 or 1:2 dilution, respectively. ANS samples adjusted to 25 mL typically don't require dilution.
2.6.17 If analysis cannot be conducted immediately, store the extracted DCM samples at 4 °C until time of analysis. Glass-stoppered mixing cylinders may be used for short-term storage or prior to bringing the extracts up to volume. After bringing to volume, transfer the DCM extracts to 25–30 ml crimp-style serum vials with aluminum/Teflon seals.
2.6.18 Complete all analysis within 10 consecutive days from when the sample was collected.
2.7
2.7.1 A six-point calibration of the UV-visible spectrophotometer is required at least once per day for each oil. The stability calibration criterion is determined with the six oil standards identified in Table 4 of this Appendix.
2.7.2 Turn on spectrophotometer and allow it to warm up for at least 30 minutes before beginning analysis. Blank the instrument for the wavelengths between 340 and 400 nm with DCM.
2.7.3 If refrigerated, allow all extracts, standards and samples to warm to room temperature.
2.7.4 Determine the absorbance of the six standards between the wavelengths of 340 and 400 nm. This can be done by either one of the following methods:
2.7.4.1
When using readings taken every 5λ, each absorbance sum is multiplied by 5.
2.7.4.2 Automatic
2.7.4.3 If the wavelengths must be manually set on the spectrophotometer, the older method of only measuring at 340 λ, 370 λ, and 400 λ may be used. Then calculate using the trapezoidal rule for N + 1 = 3, H = 30. While the resulting area count with the older method is less accurate, the final results are similar since the inaccuracy is systematic.
2.7.5 After determining the area count for each standard, determine the response factor (RF) for the oil at each concentration using the following equation:
2.7.6 Spectrophotometer stability for the initial calibration is acceptable when the RFs of the six standard extracts are less than 10% different from the overall mean value for the six standards, as calculated in Equation 5 of this Appendix and depicted in the example in Table 4 of this Appendix.
2.7.7 If this criterion is satisfied, begin analysis of sample extracts. Absorbances greater than or equal to 3.5 are not included because absorbance saturation occurs at and above this value. If any of the standard oil extracts fails to satisfy the initial-stability criterion, the source of the problem (
2.7.8 Determine the slope of the calibration points by using linear regression forced zero intercept:
2.8 Spectrophotometric
2.8.1 Once a successful calibration curve for each of the two reference oils has been created and verified, measure experimental replicates for each of the reference oils at each temperature followed by a standard check sample.
2.8.2 The same procedure is followed for the positive controls.
2.8.3 Determine the area for the absorbance values obtained for the experimental samples by using Equation 2 of this Appendix and illustrated by Equation 3 of this Appendix.
2.8.4 Calculate the Total Oil dispersed and the percentage of oil dispersed (%OD) based on the ratio of oil dispersed in the test system to the total oil added to the system, as follows:
2.8.5 The %ODs for the six replicates within a particular treatment are then subjected to an outlier test, the Grubb's Test or Maximum Normal Residual test (6). A convenient Internet-based calculator of a Grubbs outlier may be found at:
2.8.6 Report the Dispersion Efficacy value for each oil and each temperature, which is the lower 95% confidence level of the 6 independent replicates (DE
2.9 Performance
The dispersant product tested will remain in consideration for listing on the NCP Product Schedule if the dispersant efficacy (DE
2.10
2.10.1
2.10.2
2.10.3
2.10.4 Calibration
2.11
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994), “Swirling Flask Dispersant Effectiveness Test,”
(2) Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M, Koran, E. Holder, and D.W. King. 2004. “Oil spill dispersant effectiveness protocol: I. Impact of operational variables.” ASCE J. Env. Eng. 130(10):1073–1084.
(3) Sorial, G.A., A.D. Venosa, K.M, Koran, E. Holder, and D.W. King. 2004. “Oil spill dispersant effectiveness protocol: II. Performance of revised protocol.” ASCE J. Env. Eng. 130(10):1085–1093.
(4) Venosa, A.D., D.W. King, and G.A. Sorial. 2002. “The baffled flask test for dispersant effectiveness: A round robin evaluation of reproducibility and repeatability.” Spill Sci. & Technol. Bulletin 7(5–6):299–308.
(5) Spotte, S., G. Adams, and P.M. Bubucis. 1984. “GP2 medium is an synthetic seawater for culture or maintenance of marine organisms,” Zoo Biol, 3:229–240.
(6) Grubbs, F. 1969. “Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pp. 27–58.
3.1
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6
3.6.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
3.7.5
3.7.6
3.8.
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.8.5
3.8.6
3.8.7
3.8.8
3.8.9
3.8.10
3.8.11
4.1
4.2
4.3.1 Liquid
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
4.6.6
The laboratory must include, for each toxicity test report, all applicable information, data and analyses as follows:
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
4.7.5
4.7.6
4.7.7
4.7.8
4.7.9
4.7.10
(1) U.S. EPA. 2002.
5.1
5.2.1 Assorted flasks and other glassware;
5.2.2 Graduated cylinders (100 mL);
5.2.3 Deionized water; 250 mL borosilicate glass Erlenmeyer flasks;
5.2.4 Pasteur pipettes;
5.2.5 Multichannel pipettor (5–50 mL and 50–200 mL);
5.2.6 Autoclave; environmental room or incubator;
5.2.7 Balance accurate to 0.1 mg;
5.2.8 Orbital shaker table with clamps sized to hold flasks securely;
5.2.9 GC/MS instrument equipped with a DB–5 capillary column (30 m, 0.25 mm ID, and 0.25 mm film thickness) or equivalent, and a split/splitless injection port operating in the splitless mode, such as a Agilent 6890 GC/5973 MS (or equivalent) equipped with an auto-sampler for testing multiple samples; and
5.2.10 Fixed Rotor Centrifuge.
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3 Seawater
If nutrients are supplied by the product manufacturer, the specific composition and concentration used in the efficacy testing must be submitted.
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
If nutrients are supplied by the product vendor, the specific composition and concentration used in the efficacy testing must be submitted.
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.4.1 Autoclave clean borosilicate glass Erlenmeyer flasks (250 mL) for 20 minutes at 121 °C at 15 psig.
5.4.2 Label flasks with the appropriate code (negative control, positive control, or product; day to be sampled (0 or 28); letter indicating replicate number) to reflect the following treatment design in Table 15 of this Appendix:
5.4.3 Aseptically dispense 100 mL of pre-sterilized artificial exposure water (seawater or freshwater) into each flask. For the positive control flasks, use exposure water containing nutrients. Alternatively, the artificial exposure water can be dispensed into clean flasks and then autoclaved.
5.4.4 Tare the labeled flasks containing exposure water and other additions, as necessary, on the balance with a minimum accuracy of 0.01 g. Add drop-wise 0.50 g oil (this results in a final oil concentration of 5 g/L) using a sterile Pasteur pipette to the center of the flask taking care to avoid splashing the oil onto the sides of the flasks. Record the precise weight. ANS521 may be previously warmed in a hot water bath to facilitate its flow. Take precautions when handling and charging the flasks to minimize the likelihood of contamination by exogenous microbes, including using a new sterile pipette for each series of flasks.
5.4.5 Preparation of the EPA culture for both the positive control flasks and the flasks containing non-living bio-stimulation products. Use two vials containing approximately 5 mL of the known EPA culture frozen in glycerol. Thaw both vials at room temperature, transfer the contents of both thawed vials to a single sterile centrifuge tube, rinse tubes with two volumes each of sterile exposure water, centrifuge at between 6,000 and 7,000 ×s gravity (6,000–7,000 ×
5.4.6 Positive control flasks contain exposure water, oil, nutrients, and the EPA culture.
5.4.7 Negative killed control flasks for all products shall contain exposure water, oil, product, the EPA culture for products not containing a living culture, and the sodium azide sterilant at a final concentration of 0.5 g/L. Add the sodium azide sterilant prior to adding any product or EPA culture. For the negative killed control flasks and product flasks, prepare and add the product to the flasks in a concentration specified by the manufacturer or vendor.
5.4.8 For non-living products that contain nutrient only, use the EPA culture as the inoculum.
5.4.9 For other non-living products (
5.4.10 For products containing microbial cultures, prepare 6 flasks the same way as in Steps a-d, but without the EPA culture. A product that contains its own nutrients must not be amended with nutrients, unless the product contains insufficient nutrients. Since this is a closed flask test, nutrients could be limiting if they are at the same concentration as used in the field. This could cause the product to fail the test. Thus, the manufacturer has the option to supplement its product with a higher concentration of nutrients than that contained in the product. Any nutrient supplements to a product must be reported and must not exceed the concentration limits in Table 10 (for seawater) and 13 (for freshwater) of this Appendix, as applicable.
5.4.11 Cap all flasks either with cotton stoppers or loosely applied aluminum foil to allow gas exchange with the atmosphere. Set aside the T=0 flasks for immediate extraction and analysis. Place the rest of the flasks onto the orbital shaker table. Do not tip the flasks excessively to avoid stranding oil above the mixing area of the flask. Set the orbital shaker to 200 rpm and shake the flasks for 28 days at 20–23 °C.
5.4.12 Submit all information on added cultures and nutrients for testing in the data report.
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
5.7.1 Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the hopane-normalized total aromatics (sum of all resolved aromatics) and hopane-normalized total alkane concentrations (sum of all resolved alkanes) from the 6 independent replicates at days 0 and 28. To normalize, divide the sum of the alkane analytes and the sum of the aromatic analytes in each replicate by the hopane concentration in the corresponding replicate.
5.7.2 From those data, calculate the 95% Upper Confidence Level (UCL
5.7.3 Using Equation 12 of this Appendix, calculate the % reduction of each oil fraction from day 0 to day 28, using the day 0 and 28 UCL
5.7.4 A product is successful in saltwater if the % reduction of total alkanes (aliphatic fraction) from the GC/MS analysis is greater than or equal to 95% and the % reduction of total aromatics (aromatic fraction) is greater than or equal to 70% at day 28 based on the UCL
5.8
5.9
5.10.1
5.10.1.1
5.10.1.1.1 Solvents: Dichloromethane (DCM), Optima (Fisher) grade or equivalent.
5.10.1.1.2 Reagents: D36-Heptadecane (C17), D50-Tetracosane (C24), D66-Dotriacontane (C32), D10–1-Methylnaphthalene, D10-Phenanthrene, D10-Pyrene, 5-beta-cholestane (coprostane).
Note: Deuterated reagents are available from Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Andover, MA.
5.10.1.1.3 Equipment: Micro-spatula, Small beakers, Glass funnel, Analytical balance (0.0001g), Vials with Teflon-lined caps, Teflon wash bottle with Optima grade DCM, Volumetric flask (250 mL), class A, Pasteur pipettes.
5.10.1.2
5.10.1.2.1 Using a calibrated analytical balance, weigh 100 mg (0.100 g) of each reagent into separate 10–25 mL beakers.
5.10.1.2.2 Dissolve the reagents in their beakers by adding 10 mL DCM. Use a Pasteur pipette to transfer the solutions to a single 250 mL volumetric flask.
5.10.1.2.3 Wash the beakers 3 or 4 times with DCM. Use a Pasteur pipette to transfer each of the washings to the 250 mL volumetric flask.
5.10.1.2.4 Dilute the solution to the 250 mL volume mark on the volumetric flask with DCM.
5.10.1.2.5 Use a glass stopper to seal the flask and homogenize the solution by inverting the flask 5 or more times. The final concentration of this solution is 400 mg/L for each of the reagents.
5.10.1.2.6 Transfer the solution into 40 mL storage vials and cap with Teflon-lined caps and label each with the date of preparation, operator, sample names, and concentrations.
5.10.1.2.7 Weigh each vial and record its weight on the label. This weight is used to monitor possible evaporation during storage.
5.10.1.2.8 Store these vials at 0 °C or lower.
5.10.1.2.9 Before using, allow the solution to come to room temperature, and then shake it well.
5.10.1.2.10 Weigh the vial before using it, and compare the weight with the last weight recorded on the vial.
5.10.1.2.11 If the weights are consistent, the integrity of the solution can be assumed. If not, investigate and resolve the cause. Prepare a new solution if the integrity has been compromised.
5.10.1.3
5.10.2
5.10.2.1.1 Solvents: Dichloromethane (DCM), Optima (Fisher) grade or equivalent.
5.10.2.1.2 Reagents: D34 n-Hexadecane (C16), D42 n-Eicosane (C20), D62 n-Triacontane (C30), D8-Naphthalene, D10-Anthracene, D12-Chrysene, 5-alpha-Androstane.
Note: Deuterated reagents are available from Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Andover, MA.
5.10.2.1.3 Equipment: Micro-spatula, Small beakers, Glass funnel, Analytical balance (0.0001g), calibrated and checked for accuracy, Amber vials with Teflon-lined caps, labeled, Teflon wash bottle with DCM, Volumetric flask (200 mL), class A, Pasteur pipettes.
5.10.2.2
5.10.2.2.1 Using a calibrated analytical balance, weigh 100 mg (0.100 g) of each of the reagents into separate small beakers.
5.10.2.2.2 Dissolve the reagents in their beakers by adding 10 mL DCM; using a Pasteur pipette, transfer the solutions to a single 200 mL volumetric flask.
5.10.2.2.3 Wash the beakers 3 or 4 times with DCM; use a Pasteur pipette to transfer each of the washings to the 200 mL volume mark on the volumetric flask.
5.10.2.2.4 Dilute the solution with DCM to the 200 mL volume.
5.10.2.2.5 Seal the flask with a glass stopper and homogenize the solution by inverting the flask a minimum of 5 times. The final concentration of this solution is 500 mg/L of each reagent.
5.10.2.2.6 Transfer the solution into 40 mL storage vials and cap with Teflon-lined caps. Label each vial with the date of preparation, operator, sample names, and concentrations.
5.10.2.2.7 Weigh each vial, and record its weight on the label. This weight is used to monitor possible evaporation during storage.
5.10.2.2.8 Store this solution at 0 °C or lower.
5.10.2.2.9 Before using, allow the solution to come to room temperature, and then shake it well.
5.10.2.2.10 Weigh the vial before using it, and compare the weight with the last weight recorded on the vial.
5.10.2.2.11 If the weights are consistent, the integrity of the solution can be assumed. If not, investigate and resolve the cause. Prepare a new solution if the integrity has been compromised.
5.10.2.3
5.10.3
5.10.3.1
5.10.3.1.1 Solvent: Dichloromethane (DCM), Optima (Fisher) grade or equivalent.
5.10.3.1.2 Stock solutions:
5.10.3.1.2.1 Oil analysis standard: 44 compounds, 100 mg/L in hexane/DCM (9:1), four, 1-mL vials required. Available from Absolute Standards, Inc., Hamden, CT, Part # 90311.
5.10.3.1.2.2 Nine compound PAH standard: 1,000 mg/L in DCM, one vial. Available from Absolute Standards, Inc., Hamden, CT, Part # 90822.
5.10.3.1.2.3 1,2-Benzodiphenylene sulfide, (synonym for naphthobenzothiophene). Prepare a 2 mg/mL stock solution. Available from Sigma-Aldrich Co., Part # 255122, purity 99%.
5.10.3.1.2.4 Hopane solution (17 β (H), 21β (H), 0.1 mg/mL in isooctane. Available from Sigma-Aldrich Co. Part # 07562.
5.10.3.1.2.5 Surrogate solution: 400 mg/L of each reagent in DCM (see SOP 1 of this Appendix).
5.10.3.1.2.6 Internal standard solution, 500 mg/L in DCM (see SOP 2 of this Appendix).
5.10.3.1.3 Alaska North Slope Crude Oil 521 (ANS521).
5.10.3.1.4 Equipment:
5.10.3.1.4.1 Glass storage vials with Teflon-lined caps (2 mL and 40 mL capacity);
5.10.3.1.4.2 Volumetric flasks, Class A, 5 mL, 10 mL, and 100 mL.
5.10.3.1.4.3 Glass syringes capable of dispensing 25–500 mL with an accuracy and precision of ± 1%, or equivalent.
5.10.3.1.4.4 Wheaton repetitive dispenser, Model 411 STEP–PETTE or equivalent.
5.10.3.1.4.5 Teflon wash bottle filled with Optima grade DCM or equivalent grade DCM.
5.10.3.1.4.6 Pasteur pipettes.
The volumes of stock solutions required to make the working standards are listed in Table SOP 3.1 of this Appendix.
5.10.3.2
5.10.3.2.1 Label three 5 mL volumetric flasks as STD30, STD20, STD10, and two 10 mL volumetric flasks as STD5, and STD5-utility.
5.10.3.2.2 Add 1–2 mL of DCM to each volumetric flask.
5.10.3.2.3 Using glass syringes, add the appropriate volume of stock solution A (as listed in Table SOP 3.1 of this Appendix) to the flasks labeled STD30, STD20, STD10, STD5, and STD5-utility.
5.10.3.2.4 Wash the walls of the inner neck of the flasks with several drops of DCM to rinse off the residue of the stock solution into the flasks.
5.10.3.2.5 Repeat Step 3 and Step 4 to dispense stock solutions B–E (do not add stock solution F, internal standard solution, at this step).
5.10.3.2.6 Dilute to volume with DCM for all the above flasks, seal with glass stoppers, and invert several times to homogenize the solutions.
5.10.3.2.7 Label two additional 10 mL volumetric flasks as STD2.5 and STD1. Wet with 1–2 mL DCM.
5.10.3.2.8 Dispense 5 mL of STD5-utility solution into flask STD2.5, and 2 mL of STD5-utility solution into flask STD1.
5.10.3.2.9 Dilute to volume with DCM, seal with glass stoppers, and invert several times to homogenize the solutions.
5.10.3.2.10 Using a 100 μL glass syringe, dispense 100 μL of internal standard solution into flasks STD30, STD20, and STD10. Dispense 200 μL into flasks STD5, STD2.5, and STD1 to give a final concentration of 10 mg/L internal standard.
5.10.3.2.11 Seal with glass stoppers, and invert the flasks several times to homogenize the solutions.
5.10.3.2.12 Transfer the solutions into 2 mL storage vials, and cap with Teflon-lined caps.
5.10.3.2.13 Label each vial with date of preparation, analyst, sample names, and concentrations.
5.10.3.2.14 Weigh each storage vial and record its weight on the label. This weight is used to monitor possible evaporation during storage.
5.10.3.2.15 Store this solution at 0 °C or below.
5.10.3.2.16 Before using, allow the solution to come to room temperature, and shake it well.
5.10.3.2.17 Weigh the vial before opening, and compare the weight with the last weight recorded on the vial. If the weights are consistent, the integrity of the solution can be assumed. If not, investigate and resolve the cause. Do not use the solution if the integrity has been compromised.
5.10.3.3
5.10.3.4
5.10.3.4.1 Run the six standard solutions using the GC/MS method (SOP 4) on a tuned GC/MS. Use the EnviroQuant software or equivalent to calculate the average Relative Response Factor (RRF) and the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the RRFs for each analyte over the six concentrations. The RRF is defined as:
5.10.3.4.2 The RSD of the RRFs for all analytes must be 25% or less according to EPA Method 525.2.
5.10.4
5.10.4.1
5.10.4.1.1 Use an Agilent 6890 GC coupled with an Agilent 5973 mass selective detector (MSD) and an Agilent 6890 series auto sampler or equivalent, equipped with a DB–5 capillary column (30 m, 0.25 mm I.D., and 0.25 μm film thickness) or equivalent, and a split/splitless injection port operating in the splitless mode. Data acquisition occurs either in the SIM (selected ion monitoring) mode for quantitative analysis or in SCAN mode for qualitative analysis. In SIM mode, the dwell time of each ion is set to be 10 milliseconds and the ions are split up into groups by retention time. One way to divide the ions is by retention time grouping as shown in Table SOP 4–1 of this Appendix. The number of ions in each ion group must be constant, yielding the same scan rate for each group.
5.10.4.1.2 Table SOP 4.2 of this Appendix summarizes the instrumental conditions for crude oil analysis. Use only ultra-high purity helium (99.999% pure) as the carrier gas. In series, connect a moisture trap, an oxygen trap, and an organic trap to the carrier gas line before it enters the column.
5.10.4.2
5.10.4.2.1 Lower the injection port temperature and the oven temperature to 50 °C or less to avoid oxidation of the column.
5.10.4.2.2 Replace the liner with a clean, silanized liner. Do not touch the liner with bare fingers. A small piece of muffled glass wool may be inserted to protect the column.
5.10.4.2.3 Return the injection port and oven to the appropriate temperatures.
5.10.4.2.4 Wait five minutes after the temperature equilibrates before using the instrument.
5.10.4.3
5.10.4.3.1 Perform an air/water check. The value reported for the relative abundance of water (m/z 18), nitrogen (m/z 28), oxygen (m/z 32), or carbon dioxide (m/z 44) shall be less than 5% of the base peak for the system to be considered leak free.
5.10.4.3.2 Tune the MSD using the Standard Autotune program and the decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) Tune program to reduce instrument variability. The Autotune report file is referenced by the instrument when performing an air/water check and thus must be run at least once per month. Run standards and samples using DFTPP Tune parameters, and retune the instrument using DFTPP Tune at least once per week. The tune programs use three fragment ions of perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) as a standard for tuning: m/z 69, 219, and 502. Tune reports must meet the following criteria:
5.10.4.3.2.1 Symmetrical peaks;
5.10.4.3.2.2 Mass assignments within ± 0.2 amu's from 69, 219, and 502;
5.10.4.3.2.3 Peak widths within 0.5 ± 0.1 amu's;
5.10.4.3.2.4 Relative abundance is 100% for ion 69, at least 35% for ion 219, and at least 1% for ion 502;
5.10.4.3.2.5 Relative abundances for isotope masses 70, 220, and 503 ± 0.2 amu's are 0.5–1.5%, 2–8%, and 5–15%, respectively; and
5.10.4.3.2.6 Air and water peaks at m/z = 18, 28, 32, and 44 amu's must be very small and consistent with historical values.
5.10.4.4
5.10.4.5
5.10.4.6
5.10.4.7 Calibrating
5.10.4.8
5.10.4.9
5.10.4.10 Equation 14 of this Appendix is used to calculate the concentration of analytes in units of μg/g oil added:
5.10.4.11 If some analytes are not commercially available, the RRFs of other compounds (usually the parent compound) are used to quantify those analytes. For example, the RRF of C3-naphthalene may be used to calculate the concentrations of C3- and C4-naphthalenes. See Table SOP 4.4 of this Appendix for details. The quantification of these alkylated PAHs is relative because it is assumed that the molecular ions of the alkylated PAHs have the same RRFs as the parent compound ions. Nevertheless, these relative concentrations are useful for monitoring the fate of these compounds during the course of any analysis, as long as their concentrations are measured in a consistent way throughout the analysis.
5.10.4.12 Concentration calculations for all target compounds are performed using EnviroQuant software or equivalent. Data for each sample can be printed directly using a customized report template. Data can also be automatically entered into a spreadsheet within the EnviroQuant software.
5.10.5
5.10.5.1 Air/water check to verify the system is leak free.
5.10.5.2 AutoTune and DFTPP Tune pass all criteria.
5.10.5.3 DFTPP check standard passes all criteria.
5.10.5.4 Solvent blank scan indicates the GC/MS system is free of interfering contamination.
5.10.5.5 Prepare and monitor a control chart of a standard oil analysis. Concentrations of the analytes in the control chart must be no more than 25% different from their historical averages.
5.10.5.6 Relative response factors for analytes in the check standards inserted between every 10 samples must be no more than 25 percent different from the average RRF of those same analytes in the calibration curve. Peak shapes must be symmetrical.
Appendix E to Part 300 [Removed]
(b) A member of the Working Group may designate a senior-level official who is from the member's agency or office and is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government to perform the day-to-day Working Group functions of the member. At the direction of the Co-Chairs, the Working Group may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Working Group members or their designees under this subsection, as appropriate.
(c) There shall be an Executive Director of the Working Group, to be appointed by the Attorney General. The Executive Director shall determine the Working Group's agenda, convene regular meetings, and supervise its work under the direction of the Co-Chairs. The Department of Justice shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations. Each agency shall bear its own expenses for participating in the Working Group.
(b) The Working Group shall engage with external stakeholders, including appropriate State officials, law enforcement organizations, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, and academics, in developing the recommendations required by subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The Working Group shall provide the President with an implementation plan for each of its recommendations, which shall include concrete milestones with specific timetables and outcomes to be achieved.
(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) “Predevelopment activities” means activities that provide decisionmakers with the opportunity to identify and assess potential infrastructure projects and modifications to existing infrastructure projects, and to advance those projects from the conceptual phase to actual construction. Predevelopment activities include:
(b) “Predevelopment funding” means funding for predevelopment activities and associated costs, such as flexible staff, external advisors, convening potential investment partners, and associated legal costs directly related to predevelopment activities.
(a) the Department of Commerce, through the Economic Development Administration's Public Works grants and Economic Adjustment Assistance grants, and consistent with the programs' mission and goals, shall take steps to increase assistance for the predevelopment phase of infrastructure projects;
(b) the Department of Transportation shall develop guidance to clarify where predevelopment activities are eligible for funding through its programs. To further encourage early collaboration in the project development process, the Department of Transportation shall also clarify options for providing early feedback into environmental review processes;
(c) the Department of Homeland Security shall clarify for grantees where predevelopment funding is available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program;
(d) the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall clarify for grantees how the Community Development Block Grant program and other Federal funding sources can be used for predevelopment activities;
(e) the Department of Agriculture shall develop guidance to clarify where predevelopment activities are eligible for funding through its programs, including grants for water and waste projects pursuant to 7 CFR 1780.1
(f) the other members of the Working Group established in section 3 of my memorandum of July 17, 2014 (Expanding Public-Private Collaboration
(b) This memorandum 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.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the