Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
First Responder Network Authority
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Commission of Fine Arts
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Cessna Aircraft Company, Model 650, Citation VII Airplane. This airplane as modified by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is for the installation of Universal Avionics InSight
This action is effective on Cessna Aircraft Company on March 3, 2015. We must receive your comments by April 17, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2015–0441 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2432; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On January 13, 2014, Universal Avionics Systems Corporation applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for the installation of Universal Avionics InSight
Rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature in transport category airplanes. This type of battery has certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport category airplanes.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Universal Avionics Systems Corporation must show that the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A9NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change except for earlier amendments as
In addition, if the regulations listed do not provide adequate standards regarding the change, the applicant must comply with certain regulations in effect on the date of application for the change.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: The installation of a Universal Avionics InSight
The current regulations governing installation of batteries in large transport-category airplanes were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. The new battery requirements, § 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), reworded the CAR requirements.
Increased use of nickel-cadmium batteries in small airplanes resulted in increased incidents of battery fires and failures that led to additional rulemaking affecting large transport category airplanes as well as small airplanes. On September 1, 1977 and March 1, 1978, the FAA issued § 25.1353(c)(5) and (c)(6), respectively, governing nickel-cadmium battery installations on large transport-category airplanes.
The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries for equipment and systems prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. Our review indicates that the existing regulations do not adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of rechargeable lithium batteries that could affect the safety and reliability of the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplane lithium battery installations.
At present, there is limited experience with the use of rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology, ranging from wireless telephone manufacturers to the electric-vehicle industry, have noted safety problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems include overcharging, over-discharging, and flammability of cell components.
In general, lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (
Discharge of some types of lithium battery cells beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts), can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell, resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly available to flightcrews as a means of checking battery status—a problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.
Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire, if there is a breach of the battery container.
These problems experienced by users of lithium batteries raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The intent of the special conditions are to establish appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplane and to ensure, as required by §§ 25.1309 and 25.601, that these batteries are not hazardous or unreliable.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplane. Should Universal Avionics Systems Corporation apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A9NM to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one airplane model. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplanes modified by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation.
These special conditions require that (1) all characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries and battery installation that could affect safe operation of the Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplanes are addressed; and (2) appropriate instructions for continued airworthiness, which include maintenance requirements, are established to ensure the availability of electrical power, when needed, from the batteries.
In lieu of the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at amendment 25–123, all rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems on Cessna, Model 650, Citation VII airplanes, modified by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation, must be designed and installed as follows:
1. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The rechargeable lithium battery installation must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.
2. Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.
3. No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any rechargeable lithium battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation which is not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
4. Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 25.863(a) through (d).
5. No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with § 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.
6. Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
7. Rechargeable lithium battery installations must have a system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and:
a. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,
b. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.
8. Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of which is required for safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.
9. The instructions for continued airworthiness required by § 25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to assure that the battery is sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium battery system. This is required to ensure that lithium rechargeable batteries and lithium rechargeable battery systems will not degrade below specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the airplane systems for intended applications. The instructions for continued airworthiness must also contain procedures for the maintenance of batteries in spares storage to prevent the replacement of batteries with batteries that have experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the FAA. Precautions should be included in the instructions for continued airworthiness maintenance instructions to prevent mishandling of the rechargeable lithium battery and rechargeable lithium battery systems, which could result in short-circuit or other unintentional impact damage caused by dropping or other destructive means that could result in personal injury or property damage.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an administrative change to update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a change made to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on November 3, 2014, as a result of EPA's concurrence on a substitute transportation control measure (TCM) for the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) portion of the Texas SIP. On November 24, 2014, the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted a revision to the Texas SIP
This action is effective March 3, 2015.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 52 are available for inspection at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202. Publicly available materials are available either electronically in
Mr. Jeffrey Riley at (214) 665–8542 or via electronic mail at
On November 3, 2014, EPA issued a concurrence letter to TCEQ stating that the substitution of DFW area ESL TCMs with traffic signalization project TCMs met the CAA section 176(c)(8) requirements for substituting TCMs in an area's approved SIP.
As a part of the concurrence process, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed TCM substitution. Public notice and comment was provided by the DFW metropolitan planning organization, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), during Regional Transportation Council meetings held on July 14, 2014 and July 17, 2014. Public notice for these meetings was published in 20 DFW area newspapers and circulars.
Through this concurrence process, EPA determined that the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(8) were met, including the requirement that the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions than the control measure to be replaced. Upon EPA's concurrence, the ESL substitution took effect as a matter of federal law. A copy of EPA's concurrence letter is included in the Docket for this action. This letter can be accessed at
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The substitution was made through the process included in CAA section 176(c)(8). Effective immediately, today's action codifies provisions which are already in effect. The public had an opportunity to comment on this substitution during the public comment period prior to approval of the substitution. Immediate notice of this action in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this administrative action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute as indicated in the
This administrative action also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This administrative action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This administrative action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The administrative action also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This administrative action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri relating to its vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. On August 16, 2007, and December 7, 2007, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) requested to amend the SIP to replace the St. Louis centralized vehicle test program, called the Gateway Clean Air Program (GCAP), with a de-centralized, OBD-only vehicle I/M program called the Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program (GVIP). In this action, EPA is also approving three additional SIP revisions submitted by Missouri related to the state's I/M program including: Exemptions for specially constructed vehicles or “kit-cars,” exemptions for Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), and rescission of Missouri State Highway Patrol rules from the Missouri SIP.
These revisions to Missouri's SIP do not have an adverse effect on air quality as demonstrated in the technical support document which is a part of this docket. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on April 2, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0399. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7718, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving revisions to the St. Louis vehicle I/M program to replace the centralized, transient I/M240 vehicle I/M program (GCAP) with the de-centralized, OBD-only, vehicle I/M program (GVIP). MDNR submitted to EPA five SIP revision submissions to address the vehicle I/M program replacement and associated state rule, plus one supplemental demonstration. They are as follows:
On August 16, 2007, MDNR requested that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.380, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection” be rescinded and replaced with rule 10 CSR 10–5.381, “On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.” In that same submittal letter, MDNR also requested that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.375, “Motor Vehicles Emissions Inspection Waiver” be rescinded. EPA is not taking any action on 10 CSR 10–5.375 as it is being replaced in its entirety with the GVIP I/M program, Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.381.
On December 14, 2007, MDNR submitted the new GVIP plan and performance standard demonstration to show that the GVIP program meets the basic requirements as described in 40 CFR part 51 subpart S. This submission also requests that EPA approve the plan to replace the GCAP I/M program with the new GVIP program.
On December 21, 2007, Missouri submitted a revision requesting that the Missouri State Highway Patrol rules be removed from the Missouri SIP because the new rule, 10 CSR 10–5.381, does not rely on the Missouri Highway Patrol rules for enforcement. More details can be found in the technical support document that is a part of this docket.
On January 2, 2009, MDNR submitted a required supplemental demonstration for I/M network type and program evaluation as required by 40 CFR 51.353. This demonstration is required within one year after the I/M program begins.
On June 17, 2009, Missouri submitted a revision to I/M rule 10 CSR 10–5.381 which includes minor clarification edits and exempts specially constructed vehicles or “kit-cars” from the rule.
On December 10, 2012, Missouri submitted a revision to exempt Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) from the I/M program as codified in rule 10 CSR 10–5.381.
As part of our review, EPA performed a separate analysis of all the state's SIP submissions and a cumulative air quality analysis as documented in the technical support document that is part of this docket. EPA's analysis shows that these SIP revisions do not adversely affect air quality in the St. Louis area and are approvable.
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened December 28, 2014, the date of its publication in the
EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve revisions to St. Louis vehicle I/M program. While these SIP revisions were submitted in separate requests, they are direct changes to the St. Louis Vehicle Inspection Program and are being addressed in one SIP action.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10–5.381 “On Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection” described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.” EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2) and 63.18(k), published at 79 FR 31873, June 3, 2014 are effective on March 3, 2015.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on February 10, 2015 and February 20, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on February 10, 2015 and February 20, 2015, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2) and 63.18(k).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060–0686 and 3060–0944.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The information will be used by the staff in carrying out its duties under the Communications Act. The information collections are necessary largely to determine the qualifications of applicants to provide common carrier international telecommunications service, including applicants that are, or are affiliated with, foreign carriers, and to determine whether and under what conditions the authorizations are in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The information collections are also necessary to maintain effective oversight of U.S. international carriers generally.
If the collections are not conducted or are conducted less frequently, applicants will not obtain the authorizations necessary to provide telecommunications services, and the Commission will be unable to carry out its mandate under the Communications Act. In addition, without the information collections, the United States would jeopardize its ability to fulfill the U.S. obligations as negotiated under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement because these collections are imperative to detecting and deterring anticompetitive conduct. They are also necessary to preserve the Executive Branch agencies' and the Commission's ability to review foreign investments for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.
The information will be used by the Commission staff in carrying out its duties under the Submarine Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34–39, Executive Order 10530, section 5(a), and the Communications Act of
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) amends its rules to implement certain provisions of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014. Collectively, those provisions: Extend to January 1, 2020 the good faith negotiation requirements applicable to multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) and television broadcast stations, and the exclusive contract prohibition applicable to such broadcast stations; prohibit same-market television broadcast stations from coordinating negotiations or negotiating on a joint basis for retransmission consent except under certain conditions; prohibit a television broadcast station from limiting the ability of an MVPD to carry into its local market television signals that are deemed “significantly viewed” or that otherwise are permitted to be carried by the MVPD, with certain exceptions; and eliminate the “sweeps prohibition” in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”).
Effective April 2, 2015.
Raelynn Remy,
This is a summary of the Commission's
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
1. In this
2. The STELAR requires the Commission, among other things, to undertake several proceedings to adopt new rules, amend or repeal existing rules, and conduct analyses. This proceeding implements sections 101, 103 and 105 of the STELAR.
3. We revise § 76.64(b)(3)(ii) of our rules (relating to the retransmission consent exemption for carriage of distant network signals by satellite carriers), § 76.64(l) (relating to the prohibition on exclusive retransmission consent contracts) and § 76.65(f) (relating to the expiration of the reciprocal good faith negotiation requirements) to reflect the new sunset dates established in section 101 of the STELAR. Section 101 amends section 325(b)(2)(C) of the Act by replacing the previous sunset date of December 31, 2014 with a new sunset date of December 31, 2019. Section 101 also amends section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act to replace the previous sunset date of January 1, 2015 with a new sunset date of January 1, 2020.
4. We also revise § 76.65(b) of our rules (setting forth standards for good faith negotiation) to incorporate new provisions of section 325 added by the STELAR. In particular, section 103(a) of the STELAR revises section 325 by adding new subsection 325(b)(3)(C)(iv), which, read as part of section 325(b)(3)(C) as a whole, requires the Commission to revise its retransmission consent rules:
[to] prohibit a television broadcast station from coordinating negotiations or negotiating on a joint basis with another television broadcast station in the same local market (as defined in section 122(j) of title 17, United States Code) to grant retransmission consent under this section to a [MVPD], unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.
5. In accordance with our statutory mandate in section 325(b)(3)(C), we revise § 76.65(b) of our rules to incorporate this new provision virtually verbatim. Specifically, we repeal § 76.65(b)(1)(viii) of our rules (governing joint negotiation of retransmission consent) and replace that provision with language implementing new section 325(b)(3)(C)(iv) of the Act. We take this action based on our conclusion that the prohibition on joint negotiation in new section 325(b)(3)(C)(iv) is broader than, and thus supersedes, the Commission's existing prohibition.
6. In addition, section 103(b) of the STELAR amends section 325 by adding new subsection 325(b)(3)(C)(v). Read as part of section 325(b)(3)(C) in its entirety, that new subsection directs the Commission to amend its retransmission consent rules:
[to] prohibit a television broadcast station from limiting the ability of a [MVPD] to carry into the local market (as defined in [S]ection 122(j) of title 17, United States Code) of such station a television signal that has been deemed significantly viewed, within the meaning of [S]ection 76.54 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, or any television broadcast signal such distributor is authorized to carry under [S]ection 338, 339, 340, or 614 of [the] Act, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted by the Commission.
7. Thus, we amend § 76.65(b) of our rules by adding new subsection 76.65(b)(1)(ix), which incorporates the protections for significantly viewed and other television signals established in section 103(b) of the STELAR.
8. We amend § 76.1601 of our rules by removing the prohibition on deletion or repositioning of local commercial television stations by cable operators during periods in which major television ratings services measure such stations' audience size, otherwise known as the “sweeps prohibition.”
9. Consistent with previous decisions, we amend our rules as set forth above without providing for prior public notice and comment. Our action here is largely ministerial because it simply effectuates new sunset dates or other provisions established by legislation, and requires no exercise of administrative discretion. For this reason, we conclude that prior notice and comment would serve no useful purpose and are unnecessary. We, therefore, find that this action comes within the “good cause” exception to the notice and comment requirements of the APA.
10. Because we adopt this
11. This document does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
12. The Commission will send a copy of this
13. For more information, contact Raelynn Remy,
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 325 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 325, and 534, and sections 101, 103 and 105 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), this
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 325 and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 325, and 534, and sections 101, 103 and 105 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 113–200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014), the rules SHALL BE EFFECTIVE thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission shall send a copy of this
Cable television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The broadcast station is owned or operated by, or affiliated with a broadcasting network, and the household receiving the signal is an unserved household. This paragraph shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 2019, provided that if Congress further extends this date, the rules remain in effect until the statutory authorization expires.
(l) Exclusive retransmission consent agreements are prohibited. No television broadcast station shall make or negotiate any agreement with one multichannel video programming distributor for carriage to the exclusion of other multichannel video programming distributors. This paragraph shall terminate at midnight on January 1, 2020, provided that if Congress further extends this date, the rules remain in effect until the statutory authorization expires.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Coordination of negotiations or negotiation on a joint basis by two or more television broadcast stations in the same local market (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 122(j)) to grant retransmission consent to a multichannel video programming distributor, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.
(ix) The imposition by a television broadcast station of limitations on the ability of a multichannel video programming distributor to carry into the local market (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 122(j)) of such station a television signal that has been deemed significantly viewed, within the meaning of § 76.54 of this part, or any successor regulation, or any other television broadcast signal such distributor is authorized to carry under 47 U.S.C. 338, 339, 340 or 534, unless such stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted by the Commission.
(f) Termination of rules. This section shall terminate at midnight on January 1, 2020, provided that if Congress further extends this date, the rules remain in effect until the statutory authorization expires.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; in-season trip limit increase.
NMFS increases the trip limit in the commercial sector for king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone to 75 fish per day in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit increase is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits associated with harvesting the quota.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2015, through March 31, 2015, unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in the
Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: s
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the
On January 30, 2012 (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011), NMFS implemented a commercial quota of 1,102,896 lb (500,265 kg) for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(A)). From November 1 through March 31, the Florida east coast subzone encompasses an area of the EEZ south of a line extending due east of the boundary between Flagler and Volusia Counties, FL, and north of a line extending due east of the boundary between Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, FL. From November 1 through the end of February, king mackerel in or from the subzone may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(A)).
However, beginning on March 1, if less than 70 percent of the Florida east coast subzone king mackerel commercial quota has been harvested by that date, king mackerel in or from that subzone may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(B)(
NMFS has determined that less than 70 percent of the quota for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone will be harvested by March 1, 2015. Accordingly, a 75-fish trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the Florida east coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2015. The 75-fish trip limit will remain in effect until the subzone closes or until the end of the current fishing year (March 31, 2015) for this subzone.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(B)(
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit increase constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit increase. They are contrary to the public interest, because prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time, thus delaying fishermen's ability to catch more king mackerel than the present trip limit allows and preventing fishermen from reaping the socioeconomic benefits associated with this increased trip limit.
As this action allows fishermen to increase their harvest of king mackerel from 50 fish to 75 fish per day in or from the EEZ of the Florida east coast subzone, the AA finds it relieves a restriction and may go into effect without a 30-day delay in effectiveness, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule, correcting amendment.
This document makes corrections to the Gulf of Maine cod interim regulations published in the
Effective February 26, 2015, until May 12, 2015.
William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978–281–9182.
On November 13, 2014, we published interim management measures (79 FR 67362) to increase protection for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod in response to a recently updated stock assessment that concluded the stock is severely depleted. The management measures included seasonal interim closure areas where fishing for groundfish is prohibited. The regulations implemented through the GOM cod interim rule allowed vessels fishing with exempted gear or fishing in exempted fisheries to continue to fish within the seasonal interim closure areas; however, the rule mistakenly did not include the Small Mesh Area 1 and 2 Exemption Areas.
An exempted fishery is implemented after it is determined that a specific fishery utilizes a certain gear type, and/or fishes in specific areas or times that result in a groundfish bycatch that is less than 5 percent and doesn't jeopardize fishing mortality objectives. Vessels fishing in the Small Mesh Areas must use raised footrope trawl nets that result in minimal groundfish bycatch. Vessels fishing in these areas may not fish for, possess, or land any groundfish. They are allowed to fish for and possess only whiting, red hake, and a limited number of other species.
Additional information on exempted fisheries can be found online at
We recently recognized that the GOM cod interim rule regulations inadvertently omitted two small mesh exemption areas utilized by groundfish vessels. Groundfish vessels are allowed to fish with small mesh nets using raised footrope trawls in the Small Mesh
The Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. This temporary rule adds the Small Mesh Area 1 and 2 Exempted Areas to the list of exempted fisheries that are exempt from the GOM cod seasonal interim closure areas. These two areas were inadvertently left out of the GOM cod interim action and adding these areas does not substantively change the regulations. Providing notice and comment on these changes is contrary to the public interest because any additional delay would cause economic harm to fishery participants by denying them opportunities to fish in the specified areas, which would have been permitted but for the previous inadvertent omission. Moreover, this action reduces a regulatory restriction and provides fishermen with greater fishing opportunities while maintaining the goals and objectives of the GOM cod interim rule and the groundfish fishery management plan.
The Assistant Administrator also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and makes this rule effective immediately upon filing for public inspection. In addition to the reasons stated above, an area within Small Mesh Area 2 will close on March 1, 2015. Vessels fishing with raised footrope trawls would then be prohibited from fishing in that area unnecessarily. Waiving the 30-day delay avoids this unnecessary closure and allows fishery participants to fish in Small Mesh Area 2 without interruption, as was originally intended when the interim management measures were published.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Therefore, NOAA amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The addition reads as follows:
(o) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) That are fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted Whiting Fishery, ass specified in § 648.80(a)(15), or the Small Mesh Area 1 and 2 Exemption Areas as specified in § 648.80(a)(9).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod, except for the Community Development Quota program (CDQ), in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the non-CDQ allocation of the 2015 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 27, 2015, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2015.
Josh Keaton, 907–586–7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The non-CDQ allocation of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 8,414 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014) and inseason adjustment (80 FR 188, January 5, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the non-CDQ allocation of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 6,414 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 2,000 mt as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Request for information; extension of comment period.
On February 3, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) published a Request for Information (RFI) in response to Executive Order 13563 on improving regulation and regulatory review, and Executive Order 13610 on identifying and reducing regulatory burden. The RFI invited public comment on how the Department can improve any of its significant regulations by modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing them, and the comment period ended on February 25, 2015. This extension reopens and extends the date to comment on the RFI.
The comment period for the Request for Information published on February 3, 2015, at 80 FR 5715, is extended. The comment period ended on February 25, 2015. Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2015. The Department is accepting all comments.
You may submit comments through the Department's Regulations Portal at
All comments will be available for public inspection at
Pamela Peters, Program Analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S–2312, Washington, DC 20210,
On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The Order explains the Administration's goal of creating a regulatory system that protects “public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation” while using “the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve regulatory ends.” After receipt and consideration of comments, the Department issued its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules in August 2011. On May 12, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens.” This Order explained that “it is particularly important for agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.”
The Department recognizes the importance of conducting retrospective review of regulations and is once again seeking public comment on how the Department can increase the effectiveness of its significant regulations while minimizing the burden on regulated entities. The Department recognizes that the regulated community, academia, and the public at large have an understanding of its programs and their implementing regulations, and therefore is requesting public comment on how the Department can prepare workers for better jobs, improve workplace safety and health, promote fair and high-quality work environments, and secure a wide range of benefits for employees and those who are seeking work, all in ways that are more effective and least burdensome.
This request for public input will inform development of the Department's future plans to review its existing significant regulations. To facilitate receipt of the information, the Department has created an Internet portal specifically designed to capture your input and suggestions,
Please note that these questions do not pertain to DOL rulemakings currently open for public comment. To comment on an open rulemaking, please visit
The Department will consider public comments as we update our plan to review the Department's significant rules. The Department is issuing this request solely to seek useful information as we update our review plan. While responses to this request do not bind the Department to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made available to the public on
E.O. 13653, 76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011; E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and opportunity to file exceptions.
This recommended decision proposes amendments to Marketing Order No. 905 (order), which regulates the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos (citrus) grown in Florida. Nine amendments are proposed by the Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for local administration of the order. These proposed amendments would: Authorize regulation of new varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit, authorize the regulation of intrastate shipments of fruit, revise the process for redistricting the production area, change the term of office and tenure requirements for Committee members, authorize mail balloting procedures for Committee membership nominations, increase the capacity of financial reserve funds, authorize pack and container requirements for domestic shipments and authorize different regulations for different markets, eliminate the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process, and require handlers to register with the Committee. These proposed amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order.
Written exceptions must be filed by April 2, 2015.
Written exceptions should be filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1081–S, Washington, DC 20250–9200; Fax: (202) 720–9776 or via the Internet at
Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, Post Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; Telephone: (202) 557–4783, Fax: (435) 259–1502, or Michelle Sharrow, 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:
Small businesses may request information on this proceeding 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:
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on March 28, 2013, and published in the March 28, 2013, issue of the
This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this recommended decision with respect to the proposed amendments to Marketing Order 905 regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida, and the opportunity to file written exceptions thereto. Copies of this decision can be obtained from Melissa Schmaedick, whose address is listed above.
This recommended decision is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).
The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing held on April 24, 2013, in Winter Haven, Florida. Notice of this hearing was published in the
The proposed amendments were recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting on July 17, 2012, and were submitted to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) on October 25, 2012. After reviewing the recommendation and other information submitted by the Committee, AMS decided to proceed with the formal rulemaking process and schedule the matter for hearing.
The Committee's proposed amendments to the order would: (1) Authorize regulation of new varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit; (2) authorize the regulation of intrastate shipments of fruit; (3) revise the process for redistricting the production area; (4) change the term of office and tenure requirements for Committee members; (5) authorize mail balloting procedures for Committee membership nominations; (6) increase the capacity of financial reserve funds; (7) authorize pack and container requirements for domestic shipments and authorize different regulations for different markets; (8) eliminate the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process; and (9) require handlers to register with the Committee.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) also proposed to make such changes to the order as may be necessary, if any of the proposed changes are adopted, so that all of the order's provisions conform to the effectuated amendments.
Ten industry witnesses testified at the hearing. The witnesses represented citrus producers and handlers in the production area, as well as the Committee, and they all supported the proposed amendments. The witnesses emphasized the need to restructure Committee representation and administration as well as equip the industry with more tools to address the changing needs of fresh Florida citrus.
Witnesses offered testimony supporting the recommendation to authorize the regulation of new varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit. According to testimony, new varieties and hybrids could address the disease concerns of the industry and increase consumer demand for fresh citrus through the development of varieties with new characteristics.
Witnesses testified in support of streamlining the order by allowing mail ballots for Committee membership nominations, eliminating the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process, and changing the term of office and tenure requirements for Committee members to lengthen their terms of service. Witnesses stated that these three proposals would result in cost savings to the Committee and time savings for industry members. Moreover, longer term limits and overall tenure would contribute to stability in
Witnesses favored two proposals that would add authority to the order to regulate intrastate Florida citrus shipments in the event the Florida Department of Citrus discontinues or modifies its regulation of the fresh segment. This proposal was largely supported as a precautionary measure, with witnesses clearly stating that the authority would not be implemented unless Florida state regulations are not in effect. Witnesses also supported a similar proposal that would allow the Committee to develop different pack and container regulations for different markets, including the intrastate market.
Witnesses also supported the proposed amendment to modify the redistricting criteria and allow redistricting to occur more often than once every five years, as currently provided for under the order. The new criteria would give the Committee a clearer picture of production trends within the fresh citrus segment of the Florida citrus industry and allow the Committee to respond as necessary to best represent the fresh industry's interests.
Finally, witness testimony supported adding authority to require handler registration. Witnesses stated that handler registration would be helpful for two reasons: To assist in compliance and to provide the Committee with accurate handler information.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge established a deadline of July 1, 2013, for interested persons to file proposed findings and conclusions or written arguments and briefs based on the evidence received at the hearing. One brief was filed.
The material issues presented on the record of hearing are as follows:
1. Whether to amend the definitions of “fruit” and “variety” in § 905.4 and § 905.5 to update terminology and authorize regulation of additional varieties and hybrids of citrus.
2. Whether to amend the definition of “handle or ship” in § 905.9 to authorize regulation of intrastate shipments.
3. Whether to amend § 905.14 to revise the process for redistricting the production area.
4. Whether to amend § 905.20 to change the term of office of Committee members from one to two years, and change the tenure requirements for Committee members from three to four years.
5. Whether to amend § 905.22 to authorize mail balloting procedures for Committee membership nominations.
6. Whether to amend § 905.42 to authorize the Committee to increase the capacity of its financial reserve funds from approximately six months of a fiscal period's expenses to approximately two years' fiscal periods' expenses.
7. Whether to amend § 905.52 to authorize pack and container requirements for domestic shipments and authorize different regulations for different markets.
8. Whether to amend § 905.28 to eliminate the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process.
9. Whether to amend § 905.7 to require handlers to register with the Committee.
The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof.
Sections 905.4, Fruit, and 905.5, Variety, should be amended to update order terminology and authorize regulation of additional varieties and hybrids of citrus.
The proposal to authorize regulation of new varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit would assist the industry in addressing declines in production caused by diseases. Research and development of disease-resistant hybrids may improve the health of Florida's fresh citrus industry. In addition, the industry would be better able to meet consumer preferences as new and improved fruit becomes available for commercial production.
In order to regulate newly developed citrus varieties and hybrids, authority must be added to the order. While the order currently authorizes regulation of specific hybrid fruit included in the definitions, it does not authorize regulation of new hybrids.
The proposal to amend the definitions of “fruit” and “variety” would revise order language to reflect terminology currently being used in the industry. The order currently lists varieties that are no longer commercially viable. Amendments to the definitions would remove those varieties and group other varieties under sub-definitions currently used within the industry.
The order currently identifies six types of citrus fruit that have varieties that can be regulated under the order. These are: Citrus sinensis, Osbeck, commonly called “oranges;” Citrus paradisi, MacFadyen, commonly called “grapefruit;” Citrus nobilis deliciosa, commonly called “tangerines;” Temple oranges; tangelos; and Honey tangerines.
The proposed amendment would revise this list by moving Temple oranges, tangelos and Honey tangerines under the modified definition of “variety,” and adding pummelos (Citrus maxima merr) as a new type. Additionally, authority would be added to regulate varieties of any hybrid fruit developed from the parent fruits of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos.
The definition of “varieties” currently identifies twelve classifications or groupings of varieties regulated under the order. These include: “round oranges;” late maturing oranges of the Valencia type; Temple oranges; Marsh and other seedless grapefruit, excluding pink grapefruit; Duncan and other seeded grapefruit, excluding pink grapefruit; Pink seedless grapefruit; Pink seeded grapefruit; tangelos; Dancy and similar tangerines, excluding Robinson and Honey tangerines; Robinson tangerines; Honey tangerines; and Navel oranges.
The proposed modification of this definition would re-organize the existing list and add new varieties as follows: Oranges, with sub-groupings for early and midseason oranges, Valencia, Lue Gim Gong, or similar late maturing oranges of the Valencia type, and navel oranges; Grapefruit, red grapefruit and all shades of color and white grapefruit; Tangerines and mandarins, with sub-groupings for Dancy, Robinson, Honey, Fall-Glo, Early Pride, Sunburst, and W-Murcott tangerines, and tangors; and pummelos, including Hirado Buntan and other pink seeded pummelos. Currently regulated citrus hybrids would also be included, specifically: Tangelos, including Orlando and Minneola tangelos, and Temple oranges.
A new sub-paragraph would be added to authorize regulation of any new varieties of citrus fruits specified in 905.4, Fruit, including hybrids of those fruit. Any new hybrid variety subject to regulation would be required to exhibit similar characteristics and be subject to cultural practices common to existing regulated varieties.
According to the record, the Florida citrus industry believes that newly-developed hybrids are necessary for the recovery and long-term health of the industry. The industry is funding the development of new varieties and hybrids and has developed a plan for field testing. The industry hopes to begin producing new varieties and
Witnesses explained that many of the varieties that have been the mainstay of the Florida fresh citrus industry have either succumbed to pest and disease challenges, or reached a point of market obsolescence. Furthermore, for the past decade, the Florida citrus industry has been contracting due to the loss of bearing trees and production, which has been brought about by the effects of two diseases, citrus canker and greening, and natural disasters, such as hurricanes. Also, the percentage of Florida's citrus crop utilized for fresh shipment has decreased to approximately nine percent of the total volume of citrus produced in Florida.
According to the record, during the past ten years, the number of bearing citrus trees has declined by 29 percent, while production has declined by 42 percent, and fresh utilization has declined by 45 percent. In addition, the value of the juice produced by fresh fruit varieties has continued to decline, which has further depressed the fresh citrus sector.
Witnesses gave examples of changes in consumer preferences that have also impacted the fresh Florida citrus industry. According to the record, Robinson and Dancy tangerines were the preferred varieties of tangerines by consumers thirty years ago. Over time, these varieties fell out of favor and were replaced by the Fall-Glo, Sunburst and Honey varieties because of their sweeter flavor. Consumers are now losing interest in these varieties and are showing a preference for easy-peel, seedless varieties.
These competitive varieties are grown in areas outside of Florida, such as California and Spain, and are currently not suitable for production in the state. As a result, the Florida fresh citrus industry is in the process of developing easy-peel, seedless varieties that will grow in the production area. The new fruit will likely be a hybrid fruit currently not regulated under the order. Witnesses explained that the order should be amended to authorize regulation of hybrid fruit so that this new variety can be regulated once it is ready for commercial production.
Researchers from the University of Florida (UF) testifying at the hearing stated that much research and development of new citrus fruit has been done to improve the competitiveness of the Florida citrus industry. According to the record, this research has resulted in the development and release of as many as ten new citrus fruits providing improvements such as sweeter oranges with earlier or later maturity and improved color and flavor attributes found in other citrus. In addition, research is focused on generating new and unique hybrids that may revitalize consumer interest in fresh Florida citrus. Two examples given by one witness from UF are the Sugar Belle mandarin hybrid and the Valquarius sweet orange, which are starting to be produced for the juice industry.
According to the record, varieties developed by the UF Citrus Breeding Program are being released into a “fast-track” testing program where a limited numbers of trees are grown on a test basis by interested growers. Fruit from the test trees cannot be sold.
Once the new varieties have been assessed for their potential value and growers plant sufficient numbers of trees to produce a supply of fruit for marketing through ordinary commercial channels, commercialization will proceed. Once a new variety becomes commercially viable, its inclusion under the order is likely to be considered by the Committee. Without the authority to regulate hybrid citrus fruit, the Committee would not be able to recommend the new fruit's inclusion under the marketing order.
One example of a new fruit that is currently in the test phase is the “UF914.” This is a hybrid of pummelo and grapefruit that resembles ordinary grapefruit in appearance, but is much larger. According to the record, it generally has higher sugar levels and lower acidity than an ordinary grapefruit, yet retains the red pigmentation, flavor and aroma of a grapefruit.
A critically important attribute of this particular variety is its extremely low content of furanocoumarins, those chemicals contained in ordinary grapefruit that are responsible for the so-called “grapefruit juice effect”, or a negative interaction between grapefruit juice and prescription medication, and subsequent medical recommendations for limited grapefruit consumption. As a consequence of its unique chemical composition, there could be substantial consumer demand for this variety. If this fruit were to be produced on a commercial scale, its inclusion under the order would be important to ensure and maintain quality and consistency of product in the market.
Researchers from the UF further explained that while new varieties will likely present marketing opportunities, they may also have new and unique quality attributes. Witnesses concluded that the success of these new varieties, as well as the future of Florida's fresh citrus industry, would be better secured by ensuring that new varieties will be required to meet quality standards.
In general, witnesses testifying in support of Material Issue Number One stated that, when new varieties and hybrids are available to the Florida citrus industry, it will be important that the marketing order contains the authority to regulate quality and size standards, and that its language be inclusive of all varieties likely to emerge from the breeding programs. The ability to regulate these varieties will ensure that the quality and consistency of fruit entering channels of trade will meet consumer demand, compete with product from global production areas, and ensure a fair economic return for Florida fresh citrus growers and handlers.
Two corrections to the proposed regulatory language were offered by a witness testifying from the UF Citrus Breeding Program. These corrections include: Correcting the Latin binomial for pummelo from “Citrus grandis” to “Citrus maxima Merr,” as listed in the Notice of Hearing; and, correcting the spelling of the previously listed “Poncirus trifoliate” to read “Poncirus trifoliata.” These corrections have been accepted and are incorporated into the revised definition of § 905.4, Fruit, below.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that §§ 905.4, Fruit, and 905.5, Variety, be amended to update terminology and authorize regulation of additional varieties and hybrids of citrus as proposed and corrected.
A conforming change is needed in the title of 7 CFR part 905. It is proposed to be revised to “ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, TANGERINES, AND PUMMELOS GROWN IN FLORIDA” to reflect the proposed addition of pummelos as a regulated fruit and the inclusion of tangelos as a regulated hybrid variety.
Section 905.9, the definition of “handle or ship,” should be amended to authorize regulation of fresh Florida citrus handled and shipped within the production area. This section should be further modified to state that any regulations or requirements implemented as a result of this new authority would not conflict with
The order currently regulates the grade and size of fresh Florida citrus handled and shipped to points outside of the production area, including exports, but does not regulate shipments within the state of Florida. Fresh citrus fruit handled and shipped within the state are currently regulated by the Florida Citrus Commission under the Florida Department of Citrus rules, Chapter 20.
Witnesses explained that adding authority for intrastate shipments under the Federal marketing order would create one comprehensive program for regulating fresh Florida citrus in the event that the Florida state program were to stop regulating fresh citrus shipments. Witnesses further explained that this additional authority is being proposed as a precautionary measure and that the industry does not intend to implement this new authority while the Florida state program is in effect.
According to the record, the Committee spent approximately one and a half years thoroughly reviewing and considering this proposal. This proposal has been discussed by industry organizations and with two members of the Florida Citrus Commission, the group that oversees all Florida state citrus regulation. Witnesses stated that the proposal has industry support and, by design, would not conflict with state regulations.
According to the record, all witnesses who included remarks in their testimony about this proposal supported it as a precautionary measure for future use in the event that the State program no longer regulated fresh citrus shipments. Witnesses testifying in support of this proposal included individuals that serve or work closely with Florida state citrus regulatory programs. These witnesses stated that the Florida Citrus Commission is aware of this proposal and does not oppose it.
Witnesses also explained that the proposal to allow for different handling regulations for different market destinations under the order, further discussed in Material Issue 8, complemented the industry's effort to streamline regulation within Florida's fresh citrus industry. According to the record, the two proposals would result in a coordination of regulation under the Federal and State programs, and would provide an added authority under the order to regulate fresh shipments in the state of Florida in the event that the Florida Citrus Commission stopped regulating them. These proposals would streamline handling operations under both programs and would provide continuity in regulation.
No testimony or evidence opposing this proposal was provided at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.9, the definition of “handle or ship,” be amended to authorize regulation of fresh Florida citrus handled and shipped within the production area.
Section 905.14, Redistricting, should be amended to revise the process for redistricting the production area. This amendment would provide flexibility within the order allowing for the redefining of grower districts within the production area when warranted by relevant factors.
Under the order, the Committee is authorized to consider redistricting every five years. Any recommendation to redistrict must include an analysis of the following factors: (1) The volume of fruit shipped from each district; (2) the volume of fruit produced in each district; (3) the total number of acres of citrus grown in each district; and (4) other relevant factors. The order further requires that any redistricting must retain a minimum of eight, but no more than nine, grower membership positions on the Committee.
According to the record, the proposed amendment would modify three of the four factors used in assessing the need to change district boundaries and remove time restrictions, thereby increasing flexibility. Specifically, the amendment would change the assessment of total volume of fruit shipped from each district to the number of bearing trees in each district. It would also change the assessment of total volume of fruit produced in each district to the total volume of fresh fruit produced in each district. Finally, the consideration of total number of acres in each district would change to total number of bearing trees per district. The last remaining factor currently included in the order—other relevant factors when conditions warrant—would not be changed.
The proposed amendment would also remove the restriction on redistricting any more frequently than every five years. If implemented, the proposed modification to the order would allow for redistricting as needed when the above factors indicate that a change in district boundaries would be beneficial.
Witnesses explained that, due to the major declines in bearing tree numbers, production, and fresh shipments the Florida citrus industry has experienced over the past decade, this proposal would allow the Committee to determine the need for changes in grower districts on a timely basis using information that more accurately represents production trends within the fresh citrus industry.
For example, given the increased loss of trees per acre due to disease and natural disasters, the current guideline for calculating grower districts using acreage is no longer applicable. According to the record, when calculating production capacity within a county or grower district, the new industry standard is to consider bearing trees, not acreage. Due to heavy tree losses within producing groves, acreage is not a reliable indicator of production. Record evidence indicates that many groves have anywhere from 10 percent to as much as or more than 50 percent of their grove acreage with non-bearing trees or no trees at all. Therefore, acreage count as an indicator of production can be misleading. For this reason, the Committee is recommending the usage of bearing trees per district rather than acreage per district.
Witnesses also explained that the Florida Agricultural Statistical Service conducts a tree census every other year. With this information, the Committee would have accurate and timely information on bearing trees, by variety and county, to utilize in their redistricting evaluations.
Witnesses stated that the importance of identifying and assessing the volume of fresh production per district is paramount to understanding trends within the fresh segment of the Florida citrus industry. According to record evidence, the Florida citrus industry utilizes 90 percent or more of its annual crop to produce processed products. Witnesses explained it is important to identify where the remaining 10 percent of fresh citrus is being produced and handled so that the Committee can assign Committee representation or re-designate districts based on the true distribution of fresh citrus production.
Witnesses explained that calculating the volume of fresh citrus produced per district can be accomplished by identifying the number of fresh citrus variety trees in each district and multiplying that number by the average yield per tree of those varieties. Witnesses identified “fresh citrus varieties” as those varieties that return to the grower an on-tree value that exceeds the cost of production. These varieties currently would include Navel oranges, red and white grapefruit, specialty citrus varieties, Fall-Glo tangerines, Sunburst tangerines, tangelos, and Honey tangerines.
Finally, witnesses stated that the proposed amendments would allow the
No testimony opposing this proposal was presented at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.14, Redistricting, be amended to revise the process for redistricting the production area. This amendment would provide flexibility within the order to allow for the redefining of grower districts within the production area when relevant factors warrant redistricting.
Section 905.20, Term of office, should be amended to change the term of office of Committee members from one to two years, and change the tenure limits for Committee members from three to four years. This proposed change would provide more continuity in the administration of the order and would result in cost savings and efficiencies from fewer elections.
The order currently limits the term of office for Committee members and alternate members to one year, with the number of consecutive terms, or tenure, that a member or alternate can serve in their position limited to three terms. Therefore, the longest a Committee member can serve before being required to take a break in service is three years. The proposed amendment would lengthen this time to a total of four years, or a limit of two consecutive two-year terms.
Witnesses explained that the current requirements under the order disrupt the administration of the order. Each year nominations and new selections occur. The annual nomination process not only disrupts the work of the Committee, but it also requires time and resources from handlers and growers to participate in nominations and from the Committee to conduct them. Witnesses stated that changing the nomination process to a bi-annual occurrence would allow Committee members to work for two years without interruption, which would also reduce costs associated with conducting and participating in nominations. The overall effect would be an increase in administrative efficiencies and stability.
Regarding the need for increased continuity in leadership, witnesses explained that the production of fresh Florida citrus is rapidly changing. According to the record, in the last 10 seasons the fresh citrus industry has experienced production declines of 50 percent and shipment declines of 40 percent. Witnesses stated that it will be important to have continuity in leadership and representation as the industry addresses the issues of disease and development of new, consumer-friendly citrus varieties to bolster production and market demand.
No testimony opposing this proposal was provided at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.20, Term of office, be amended to change the term of office of Committee members from one to two years, and change the tenure limit for Committee members from three to four years. This proposed change would provide more continuity in the administration of the order and would result in cost savings and efficiencies with fewer nomination meetings to conduct.
Section 905.22, Nominations, should be amended to authorize the use of mail ballots in conducting Committee membership nominations. In addition, this section should be amended to provide that the nomination process occur in the month of June to allow ample time for the distribution and collection of mail ballots.
The order currently does not allow for voting by mail during the nomination process; all votes must be cast in person or, in the case of handlers, by proxy, at annual nomination meetings. For grower nominations, meetings are held at set locations within each of the three grower districts. Growers are entitled to one vote for each nominee in each of the districts in which he or she is a producer. Shipper nominations are held at the Florida Department of Citrus headquarters. Shippers may vote by proxy, and each shipper's vote is weighted by the volume of fruit handled by them during the then current fiscal period. The nomination process occurs in the month of July.
If implemented, this amendment would simplify the nomination and voting process and would increase industry participation, specifically grower participation. This amendment would also make the nomination process more efficient and economical by eliminating the Committee's expenses associated with holding a nomination meeting. Lastly, this change would reduce financial and other burdens currently required of growers commuting to vote.
Witnesses stated that the current process can limit grower participation due to time and travel requirements to attend nominating meetings. Given that the state of Florida production area is divided into three grower districts, each of these districts covers a large geographic area.
According to witnesses, the burdens of commuting to a nomination meeting have led to poor voter turnout. A considerable number of growers do not live within an easily commutable radius of the nomination meeting locations. Time spent commuting to nomination meetings can be costly in terms of lost wages, time spent away from the workplace, and fuel costs for travel to and from the nomination meetings.
The Committee anticipates that this change will foster increased participation. By allowing voting by mail or other means, participation should increase, and the level of diversity among the members involved in the nomination process may increase as well. According to the record, the Committee believes that it will realize cost savings from conducting the nominations of members and alternate members by mail or other means. As presented earlier, this measure is coupled with the proposal to extend the term of office from a one-year term to a two-year term, which would decrease administrative and travel costs associated with nomination meetings. However, if there is any cost increase, it would be outweighed by the benefit of increased participation and involvement.
The Committee further proposed that the nomination process take place in the month of June in order to allow extra time for the mailing and receipt of mail ballots. The expense of mailing the ballots would be outweighed by the savings in travel and time-related costs of industry members no longer needing to travel to nomination meetings.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.22, Nominations, be amended to authorize the use of mail ballots in conducting Committee membership nominations and to conduct nominations in June.
Section 905.42, Handler's accounts, should be amended to authorize the Committee to increase the capacity of its financial reserve funds from approximately six months of a fiscal period's expenses to approximately two years' fiscal periods' expenses.
The order currently provides authority to hold in reserve funds equal to approximately one-half of one fiscal period's expenses. According to witnesses, this limits the Committee's flexibility to develop and implement projects requiring advertising, promotion or research without raising the assessment rate during the season. The proposed amendment would allow the Committee to increase their reserves up to two fiscal periods' expenses. The larger reserve fund would provide greater flexibility in the administration of the marketing order program and promote assessment rate stability.
Assessment revenue funds the Committee's administrative, research, and promotion activities. As production has declined over time, the Committee has had to either increase the assessment rate to generate more revenue, or rely on its reserves to fund some of its activities. This has caused the assessment rate to fluctuate substantially over time. The Committee's proposal to raise the reserve cap to two fiscal periods' expenses would reduce assessment rate fluctuation and make more funds available for the Committee to use in fiscal years when assessment revenue isn't sufficient to cover expenses.
According to the record, the Committee's fiscal year begins on August 1 and ends on July 31 of the following year. The shipping season for Florida fresh citrus begins in September and lasts about eight months, with approximately 87 percent of the volume being shipped in six months. The volume of regulated fresh citrus declined 17 percent in the last five seasons, and 41 percent in the last decade. Committee data indicates that 2013–2014 fresh shipments from Florida are projected to decrease another 10 percent from last season. Moreover, the 2013–2014 crop year projection of fresh shipments of 13.2 million boxes will be the lowest since the 1919–1920 season.
Witnesses explained that the Committee has tried to avoid assessment increases each year, and would rather establish an assessment rate that would fully fund its operations and build its reserves to handle the fluctuations in fresh shipments. However, with the current assessment rate and reserve threshold combination, reserves are being drawn down faster than they are being replenished year-over-year. Without raising the cap on reserves, witnesses stated that it will become increasingly difficult for the Committee to avoid annual increases in the assessment rate.
Witnesses testifying in favor of this proposal stated that raising the assessment rate to a level that would properly fund the Committee's operations and simultaneously build ample reserves to handle production fluctuations can only be achieved by increasing the amount of reserves the Committee is allowed to carry over from one fiscal year to the next.
According to the record, the Committee did consider a proposal that would increase the reserve threshold from one half year to one fiscal period's expenses. However, this option was ultimately rejected because current fluctuations in regulated shipments indicate that the Committee's reserve needs are greater than one year's annual expenses. Witnesses explained that it has been the Committee's practice to hold excess assessments during the past few fiscal years to ensure that there would be ample reserves to fully fund their operations.
Witnesses further stated that the proposal to increase the reserve threshold to two fiscal periods' worth of Committee expenses is essential to the Committee's financial stability moving forward, until fluctuations in production can be remedied through the development of disease-resistant citrus and new plantings of varieties with the characteristics desired by consumers of fresh Florida citrus.
Lastly, if the proposed amendment to increase the reserve fund were approved, witnesses stated that the Committee should begin building the reserves immediately.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was presented at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that Section 905.42, Handler's accounts, be amended to authorize the Committee to increase the capacity of its financial reserve funds from approximately six months of a fiscal period's expenses to approximately two fiscal periods' expenses.
Section 905.52, Issuance of regulations, should be amended to authorize pack and container requirements for domestic shipments and authorize different regulations for different markets. Additionally, in the event that the State of Florida opted to no longer regulate intrastate fresh citrus shipments, this amendment would also allow for such shipments to be regulated under the Federal marketing order.
The order currently regulates the size, capacity, weight, dimensions, marking, or pack of containers used for fresh citrus export shipments, provided that the container is not prohibited under Chapter 601 of the Florida Statutes. The Committee recommends that the order be amended to allow for the establishment of such regulation for both export and interstate shipments, and that these requirements may be different for different market destinations. By adding this authority, the Committee could recognize and meet the differing demands of customers and consumers domestically and abroad. Witnesses explained that having the flexibility to meet differing demands is important in maintaining current markets and creating new markets for any new varieties developed in the future.
The regulation of pack and containers for intrastate shipments falls under the authorities outlined in Chapter 20 of the Florida statutes. Changes to these regulations are developed by the Florida fresh citrus industry and presented to the Florida Citrus Commission for their approval. The Florida Citrus Commission oversees state regulation for both the fresh and processed segments of the state's citrus industry.
According to the record, intrastate markets have been recognized by the Florida citrus industry as being unique from the interstate and export markets in that much of the in-state fruit is sold locally by fruit stands and gift-fruit shippers. Typically, this fruit is sold in bins and ten-box containers so that the consumer may choose their own fruit. This is different from interstate or export shipments, which are typically packed and sold in cartons or bags. Intrastate shipments of fresh Florida citrus represent roughly six percent of the industry's total fresh shipments.
The Committee recommends amending the order to provide authority to regulate intrastate shipments of fresh citrus in the event that the State of Florida ceases to regulate them. This amendment would allow for orderly marketing of fresh citrus to continue if state regulations were no longer in effect. Witnesses explained that this amendment was proposed as a precautionary measure and that the Committee's recommendation had been discussed openly with the Florida Citrus Commission. No opposition was expressed.
USDA recommends modifying the proposed amendatory text published in the Notice of Hearing. USDA's modifications simplify the proposed amendatory text to more clearly state the intent of the Committee's recommendation and that which was supported by witness testimony. The modified language is included here below.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.52, Issuance of regulations, be amended to: Authorize different regulations for different market destinations; allow for the regulation of pack and container requirements for interstate shipments; and, in the absence of state regulation, allow for the establishment of requirements for intrastate shipments. Any regulation implemented under this authority would not conflict with Florida state statutes or regulation in effect thereunder.
Section 905.28, Qualifications and acceptance, should be modified to allow the Committee nominee acceptance statement and the background statement to be combined into one form.
The order currently requires each member and alternate to complete an acceptance letter in addition to the background statement when nominated to serve on the Committee.
This proposal would combine the separate acceptance and background statements into one form. Nominees agreeing to serve on the Committee would complete a background statement that would also include a statement of acceptance. If implemented, this proposal would reduce paperwork associated with the nomination process and result in time savings for nominees filling out the forms.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.28, Qualifications and acceptance, be amended to allow the acceptance statement and the background statement to be combined into one form.
Section 905.7, Handler, should be amended to require handlers to register with the Committee. This amendment would require handlers who intend to handle fresh citrus to provide the Committee with their contact information at the beginning of each crop year. This would assist in administering the compliance provisions of the order.
The order does not currently require handlers to register with the Committee. At the beginning of each crop year, the Committee receives a manifest of handlers who are handling fresh citrus from the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. The information is gathered by the state of Florida through the state's dealer license requirements and through product inspection and certification. The Committee then uses this manifest for compliance purposes and to generate their assessment billings.
According to the record, the State of Florida Department of Citrus, Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, Florida Citrus Code 601.4, requires each packing house or handler that prepares Florida citrus for the fresh market in Florida to register annually with the Florida Department of Agriculture through the Division of Fruit and Vegetables (Division). In addition, Section 601.56, Florida Statutes, also referred to as the Florida Citrus Code, requires Florida citrus handlers to be approved by the Department of Citrus for a citrus fruit dealer's license.
Under the order, § 905.53, Inspection and certification, requires each lot of fresh citrus handled to be inspected by the Division. The Division certifies that the lot of fruit meets all applicable minimum grade and size requirements of the order. The Committee contracts annually with the Division to furnish the Committee, by month, information on each handler's regulated shipments, both interstate and export. This information allows the Committee to calculate each handler's assessment, as well as monitor compliance with grade and size regulation of fresh Florida citrus shipments.
Witnesses explained that while the Committee has not experienced major compliance issues in the past, adding authority for it to require handler registration would provide the Committee with a timely and accurate list of handlers who intend to handle fresh citrus each crop year. Witnesses further explained that in the event the Florida state program were to stop regulating fresh citrus shipments the Committee would be able to gather necessary information through a handler registration requirement to continue monitoring handler compliance under the program.
According to the record, the Committee monitors compliance (for both adherence to the order's grade and size requirements and assessment payments) through provisions of both its compliance and internal controls plans. There are procedures in both to ensure that handlers are fully informed of any violations and are given time to take corrective actions.
Witnesses explained that, in the very limited cases of minimum grade and size regulation violations, the majority of the reported violations involved less than a full pallet of fruit each, which would be equivalent to 54 cartons of citrus. Furthermore, most of the violations have been clerical errors made by the handlers' shipping departments. In the last few seasons, with most shippers using bar coding systems for loading trucks or containers, these violations have almost been eliminated. The Committee has not experienced many late or uncollectible assessments. Nonetheless, witnesses advocated the need to implement a handler registration requirement. This authority would provide the Committee with a timely and accurate list of handlers handling fresh citrus each crop year for the purposes of compliance and communication.
Witnesses explained that, if the amendment was approved, the Committee would have the authority to develop a handler registration form along with other guidelines to implement the collection of information. The handler registration form would likely require contact information along with other pertinent information deemed necessary for the operation of the order. Completed handler registration forms would provide accurate contact information that would improve the effectiveness of communications between handlers and the Committee, and assist in administering the compliance provisions of the order. Other than the time required to complete the registration form, witnesses stated that this proposal would not require handlers to bear any additional costs. Witnesses also stated that this proposal is not controversial and has support within the industry.
No testimony opposing the proposed amendment was given at the hearing. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that § 905.7, Handler, be amended to require handler registration.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.
According to the 2007 US Census of Agriculture, the number of citrus growers in Florida was 6,061. According to the National Agriculture Statistic
According to the industry, there were 44 handlers for the 2011/12 season, down 25 percent from the 2002/03 season. A small agricultural service firm as defined by the SBA is one that grosses less than $7,000,000 annually. Twenty one handlers would be considered a small entity under SBA's standards. A majority of handlers are considered large entities under SBA's standards.
The production area regulated under the order covers the portion of the state of Florida which is bound by the Suwannee River, the Georgia Border, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. Acreage devoted to citrus production in the regulated area has declined in recent years.
According to data presented at the hearing, bearing acreage for oranges reached a high of 605,000 acres during the 2000/01 crop year. Since then, bearing acreage for oranges has decreased 28 percent. For grapefruit, bearing acreage reached a high of 107,800 acres during the 2000/01 crop year. Since the 2000/01 crop year, bearing acreage for grapefruit has decreased 58 percent. For tangelos, bearing acreage reached a high for the 2000/01 crop year of 10,800 acres for Florida. Since the 2000/01 crop year, bearing acreage for tangelos has decreased 62 percent. For tangerines and mandarins, bearing acreage reached a high for the 2000/01 crop year of 25,500 acres. Since the 2000/01 crop year, bearing acreage for tangerines and mandarins has decreased 53 percent.
According to data presented at the hearing, the total utilized production for oranges reached a high during the 2003/04 crop year of 242 million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop year, total utilized production for oranges has decreased 34 percent. For grapefruit, the total utilized production reached a high during the 2001/02 crop year of 46.7 million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop year, total utilized production for grapefruit has decreased 59 percent. For tangelos, the total utilized production reached a high during the 2002/03 crop year of 2.4 million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop year, total utilized production for tangelos has decreased 45 percent. For tangerines and mandarins, the total utilized production reached a high during the 2001/02 crop year of 6.6 million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop year, total utilized production for tangerines and mandarins has decreased 23 percent.
During the hearing held on April 24, 2013, interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small businesses. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that none of the proposed amendments would have any burdensome effects on small agricultural producers or firms.
The proposal described in Material Issue 1 would amend the definitions of “fruit” and “variety” in § 905.4 and § 905.5 to update terminology and authorize regulation of additional varieties and hybrids of citrus.
Currently, the New Varieties Development and Management Corporations, a non-profit research organization, is actively working to identify, acquire and sub-license promising citrus varieties and hybrids for the Florida citrus grower. In order to regulate these new varieties and hybrids, the definitions of fruit and variety must be amended so that these new varieties and hybrids can be regulated under the order.
Witnesses supported this proposal and stated that Florida growers have invested heavily and steadily in the development of new citrus varieties to meet changing demand and consumer preferences. Witnesses stated that it is imperative that the order be amended to keep pace with a rapidly changing industry and maximize its relevance and utility to the industry. No significant impact on small business entities is anticipated from this proposed change.
The proposal described in Material Issue 2 would amend the definition of “handle or ship” in § 905.9 to authorize regulation of intrastate shipments.
Currently, the Florida Citrus Commission, under the Florida Department of Citrus Rules Chapter 20, regulates the grade and size of intrastate shipments, while the Federal order regulates all interstate shipments and exports of fresh citrus. If the proposed amendment were implemented, authority to regulate intrastate shipments would be added to the Federal order. This amendment would allow for the eventual regulation of all fresh citrus shipments under the order if intrastate shipments were no longer regulated by the Florida Department of Citrus.
Witnesses explained that adding the authority to regulate intrastate shipments to the order would be a precautionary measure. If the Florida Department of Citrus were to stop regulating fresh citrus shipments, having the authority to do so under the Federal order would facilitate a streamlined transition of regulation from one program to the other. Such a transition would benefit growers and handlers as shipments of fresh citrus could continue without interruption.
Witnesses anticipated that handlers would incur little to no additional costs as a result of the proposed amendment. As currently proposed, the amendment would simply add an authority to the order. This authority would not be implemented unless warranted by other factors. If implemented, handlers of intrastate fresh citrus shipments would be subject to assessments under the order. However, the Florida Department of Citrus already collects assessments on intrastate shipments. Therefore, the cost of assessments collected on intrastate shipments, whether under the State or Federal program, would continue. In conclusion, it is determined that the benefits of adding the authority to regulate intrastate shipments of fresh citrus to the order would outweigh any costs.
The proposal described in Material Issue 3 would amend § 905.14 to revise the process for redistricting the production area.
The proposed amendment would grant flexibility to the Committee in redefining grower districts within the production area when the criteria and relevant factors within the production area warrant redistricting. Disease and
According to a witness, the proposed amendment would give the Committee, in future seasons, the flexibility to adjust grower districts to reflect the shift in production of fresh varieties and fresh volume. In addition, the Committee would be able to adjust grower districts based on the number of trees lost to disease and natural disasters. Thus, it is not expected that this proposal would result in any additional costs to growers or handlers.
The proposal described in Material Issue 4 would amend § 905.20 to change the term of office of Committee members from one to two years, and change the tenure limits for Committee members from three to four years.
According to a witness, a two-year term would allow for biennial nomination meetings, which would provide administrative efficiencies and stability. The current one-year term of office is administratively inefficient and requires additional Committee resources. Moreover, limiting terms to one year results in an annual effort to nominate and appoint new members. This process is costly to the Committee and requires time and resources for industry members to participate. A two-year term would reduce these costs. For the reasons described above, it is determined that the proposed amendment would benefit industry participants and improve administration of the order. The costs of implementing this proposal would be minimal, if any.
The proposal described in Material Issue 5 would amend § 905.22 to authorize mail balloting procedures for Committee membership nominations. Nomination meetings have low participation rates due to time, travel, and administrative costs.
The proposed amendment would allow the Committee to conduct the nomination and/or election of members and alternates by mail or other means according to the rules and regulations recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary. Currently, the Committee holds grower nomination meetings in each of the three grower districts and one shipper nomination meeting annually. Witnesses indicated that attending these meetings is costly due to travel expenses and time away from their growing or handling operations. While the proposed amendment would result in some increased expenses for printing and mailing of ballot materials, witnesses indicated that the potential savings to growers and handlers far exceed those costs.
Moreover, witnesses indicated that the additional benefit of increased participation in the nomination process as a result of materials being sent to all interested parties would outweigh the costs of conducting nominations by mail. This would be particularly true in the case of small business entities that have fewer resources and relatively less flexibility in managing their businesses compared to larger businesses. For these reasons, it is determined that the cost savings, increased participation, and other benefits gained from conducting nomination meetings via mail would outweigh the potential costs of implementing this proposal.
The proposal described in Material Issue 6 would amend § 905.42 to authorize the Committee to increase the capacity of its financial reserve funds from approximately six months of a fiscal period's expenses to approximately two fiscal periods' expenses. Such reserve funds could be used to cover any expenses authorized by the Committee or to cover necessary liquidation expenses if the order is terminated.
The proposed amendment would allow the Committee to increase their reserves up to two fiscal periods' expenses. Currently, reserves are capped at approximately one half of one year's expenses. Witnesses explained that the current cap on reserves is too restrictive and could limit the Committee's ability to develop and implement projects requiring advertising, promotion or research without raising the assessment rate during the season.
As discussed earlier in this recommended decision, witnesses considered the need to develop and promote new hybrid varieties and markets to be essential to reviving the health of the fresh citrus sector. According to them, not increasing the reserve cap would inhibit the Committee's ability to address these needs.
Also, without the proposed amendment it would become more difficult for the Committee to avoid assessment rate increases annually or during a season. According to the record, the proposed amendment would also provide greater stability in the administration of the order's assessment rate. Under the current reserve limit, the Committee would need to increase the assessment rate mid-season if the need for additional revenues for research or promotion activities occurs after the assessment rate and budget are finalized. Increasing the assessment rate mid-season confuses industry members and creates additional burdens in administering the order.
For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that the benefits of increasing the maximum level of funds that can be held in the financial reserves would outweigh the costs.
The proposal described in Material Issue 7 would amend § 905.52 to: Authorize different regulations for different market destinations; allow for the regulation of pack and container requirements for interstate shipments; and, in the absence of state regulation, allow for the establishment of requirements for intrastate shipments.
This would allow shippers to meet varying customer demands in different market destinations. In addition, the proposed amendment would allow regulation and orderly marketing to continue for intrastate shipments if Florida State fresh citrus regulations were discontinued. This authority will not be implemented unless state regulations were no longer in effect.
The proposed amendment to regulate containers and establish quality standards for the production area would not have any adverse effects on small businesses if approved. Continued orderly marketing of fresh citrus shipments within the State of Florida would equally benefit all segments of the industry and consumers by maintaining quality standards and consistency.
The proposal described in Material Issue 8 would Amend § 905.28 to eliminate the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process. Currently, nominees complete both background and acceptance statements when they are nominated. The elimination of the acceptance statement would reduce paperwork and administrative costs. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed amendment would benefit both large
The proposal described in Material Issue 9 would Amend § 905.7 to require handlers to register with the Committee. Currently, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Fruit and Vegetables has a registration program for handlers of Florida citrus. The Committee contracts annually with the Division to obtain information on each handler's regulated shipments, both interstate and export, on a monthly basis.
A handler registration form would serve as an efficient means for obtaining handler information that would improve communication between the Committee and handlers. It would also assist the Committee in monitoring and enforcing compliance. If a handler were to not comply with regulations in effect under the order, the Committee would have that handler's contact information on file to begin the compliance enforcement process. Moreover, if a handler failed to respond to compliance enforcement requests, the Committee could revoke a handler's registration. Without the registration, a handler would not be able to ship citrus subject to order regulation.
Witnesses stated that while a handler registration program may result in additional administrative costs, the benefits of this proposed amendment would outweigh those costs. Also, the proposal would not disproportionately disadvantage small-sized businesses as all handlers, regardless of size, would be required to register with the Committee. Furthermore, the new requirement would not result in a direct cost to handlers as the cost of administering a handler registration program would be borne by the Committee.
For these reasons, it is determined that the benefits of requiring handlers to register with the Committee would be greater than the costs.
Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence indicates that implementation of the proposals to authorize regulation of new varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit; authorize the regulation of intrastate shipments of fruit; revise the process for redistricting the production area; change the term of office and tenure requirements for Committee members; authorize mail balloting procedures for Committee membership nominations; increase the capacity of financial reserve funds; authorize pack and container requirements for intrastate shipments and authorize different regulations for different markets; eliminate the use of separate acceptance statements in the nomination process; and, require handlers to register with the Committee would improve the operation of the order and are not anticipated to impact small businesses disproportionately.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are intended to improve the operation and administration of the order and to assist in the marketing of fresh Florida citrus.
Committee meetings regarding these proposals, as well as the hearing date and location, were widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and the hearing to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. All Committee meetings and the hearing were public forums and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
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.
Current information collection requirements for Part 905 are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB Number 0581–0189—“Generic OMB Fruit Crops.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the termination of the Letter of Acceptance has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. The Letter of Acceptance has no time or cost burden associated with it due to the fact that handlers simply sign the form upon accepting nomination to the Committee. As a result, the current number of hours associated with OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops, would remain the same: 7,786.71 hours.
No other changes in these requirements are anticipated as a result of this proceeding. Should any such changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
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.
The amendments to the order proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this proposal.
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 no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
Briefs, proposed findings and conclusions, and the evidence in the record were considered in making the findings and conclusions set forth in this recommended decision. To the extent that the suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested persons are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions of this recommended decision, the requests to make such findings or to reach such conclusions are denied.
The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing agreement and order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
(1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further
(2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of fresh citrus grown in the production area (Florida) in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order upon which a hearing has been held;
(3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in its application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of fresh citrus grown in the production area; and
(5) All handling of fresh citrus grown in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because these proposed changes have already been widely publicized and the Committee and industry would like to avail themselves of the opportunity to implement the changes as soon as possible. All written exceptions received within the comment period will be considered and a grower referendum will be conducted before any of these proposals are implemented.
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Pummelos, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tangerines.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(a) Citrus sinensis, Osbeck, commonly called “oranges”;
(b) Citrus paradisi, MacFadyen, commonly called “grapefruit”;
(c) Citrus reticulata, commonly called “tangerines” or “mandarin”;
(d) Citrus maxima Merr (L.); Osbeck, commonly called “pummelo”; and,
(e) “Citrus hybrids” that are hybrids between or among one or more of the four fruits (a) through (d) of this section and the following: Trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata), sour orange (C. aurantium), lemon (C. limon), lime (C. aurantifolia), citron (C. medica), kumquat (Fortunella species), tangelo (C. reticulata x C. paradisi or C. grandis), tangor (C. reticulata x C. sinensis), and varieties of these species. In addition, citrus hybrids include: tangelo (C. reticulata x C. paradisi or C. grandis), tangor (C. reticulata x C. sinensis), Temple oranges, and varieties thereof.
(a) Oranges;
(1) Early and Midseason oranges
(2) Valencia, Lue Gim Gong, and similar late maturing oranges of the Valencia type;
(3) Navel oranges
(b) Grapefruit;
(1) Red Grapefruit, to include all shades of color
(2) White Grapefruit
(c) Tangerines and Mandarins;
(1) Dancy and similar tangerines
(2) Robinson tangerines
(3) Honey tangerines
(4) Fall-Glo tangerines
(5) US Early Pride tangerines
(6) Sunburst tangerines
(7) W-Murcott tangerines
(8) Tangors
(d) Pummelos;
(1) Hirado Buntan and other pink seeded pummelos
(2) [Reserved].
(e) Citrus Hybrids;
(1) Tangelos
(i) Orlando tangelo
(ii) Minneola tangelo
(2) Temple oranges
(f) Other varieties of citrus fruits specified in § 905.4, including hybrids, as recommended and approved by the Secretary:
The Committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, redefine the districts into which the production area is divided or reapportion or otherwise change the grower membership of districts, or both:
(a) The number of bearing trees in each district;
(b) the volume of fresh fruit produced in each district;
(c) the total number of acres of citrus in each district; and
(d) other relevant factors.
Each redistricting or reapportionment shall be announced on or prior to March 1 preceding the effective fiscal period.
The term of office of members and alternate members shall begin on the first day of August of even-numbered years and continue for two years and until their successors are selected and
(a)
(b)
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, nomination and election of members and alternate members to the Committee may be conducted by mail, electronic mail, or other means according to rules and regulations recommended by the Committee and approved by the Secretary.
Any person nominated to serve as a member or alternate member of the Committee shall, prior to selection by the Secretary, qualify by filing a written qualification and acceptance statement indicating such person's qualifications and willingness to serve in the position for which nominated.
(a) If, at the end of a fiscal period, the assessments collected are in excess of expenses incurred, the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may carry over such excess into subsequent fiscal periods as a reserve:
(a) * * *
(4) Establish, prescribe, and fix the size, capacity, weight, dimensions, marking (including labels and stamps), or pack of the container or containers which may be used in the packaging, transportation, sale, shipment, or other handling of fruit.
(5) Provide requirements that may be different for the handling of fruit within the production area, the handling of fruit for export, or for the handling of fruit between the production area and any point outside thereof within the United States.
(6) Any regulations or requirements pertaining to intrastate shipments shall not be implemented unless Florida statutes and regulations regulating such shipments are not in effect.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
This proposed rule invites comments on partially relaxing the handling requirements currently prescribed under the California table grape marketing order (order) and the table grape import regulation. The order regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California and is administered locally by the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (committee). The import regulation is authorized under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and regulates the importation of table grapes into the United States. This action would partially relax the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer packages known as clamshells weighing 5 pounds or less. Under the proposal, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but consisting of at least five berries each. This rule would provide California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs.
Comments must be received by April 2, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed 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:
Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, 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 proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, 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.”
This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including table grapes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed 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 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.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.
This proposed rule would partially relax the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for all U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in clamshell consumer packages weighing 5 pounds or less. Under the revision, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound but consisting of at least five berries each. This proposed rule would provide California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity. The committee met on November 5, 2013, and conducted an electronic vote on April 8, 2014, to unanimously recommend the partial relaxation for California desert grapes. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.
Section 925.52(a)(1) of the order provides authority to regulate the handling of any grade, size, quality, maturity, or pack of any and all varieties of grapes during the season. Section 925.53 provides authority for the committee to recommend to USDA changes to regulations issued pursuant to § 925.52. Section 925.55 specifies that when grapes are regulated pursuant to § 925.52, such grapes must be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure they meet applicable requirements.
Section 925.304(a) of the order's rules and regulations requires grapes to meet the minimum grade and size requirements of U.S. No 1 Table; or to meet all the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Institutional, except that a tolerance of 33 percent is provided for off-size bunches. The requirements for the U.S. No. 1 Table and U.S. No. 1 Institutional grades are set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type) (7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914) (Standards). To meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Table grade, grapes must have a bunch size of at least one-quarter pound.
In 2010, the order's regulations were relaxed with respect to the bunch size requirement specified in the Standards (75 FR 17031). This change permitted the use of bunch sizes smaller than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each, in packing consumer clamshell containers containing 2 pounds net weight or less. Not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers could consist of these smaller bunches. This relaxation was made to allow handlers to take advantage of a new marketing opportunity for grapes packed in small clamshell containers. Prior to the relaxation, handlers were experiencing difficulty filling these containers properly with one-quarter pound bunches; smaller bunches were needed to fill the corners of the square container configuration to achieve the desired weight.
Since the order's regulations were amended in 2010, customers nationwide have been increasingly requesting grapes in larger clamshell containers. Handlers experience difficulty properly filling these larger containers to the desired weights with one-quarter pound bunch sizes, similar to the problem they experienced with the smaller 2-pound clamshell containers. Therefore, the committee recommended that the bunch size requirement in the order's regulations pertaining to U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes be partially relaxed with respect to containers weighing 5 pounds or less. Under this proposed change, up to 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. This proposal would allow handlers to continue to respond to increased marketing opportunities. Section 925.304 (a) would be revised accordingly.
Under section 8e of the Act, minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for table grapes imported into the United States are established under Table Grape Import Regulation 4 (7 CFR 944.503) (import regulation). A relaxation in the California Desert Grape Regulation 6 minimum bunch size requirement would require a corresponding relaxation to the minimum bunch size requirement for imported table grapes. Like the domestic industry, this proposed action would allow importers the flexibility to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. Section 944.503(a)(1) would be revised accordingly.
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 approximately 15 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. In addition, there are about 102 importers of grapes. 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 whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Ten of the 15 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and committee data. Based on information from the committee and USDA's Market News Service, it is estimated that at least 10 of the 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of grape handlers regulated under the order and about ten of the producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definitions.
Mexico, Chile, and Peru are the major countries that export table grapes to the United States. According to 2013 data from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), shipments of table grapes imported into the United States from Mexico totaled 16,582,989 18-pound lugs, from Chile totaled 47,922,204 18-pound lugs, and from Peru totaled 3,519,448 18-pound lugs. According to FAS data, the value of table grapes imported from Mexico, Chile, and Peru was $332,284,000, $760,952,000, and $80,912,000, respectively, for a total value of $1,174,148,000. It is estimated that the average importer receives $11.5 million in revenue from the sale of table grapes. Based on this information, it may be concluded that the average table grape importer would not be classified as a small entity.
This proposed rule would revise § 925.304(a) of the rules and regulations of the California desert grape order and § 944.503(a)(1) of the table grape import regulation. This proposed rule would partially relax the one-quarter pound minimum bunch size requirement in the order's regulations and the import regulation for U.S. No. 1 Table grade grapes packed in consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less. Under the proposed relaxation, up to 20 percent of the weight of each package may consist of single grape clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each. Authority for the proposed change to the California desert grape rules and regulations is provided in §§ 925.52(a)(1) and 925.53. Authority for the change to the table grape import regulation is provided in section 8e of the Act.
There is agreement in the industry for the need to expand the revised minimum bunch size requirement for grapes packed in these consumer clamshell packages to allow for more packaging options.
Regarding the impact of this proposed rule on affected entities, this rule would provide both California desert grape handlers and importers with the flexibility to continue to respond to an ongoing marketing opportunity to meet consumer needs. This marketing opportunity initially existed in the 2009 season, and the minimum bunch size regulations were revised for consumer clamshell packages weighing 2 pounds or less, on a test basis. In 2011, the regulation was revised permanently for consumer clamshell packages weighing 2 pounds or less due to the positive market response. This proposal would expand the revised requirements to include larger consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less. Customers have been requesting larger sized clamshell packages, and this proposed action would enable handlers and importers to take advantage of increased market opportunities, which may result in increased shipments of consumer grape packages. This is expected to have a positive impact on producers, handlers, and importers.
No additional alternatives were considered because the 2011 revision produced the desired results, and no problems were identified. The committee believes the partial relaxation of the bunch size requirement for grapes packed in larger consumer clamshell packages was appropriate to prescribe for the 2014 and subsequent seasons.
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. 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 would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large grape handlers or importers. 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 grape industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations. Like all committee meetings, the November 5, 2013 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 proposed 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:
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because this rule, if adopted, needs to be in place as soon as possible to allow handlers to take advantage of this relaxation during the regulatory period which begins on April 10, 2015. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 925 and 944 are proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(a)
(1) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or
(2) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”
(a)(1) Pursuant to section 8e of the Act and Part 944—Fruits, Import Regulations, and except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv), the importation into the United States of any variety of Vinifera species table grapes, except Emperor, Calmeria, Almeria, and Ribier varieties, is prohibited unless such grapes meet the minimum grade and size requirements established in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (a)(2)(ii).
(i) U.S. No. 1 Table, as set forth in the United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type 7 CFR 51.880 through 51.914), with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size when packed in individual consumer clamshell packages weighing 5 pounds or less: not more than 20 percent of the weight of such containers may consist of single clusters weighing less than one-quarter pound, but with at least five berries each; or
(ii) U.S. No. 1 Institutional, with the exception of the tolerance percentage for bunch size. Such tolerance shall be 33 percent instead of 4 percent as is required to meet U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade. Grapes meeting these quality requirements may be marked “DGAC No. 1 Institutional” but shall not be marked “Institutional Pack.”
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On December 18, 2014, the Board published in the
Due to the range and complexity of the issues addressed in the proposed rulemaking, the public comment period has been extended until April 3, 2015. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on December 18, 2014 (79 FR 75473) to implement risk-based capital surcharges for U.S.-based global systemically important banking organizations is extended from March 2, 2015 to April 3, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the proposed rule.
Jordan Bleicher, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 973–6123, or Holly Kirkpatrick, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452–2796, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, or Christine Graham, Senior Attorney, (202) 452–3005, Legal Division.
On December 18, 2014, the Board published in the
The Board has received a comment letter requesting that the Board extend the comment period for the proposal.
Due to the range and complexity of the issues addressed in the proposed rulemaking, the public comment period has been extended until April 3, 2015. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Proposed rule
This proposed rule would set forth the policies and procedures of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for conducting surveys to obtain information in order to perform industry studies assessing the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. Specifically, this proposed rule would provide a description of: BIS's authority to issue surveys; the purpose for the surveys and the manner in which such surveys are developed; the confidential treatment of submitted information; and the penalties for non-compliance with surveys. This rule is intended to facilitate compliance with surveys, thereby resulting in stronger and more complete assessments of the U.S. industrial base.
Comments must be received no later than May 4, 2015.
Jason Bolton, Trade and Industry Analyst, Office of Technology Evaluation, phone: 202–482–5936 email:
Pursuant to authorities under § 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (DPA) (50 U.S.C. app. 2155) and § 104 of Executive Order 13603 of March 16, 2012 (National Defense Resources Preparedness, 77 FR 16651, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 225), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) conducts studies that assess the capabilities of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense. To produce these studies, BIS may issue surveys to collect detailed information related to the health and competitiveness of the U.S. industrial base from government sources and private individuals or organizations.
This proposed rule sets forth procedures intended to facilitate the accurate and timely completion of surveys issued by BIS to collect data for these studies. This rule sets forth in a single part of the Code of Federal Regulations the information about BIS's authority to conduct the studies, the authority to issue surveys to gather data in support of the studies, the purpose of the surveys and the manner in which such surveys are developed, the confidential treatment of submitted information, and the penalties for non-compliance with surveys.
Additionally, this rule explains BIS's procedures for verifying that the scope and purpose of the surveys are well defined, and assures that the surveys do not solicit data that duplicates adequate and authoritative data that is available to BIS from any federal or other responsible agency. A survey may require the submission of information similar or identical to information possessed by another federal agency but that is not available to BIS.
Based on requests it receives from U.S. Government agencies, BIS produces studies to develop findings and policy recommendations for the purpose of improving the competitiveness of specific domestic industries and technologies critical to meeting national defense and essential civilian requirements. These studies may require surveys to collect relevant data and assessments of that data and other information available to BIS.
BIS, in cooperation with the requesting agency, selects the persons to be surveyed based on the likelihood that they will have information relevant to a study. That likelihood is related to the person's association with the industry sector, material, product, service or technology that is the subject of the study. That association may be based on factors such as the person's role in directly or indirectly providing, producing, distributing, utilizing, procuring, researching, developing, consulting or advising on, the industry sector, material, product, service or technology that is the subject of the study.
Whether a person's association with the industry sector, material, product, service or technology being assessed is proximate or remote does not determine whether that person's association is sufficient for inclusion in the survey. For example, information about a supplier of raw materials or components that is several transactions removed from the production of the product that is the subject of a study may be relevant to assessing the capabilities of the U.S. industrial base to supply the product to support the national defense. In such a situation, the supplier would be included in the survey. The nature of the person from whom the information is sought also does not determine whether that person's association with the industry sector, material, product, service or technology at issue is sufficient for inclusion in the survey. Surveys may require information from businesses organized for profit, non-profit organizations, academic institutions and government agencies.
To be useful, a study must be comprehensive, accurate and focused on the relevant industry sector, material, product, service or technology. Therefore, surveys may require information about employment, research and development, sources of supply, manufacturing processes, customers, business strategy, finances and other factors affecting the industry's health and competitiveness. To properly focus the survey on the industry sector, material, product, service or technology being assessed, BIS may request information about a corporation as a whole or information about one or more specified units or individual activities of that corporation. The DPA provides both a civil remedy and criminal penalties that may be used when recipients of surveys do not supply the information sought.
BIS deems the information supplied in response to survey requests to be confidential and is prohibited by law from publishing or disclosing such information unless the Under Secretary for Industry and Security determines that withholding the information is contrary to the interest of the national defense. The authority to make this determination, which § 705(d) of the DPA gives to the President, has been delegated to relevant agencies, including the Secretary of Commerce, by § 802 of Executive Order 13603. The Secretary of Commerce re-delegated this authority to the Under Secretary for Industry and Security. The DPA provides criminal penalties for any person who willfully violates its prohibition on publication or disclosure.
This proposed rule would create a new part in Title 15, Chapter VII,
Section 702.1 would set forth a general description of BIS' authority to collect information needed to complete the surveys. The survey responses assist BIS in determining the capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense and to develop policy recommendations to improve both the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their ability to meet national defense needs.
Section 702.2 would implement the requirement to publish regulations found in § 705 of the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2155(a)) by requiring BIS personnel of appropriate competence and authority to ensure that before a survey is sent to any person for completion; (1) the scope and purpose of a survey have been established, (2) the scope and purpose are consistent with BIS's authorities under the DPA, and (3) the data requested by the survey does not duplicate adequate and authoritative data available to BIS from a federal or other authoritative source. A survey may require information that is similar or identical to information possessed by other federal agencies but not available to BIS. The section does not limit the factors that may be considered in deciding whether to conduct a survey nor does it modify or replace the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, all surveys are reviewed by BIS and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act before they are distributed. The OMB review process provides additional assurance that surveys are designed to collect only information deemed necessary to meet the scope and purpose of a study.
Section 702.3 would address the confidentiality requirements imposed by § 705(d) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2155(d)) and, in accordance with that section, would provide two procedures by which the restrictions on disclosure in § 705(d) would be invoked. First, consistent with its current practice, BIS would deem all information submitted in response to a survey to be confidential. Second, a person submitting a response to a survey may request confidential treatment of the information submitted. Although the second procedure is likely to be redundant of the first, the statute prohibits disclosure if either the government deems the information to be confidential or if the person furnishing the information requests confidential treatment. BIS concludes that both procedures should be included in the regulations to be consistent with the statute. Additionally, § 702.3 would note that confidential information shall not be published or disclosed unless the Under Secretary for Industry and Security determines that withholding the information is contrary to the interest of the national defense. The statutory authority of the President to make this determination has been delegated to the Under Secretary for Industry and Security. This section also repeats the penalties that the statute authorizes for persons convicted of willfully violating the prohibition on disclosure.
Section 702.4 would require timely, complete and adequate responses to surveys. Specifically, the section would require that survey responses be returned to BIS within the time frame stated on the initial distribution letter or other request for information. The section would treat a response as “inadequate” if it provides information that is not responsive to the questions asked or if it provides aggregated information when specific information was requested.
Section 702.4 would set forth the criteria by which BIS may grant either an exemption from complying with the survey requirement or an extension of time to comply. The grounds for granting an exemption or an extension are limited and generally result when BIS concludes that the survey recipient lacks information deemed relevant to the survey or when compliance with the requirement would be unduly burdensome.
Section 702.4 would make clear that the deadline for complying with a survey is not suspended by submitting a request for an exemption or extension of time to comply.
Finally, § 702.4 would provide that BIS may return responses that are incomplete or inadequate and specify a due date for a complete and adequate response.
Section 702.5 would set forth the consequences of failure to comply with a survey or other request for information. These consequences are established by § 705(a) and (c) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2155(a) and (c)). If a person does not comply with a survey, BIS may serve a subpoena upon that person to compel compliance. If the person still does not comply, the government may apply to the U.S. district court in any district in which the person is found, resides or transacts business for an order requiring such person to comply. The district court has authority to punish any failure to comply with the order as contempt of court. Persons who are convicted of willfully failing to comply with a survey or other request for information may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Section 702.6 would define certain terms used in part 702.
The word “confidential” would be defined in terms of § 705(d) of the DPA, thereby distinguishing its use in this rule from its use in connection with the classification of information for national security purposes as set forth in Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, Classified National Security Information (75 FR 707; 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298).
The definition of the term “person” would be based on the definition of “person” in § 702 of the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2152) with some additions. The DPA definition reads: “The term `person' includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons, or legal successor or representative thereof, or any State or local government or agency thereof.” Use of the word “includes” in the statutory definition implies that the list following that word is not exhaustive. BIS concludes that the use of “includes” indicates that Congress recognized that the agency implementing the DPA would need discretion to identify the types of entities that would likely possess information relevant to the subject of each industrial base assessment to ensure a comprehensive collection of information.
This proposed rule would add “The Government of the United States, of the District of Columbia, of any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, or any department, agency or commission thereof.” BIS has concluded that inclusion of the
Based on prior studies, BIS has observed that the U.S. Government makes a significant contribution to the industrial base, whether in research, technology development, testing, manufacturing, repair and overhaul, or trade development. As a result, the U.S. Government is a significant source of information regarding the industrial base. Similarly, it is plausible that the District of Columbia, commonwealths of the United States and other territories and agencies can be survey respondents, and therefore have been included to ensure the completeness of a survey sample and corresponding assessment.
The regulatory definition also would make clear that the term “corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons” is not limited to commercial, for-profit enterprises or publicly traded corporations.
The definitions of the terms “initial distribution letter” and “survey” each describe a document used in the data collection process. The definitions describe those documents based on the way they are used in current BIS practice.
Supplement No. 1 to part 702 would provide information that BIS believes would be helpful to persons who receive a survey. This information includes both a description of the survey and a glossary of terms.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, as that term is defined in of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule would set forth, in a single part of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Department of Commerce's authority under § 705 of the DPA “to obtain information in order to perform industry studies assessing the capabilities of the United States industrial base to support the national defense.” Since the mid-1980s, BIS and its predecessor organizations within the Department of Commerce have conducted such studies and required survey responses based on the statute. Section 705 of the DPA authorizes the collection of the information. The statute also authorizes the issuance of subpoenas for the information and authorizes the United States district courts to issue orders compelling compliance with such subpoenas. It also provides criminal penalties for failure to comply with the government's requests for information. This proposed rule would not require any person to supply information that the person would not be required to provide pursuant to the statute.
This proposed rule would require that surveys issued by BIS pursuant to § 705 be responded to by the deadline set forth in the survey. The rule would publicly state BIS's existing internal policies and standards for the granting of both an extension of time to comply with the requirement and exemptions from compliance. To the extent that publication of these policies and standards in the Code of Federal Regulations could be construed as a change in the burden on small entities or any other entities, the publication would have to be deemed as a reduction in burden because it facilitates access to the standards by all parties.
This proposed rule also would set forth the statutory standards for treating information submitted in response to a survey as confidential. It would reiterate the statutory penalties for failure to comply with a survey and for unauthorized release of information that § 705 requires to be treated as confidential.
This proposed rule would adopt the statutory definition of “person” but also add “[t]he Government of the United States, of the District of Columbia, of any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, or any department, agency or commission thereof” to the definition. The term “person” is used in the statute and in this proposed rule to represent those to whom the requirements of the statute and this proposed rule apply. BIS has historically interpreted the statute to apply to units of the U.S. Government (including the District of Columbia Government and the governments of the territories and possessions) and does not view this as a substantive change. For purposes of this certification, the addition is immaterial because the government bodies that would be added to the statutory definition by this proposed rule are not small entities under the definition provided in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Surveys are one-time exercises used to assess the state and/or capabilities of a particular industry sector or technology. Entities are selected for participation based on their role in, or relationship to, the industry sector or
Although BIS cannot predict the exact number of small entities that will be participating in any one survey, this rule would not impose a significant burden on any such small entities because it would not require any impacted entity to perform any action that it is not already required to perform pursuant to § 705 of the DPA.
Business and industry, Confidential business information, Employment, Penalties, National defense, Research, Science and technology.
Accordingly, the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter A) is proposed to be amended as follows.
50 U.S.C. app. 2061
In accordance with 50 U.S.C. app. 2155, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may obtain such information from, require such reports and the keeping of such records by, make an inspection of the books, records, and other writings, premises or property of, take the sworn testimony of and administer oaths and affirmations to, any person as may be necessary or appropriate, in its discretion, to the enforcement or the administration of its authorities and responsibilities under the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (DPA) and any regulations or orders issued thereunder. BIS's authorities under the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2061
(a) BIS will not send any survey to any person for completion unless the scope and purpose of the survey have been established, that scope and purpose are consistent with BIS's authorities under the DPA, and the data requested by the survey does not duplicate adequate and authoritative data already available to BIS from a Federal or other authoritative source.
(b) BIS personnel of appropriate competence and authority will ensure that the requirements of paragraph (a) are met.
(c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the criteria that BIS may consider in determining whether to proceed with a survey. This paragraph shall not be construed as replacing or in any way modifying the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This section implements § 705(d) of the DPA.
(a) BIS deems all information submitted in response to a survey issued pursuant to this part to be confidential.
(b) Any person submitting information in response to a survey issued pursuant to this part may request confidential treatment of that information.
(c) The President's authority under the DPA to protect confidential information has been delegated to the Under Secretary for Industry and Security. The information described in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not be published or disclosed unless the Under Secretary for Industry and Security determines that the withholding thereof is contrary to the interest of the national defense.
(d) Any person convicted of willfully violating the prohibition in paragraph (c) may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(a)
(b)
(i) Has no physical presence in the United States of any kind;
(ii) Does not provide, produce, distribute, utilize, procure, research, develop, consult or advise on, or have any other direct or indirect association with the materials, products, services or technology that are within the scope of the survey;
(iii) Has ceased business operations more than 12 months prior to receipt of the survey;
(iv) Has been in business for less than one year; or
(v) BIS determines that extenuating circumstances exist that make responding impractical.
(2) BIS may also grant an exemption if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it concludes that compliance would be impractical and/or that requiring compliance would be unduly time intensive.
(3) Existence of a pre-existing private non-disclosure agreement or information sharing agreement between a person and another party (
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
The definitions in this section apply throughout this part.
(b) Any State or local government or agency thereof;
(c) The Government of the United States, of the District of Columbia, of any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, or any department, agency or commission thereof.
This supplement provides general information about surveys and the content of the typical survey. The content of this supplement is purely in example of a typical survey, and in no way limits the content that may appear in a specific Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)-issued survey. Procedures and content vary from survey to survey, and as such, there is no set template to follow. Nonetheless, BIS is offering this information as a basic guide to some elements of a survey.
Most surveys include the following sections: Cover Page; Table of Contents; General Instructions; Glossary of Terms; Organizational Information, and sector-specific sections.
In addition to the aforementioned sections, each survey contains sections tailored to the specific scope of the study, including but not limited to Facility Locations, Products and Services, Inventories, Suppliers and Customers, Challenges and Organizational Outlook, Employment, Operations, Financial Statements, Sales, Research and Development, and Capital Expenditures.
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 22,820-acre “Los Olivos District” viticultural area in Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the Santa Ynez Valley viticultural area and the larger, multicounty Central Coast 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 May 4, 2015.
Please send your comments on this document to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this document for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or request 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 define viticultural areas and sets out requirements for 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 to TTB 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 (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) 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
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from C. Frederic Brander, owner and winemaker of the Brander Vineyard, proposing the establishment of the approximately 22,820-acre “Los Olivos District” AVA in Santa Barbara County, California. There are 12 bonded wineries and approximately 47 commercially producing vineyards covering a total of 1,120 acres within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA include its topography, soils, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Los Olivos District AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Los Olivos District AVA includes the towns of Los Olivos, Solvang, Ballard, and Santa Ynez. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the Santa Ynez Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.54), which, in turn, lies within the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75). The proposed Los Olivos District AVA shares its western boundary with the eastern boundary of the Ballard Canyon AVA (27 CFR 9.230) and its eastern boundary with the western boundary of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA (27 CR 9.217), but it does not overlap either of these AVAs.
In the late 1800s, Alden March Boyd purchased land in Santa Barbara County and planted a 5,000-tree olive grove he named “Rancho Los Olivos.” The community that grew up nearby took the name “Los Olivos,” after Boyd's ranch. The proposed Los Olivos District AVA takes its name from the ranch and the town, both of which are located within the boundaries of the proposed AVA. The town and the ranch appear on the USGS Los Olivos quadrangle map. The town of Los Olivos also appears on a road map of Santa Barbara County, published by the American Automobile Association, which was included with the petition.
Name evidence for the proposed AVA is supported by the fact that several businesses use the moniker “Los Olivos” in their names, including the Los Olivos Grand Hotel, the Gallery Los Olivos, the Los Olivos Café, and the Los Olivos Grocery. Additionally, several public institutions that serve residents within the proposed AVA use the name “Los Olivos,” including the Los Olivos Library, the Los Olivos Post Office, and the Los Olivos Elementary School.
The boundary of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA separates the low, relatively flat plain that comprises the proposed AVA from the higher elevations and more rugged and mountainous terrain that surround the proposed AVA in all directions. The northern portion of the proposed boundary follows the 1,000-foot elevation contour through the lower foothills of the San Rafael Mountains and approximates the point above which marine fog does not reach. The eastern portion of the proposed boundary follows straight lines drawn between points shown on the USGS maps and separates the proposed AVA from the canyon lands of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA. The southern portion of the proposed boundary follows the Santa Ynez River and separates the proposed AVA from the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest. The western portion of the proposed boundary follows several roads and straight lines drawn between points on the USGS maps and separates the proposed AVA from the canyon lands of the Ballard Canyon AVA to the west.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA include its topography, soils, and climate.
According to the petition, the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located on the only broad alluvial terrace plain of the Santa Ynez River. The topography of the proposed AVA is relatively uniform, with nearly flat terrain that gently slopes downward to the south. Elevations within the AVA range from approximately 400 feet in the southern portion of the proposed AVA, along the Santa Ynez River, to 1,000 feet in the northern portion, in the foothills of the San Rafael Mountains.
The petition discusses the benefits that the relatively flat, uniform topography of the proposed AVA has for viticulture. The lack of steeply sloped terrain minimizes the risk of erosion, allows vineyard owners more options to space vines and orient rows, and facilitates mechanical harvesting and tilling. The flat, open terrain also allows vineyards within the proposed AVA to receive uniform amounts of sunlight, rainfall, and temperature-moderating fog because there are no significant hills or mountains within the proposed AVA to block the rainfall and fog or to shade the vineyards.
The proposed Los Olivos District is surrounded by higher elevations and mountainous terrain in all directions. To the north are the San Rafael Mountains, with steep slopes and elevations reaching over 2,000 feet. To the east is the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA, which is marked by steeper terrain, rolling hills, and canyons. Elevations within the portion of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA immediately adjacent to the proposed AVA reach heights of 1,600 feet. To the south of the proposed AVA are the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest, which have elevations reaching over 3,000 feet and steep, rugged terrain unsuitable for commercial viticulture. To the west of the proposed AVA is the Ballard Canyon AVA, which has rolling hills, maze-like canyons, and elevations reaching 1,200 feet.
Over 95 percent of the soils within the proposed Los Olivos District AVA are from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez soil association and are derived from alluvium, including Orcutt sand and terrace deposits. The soils are moderately to well-drained gravelly fine sandy loams and clay loams with low to moderate fertility.
According to the petition, the soils found in the proposed Los Olivos District AVA are well-suited for viticulture. The soils drain well enough that the vines are not susceptible to root disease and chlorosis but do not drain so excessively as to require frequent irrigation. Soil nutrient levels within the proposed AVA are adequate to produce healthy vines and fruit without promoting excessive growth. Finally, the uniformity of the soils throughout the proposed Los Olivos District AVA results in a greater consistency in growing conditions for vineyards than is found in regions with greater soil variations.
To the north of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA, within the San Rafael Mountains, approximately 95 percent of the soils are of the Chamise-Arnold-Crow Hill association, which is described as well-drained to excessively drained and very low to moderately fertile. To the east and south of the proposed AVA, the soils are more diverse. Within the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA, to the east of the proposed AVA, approximately 40 percent of the soils are from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez association. The
Within the Central Coast AVA, where the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located, temperatures are affected by cooling marine fog. Locations close to the Pacific Ocean have heavy marine fog, while locations farther inland, such as the proposed AVA, receive less fog. In general, marine fog contributes to cool daytime temperatures and warm nighttime temperatures. Because the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located about 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, much of the marine fog has diminished by the time it reaches the proposed AVA in the late afternoon. However, enough fog remains to moderate the evening and nighttime temperatures. Due to the flat, open topography, the fog circulates freely throughout the entire proposed AVA.
In locations where fog is present throughout most of the day, the difference between the daily high and daily low temperatures (diurnal temperature variation) is usually smaller than in regions where fog is less prevalent because fog lowers the daytime temperatures and warms the nighttime temperatures. The following table shows the average monthly diurnal temperature variation during the growing season measured at weather stations in the proposed Los Olivos District AVA and in regions to the east and west. Data was not available for locations to the north and south of the proposed AVA.
The
According to the petition, diurnal temperature variations during the growing season affect viticulture. Warm daytime temperatures encourage fruit maturation and sugar production, and cool nighttime temperatures minimize acid loss. Therefore, grapes in regions with large diurnal temperature variations ripen faster and have higher levels of sugar and acid than regions with smaller diurnal temperature variations. Additionally, because regions with large diurnal temperature variations generally have less fog, grapes in those regions are not at as great a risk of mildew or fungal diseases as areas with heavier fog and smaller diurnal temperature variations.
The petition also included a summary of growing degree day (GDD) data
The data shows that the proposed Los Olivos District AVA has more growing degree days than the region to the immediate west and fewer than the regions to the north and east. According to the petition, GDD accumulation influences the grape varietals grown in a region. Warm regions typically grow Bordeaux and Rhone varietals, such as cabernet sauvignon and syrah, both of which are commonly grown within the proposed AVA. Additionally, warm temperatures promote vigorous vine growth and large leaf canopies, which affect decisions on row spacing, trellis design, pruning, and canopy management.
In summary, the topography, soils, and climate of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The proposed AVA is located on a broad alluvial plain. The terrain is open and flat, which reduces the risk of erosion and allows for the use of mechanized harvesting and tilling equipment in the vineyards. The open terrain also allows thin marine fog to circulate freely through the proposed AVA. The fog moderates temperatures, preventing the grapes from developing levels of sugars and acids that are too high. The moderate temperatures allow for a growing degree day accumulation that is high enough to grow warm climate varietals, including cabernet sauvignon and syrah. Finally, the soils within the proposed AVA are moderately drained to well-drained and have low to moderate fertility levels. As a result, vines are at a low risk for root disease or excessive growth, and vineyards do not require frequent irrigation.
To the north, the high elevations of the San Rafael Mountains are above the fog line, and the terrain is higher, steeper, and more susceptible to erosion than the flat, gently sloping terrain of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA. To the east, the canyons and steeper terrain of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA prevent marine fog from entering the AVA, resulting in higher GDD accumulations than within the proposed AVA. Additionally, the steepness of the terrain makes mechanized harvesting and tilling less practical than within the proposed AVA. To the south, the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest have high, rugged, steep terrain and rocky soils, making the region less suitable for viticulture than the proposed AVA. To the west, the Ballard Canyon AVA has rolling hills and maze-like canyons that block much of the marine fog from entering, resulting in greater average diurnal temperature variations than within the proposed AVA.
The Santa Ynez Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF–132, which was published in the
The proposed Los Olivos District AVA is located at the center of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA and shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. Like much of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, the proposed Los Olivos District AVA receives some marine fog from the Pacific Ocean. However, due to its central location, the proposed AVA is warmer than regions within the western portion of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA (such as the Sta. Rita Hills AVA) and cooler than regions within the eastern portion (such as the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA). The fairly level alluvial plain topography of the proposed AVA is more uniform than the topography of the larger Santa Ynez Valley AVA, which also includes mountains and canyons. In contrast to the varied soils of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, the proposed Los Olivos District AVA soils are predominately from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez association.
The large, 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF–216, which was published in the
The proposed Los Olivos District AVA, located within Santa Barbara County, is also located within the Central Coast AVA. Marine fog, which is the primary characteristic of the Central Coast AVA, is present within
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 22,820-acre Los Olivos District AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document 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.
TTB notes that although narrative descriptions of AVA boundaries usually follow a clockwise direction, the proposed Los Olivos District AVA boundary description follows a counterclockwise direction in order to align the proposed eastern boundary more easily with the western boundary of the established Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA.
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 or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, 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 or other viticulturally significant term and that name or term appears in the brand 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 or other viticulturally significant term 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 or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Los Olivos District,” 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 also believes that the term “Los Olivos,” standing alone, has viticultural significance, as this name appears to be primarily associated with the grape-growing and wine-producing region of the proposed AVA. Therefore, if TTB establishes this proposed AVA, the term “Los Olivos” also 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 “Los Olivos District” or “Los Olivos” 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 Los Olivos District AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Central Coast” or “Santa Ynez Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Central Coast AVA or Santa Ynez Valley would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA would allow vintners to use “Los Olivos District,” “Santa Ynez Valley,” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Los Olivos District AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed 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. In addition, given the proposed Los Olivos District AVA's location within the existing Central Coast AVA and Santa Ynez Valley AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing Central Coast AVA and Santa Ynez Valley AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Central Coast AVA and Santa Ynez Valley AVA that the proposed Los Olivos District AVA should no longer be part of those AVAs. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Los Olivos District AVA on wine labels that include the term “Los Olivos District” or “Los Olivos” 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 document by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in the
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 document, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB–2015–0004 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
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 document, 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, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Los Olivos, CA, 1995;
(2) Zaca Creek, Calif., 1959;
(3) Solvang, CA, 1995; and
(4) Santa Ynez, CA, 1995.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Los Olivos map at the intersection of Foxen Canyon Road with California State Road 154 (known locally as San Marcos Pass Road/Chumash Highway), section 23, T7N/R31W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.3 mile, crossing onto the Zaca Creek map, to the intersection of Ballard Canyon Road and an unnamed, unimproved road known locally as Los Olivos Meadows Drive, T7N/R31W; then
(3) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line approximately 1 mile, crossing onto the Los Olivos map, to a marked, unnamed structure within a circular-shaped 920-foot contour line in the southwest corner of section 26, T7N/R31W; then
(4) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.25 miles, crossing onto the Zaca Creek map, to the point marked by the “Ball” 801-foot elevation control point, T6N/R31W; then
(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.45 miles, crossing onto the Solvang map, to a marked, unnamed 775-foot peak, T6N/R31W; then
(6) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.55 mile to a marked communication tower located within the 760-foot contour line, T6N/R31W; then
(7) Proceed south in a straight line approximately 0.6 mile to the intersection of Chalk Hill Road with an unnamed creek descending from Adobe Canyon, northwest of the unnamed road known locally as Fredensborg Canyon Road, T6N/R31W; then
(8) Proceed southwesterly (downstream) along the creek approximately 1 mile to the creek's intersection with the Santa Ynez River, T6N/R31W; then
(9) Proceed easterly (upstream) along the Santa Ynez River approximately 8 miles, crossing onto the Santa Ynez map, to the river's intersection with State Highway 154, T6N/R30W; then
(10) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line approximately 1.2 miles to the marked 924-foot elevation point, T6R/R30W; then
(11) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line 1.2 miles to the “Y” in an unimproved road 0.1 mile south of the 800-foot contour line, west of Happy Canyon Road, T6R/R30W; then
(12) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Los Olivos map, and continuing approximately 2.3 miles to the third intersection of the line with the 1,000-foot contour line northwest of BM 812, T7N/R30W; then
(13) Proceed westerly along the meandering 1,000-foot contour line to the contour line's intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road, an unnamed light-duty road, and the northern boundary line of section 23, T7N/R31W; then
(14) Proceed northerly, then westerly, along the unnamed, unimproved road to Figueroa Mountain Road, near the marked 895-foot elevation, T7N/R31W; then
(15) Proceed north on Figueroa Mountain Road approximately 400 feet to the 920-foot contour line, T7N/R31W; then
(16) Proceed initially south, then northeasterly along the meandering 920-foot contour line, crossing onto the Zaca Creek map, to Foxen Canyon Road, T7N/R31W; then
(17) Proceed southeasterly on Foxen Canyon Road approximately 1.7 miles, crossing onto the Los Olivos map, returning to the beginning point.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
EPA issued a proposed rule in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 845) is extended. Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0760 must be received on or before April 23, 2015.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for comments.
The Coast Guard seeks public comment on whether to increase the period of validity for renewing endorsements on Certificates of Documentation. A separate fee of $26 for annual renewals of endorsements upon the Certificate of Documentation was established in a recent rulemaking. The Coast Guard is considering options for implementing multiyear renewals and updating the fee for services, and seeks information on factors to consider when implementing these changes.
Comments and related material must either be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2010–0990 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions about this document, call or email Ms. Mary Jager, CG–DCO–832, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1331, email
We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the possibility of extending the period of validity and modifying the fee for renewal on endorsements on the Certificate of Documentation (COD). We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG–2010–0990 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8
Documents mentioned in this request for comments, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
On August 12, 2014, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled “Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees” in the
The Coast Guard received 2,720 comment submissions on the proposed fees published on March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14053). Comments were received from individuals, law firms, commercial vessel documentation services, industry groups, and maritime corporations. We considered all comments in promulgating the final rule. The Coast Guard received 1,316 comments regarding the implementation of the new fee. The majority of these comments (757 comments) suggested the Coast Guard institute a multiyear renewal option program. We made no changes to the final rule. However, we are now seeking public comments in considering options that could be proposed in a future rulemaking. This document provides the public with an opportunity to continue this discussion.
The legal basis for charging fees for this service is found in section 10401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388), codified at 46 U.S.C. 2110, which requires that the Coast Guard establish user fees for Coast Guard vessel documentation services. That section provides that the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating (Secretary) shall establish a fee or charge for a service or thing of value that is provided to the recipient or user of that service. The Secretary is empowered in 46 U.S.C. 2104 to delegate the authorities in 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II to the Coast Guard. The Secretary exercised that delegation's authority for fees in Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(a).
In establishing these fees, we are required to use the criteria found in 31 U.S.C. 9701. Under this provision the fees must be fair, and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, and the public policy or interest served (see 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)). One of the vessel documentation services the Coast Guard provides, and for which user fees are required under 46 U.S.C. 2110, is renewal of endorsements upon a COD. A COD is (1) required for the operation of a vessel in certain trades, (2) serves as evidence of vessel nationality, and (3) permits owners of vessels to benefit from preferred mortgages (46 CFR 67.1). An endorsement means an entry that may be made on a COD, and, except for a recreational endorsement, is conclusive evidence that a vessel is entitled to engage in a specified trade (46 CFR 67.3).
The Coast Guard sets fees at an amount calculated to achieve recovery of the costs of providing the service, in a manner consistent with the general user charges principles set out in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–25. Under that OMB Circular, each recipient should pay a reasonable user charge for Federal Government services, resources, or goods from which he or she derives a special benefit. The user fee should be at an amount sufficient for the Federal Government to recover the full costs of providing the service, resource, or good (see OMB Circular A–25, sec. 6(a)(2)(a)).
After reviewing the comments to the proposed rule, the Coast Guard is seeking comment on whether it should consider extending the period of validity and modifying the fee for renewal on endorsements on the COD.
Through this document, the Coast Guard asks for comments and information to consider in updating renewal of endorsements on COD processes and fees. Please consider the following questions when preparing comments:
1. Would you prefer a multiyear renewal program with fees charged at the time of renewal, or would you prefer to continue annual renewals including an annual fee for service? Please explain why you prefer the renewal period and its fee payment schedule.
2. Would you prefer having the option of choosing a multiyear or annual renewal each time you renew? Please explain why you prefer the option that you chose.
If the only option for renewal is multiyear, how would you suggest the annual renewal is phased over to a multiyear renewal?
3. Would you prefer a multiyear renewal program that requires payment every other year, or one that requires payment every 3 years? Please explain why you chose this option.
4. What are the benefits of a multiyear renewal?
5. Are there any negative impacts of a multiyear renewal?
6. What, if any, concerns would you need to have addressed prior to selecting the multiyear renewal option?
7. What are the impacts to mortgages from multiyear information verification and COD renewal? Will lenders require additional information from the National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC) to manage loans?
8. What period of renewal is best for mortgage lenders?
9. What other suggestions do you have for reducing the burden of obtaining a COD?
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the African coelacanth (
Comments on our proposed rule to list the coelacanth must be received by May 4, 2015. Public hearing requests must be made by April 17, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0024, by either of the following methods:
•
•
You can obtain the petition, status review report, the proposed rule, and the list of references electronically on our NMFS Web site at
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, (301) 427–8469.
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This petition included species from many different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day findings in batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 27 of the 81 species and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). This document addresses the findings for one of those 27 species: The African coelacanth
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under
NMFS and the USFWS recently published a policy to clarify the interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of the range” (SPR) in the ESA definitions of “threatened” and “endangered” (76 FR 37577; July 01, 2014). The policy consists of the following four components:
(1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened in only an SPR, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the ESA's protections apply across the species' entire range.
(2) A portion of the range of a species is “significant” if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
(3) The range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time USFWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination. This range includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if they are not used regularly (
(4) If a species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range but is endangered or threatened within an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
We considered this policy in evaluating whether to list the coelacanth as endangered or threatened under the ESA.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)).
In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status review for the species, we complete a status and extinction risk assessment across the range of the species. In assessing extinction risk, we consider the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany
We then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species. We also evaluate conservation efforts that have not yet been fully implemented or shown to be effective using the criteria outlined in the joint NMFS/USFWS Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), to determine their certainty of implementation and effectiveness. The PECE is designed to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of whether any conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented, but not yet demonstrated to be effective, will result in improving the status of the species to the point at which listing is not warranted or contribute to forming the basis for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered. The two basic criteria established by the PECE are: (1) The certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented; and (2) the certainty that the efforts will be effective. We consider these criteria, as applicable, below. We re-assess the extinction risk of the species in light of the existing conservation efforts.
If we determine that a species warrants listing as threatened or endangered, we publish a proposed rule in the
We conducted a status review for the petitioned species addressed in this finding (Whittaker, 2014), which compiled information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. We also considered information submitted by the public in response to our petition finding. The draft status review report was also submitted to independent peer reviewers; comments and information received from peer reviewers were addressed and incorporated as appropriate before finalizing the draft report.
The status review report provides a thorough discussion of demographic risks and threats to the particular species. We considered all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to determine whether the species should reasonably be expected to respond to the threats in a way that causes actual impacts at the species level. The collective condition of individual populations was also considered at the species level, according to the four demographic viability factors discussed above.
The status review report is available on our Web site (see
The coelacanth has a number of unique morphological features. Most obvious are its stalked dorsal, pelvic, anal, and caudal fins. In the water, under camera observation, the body of the fish appears iridescent dark blue, but its natural color is brown (Hissman pers. com.); individuals have white blotches on their bodies that have been used for identification in the field. When individuals die, their color shifts from blue to brown. The name “coelacanth” comes from the Greek words for `hollow' and `spine,' referring to the fish's hollow oil-filled notochord, which supports the dorsal and ventral caudal fin rays (Balon
The natural range of the African coelacanth
The coelacanth is known to inhabit waters deeper than 100m, making surveys difficult and reliant upon sophisticated technology including submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), or highly-trained divers using special gas mixtures. To date, the best data addressing coelacanth habitat use come from
South African coelacanth habitat has also been studied, although to a lesser extent than in the Comoro Islands (Venter
Habitat off of Tanzania consists of rocky terraces occurring between 70–140 m depth; the water temperature at coelacanth catch depths is around 20 °C (Nyandwi, 2009). A large number (n = 19) of Tanzanian coelacanths have been caught in the outer reefs near the village of Tanga. In this region, some coelacanth catches have been reported to occur at 50–60 m; however, the validity of these reports is questionable (Benno
Coelacanths demonstrate strong site fidelity with relatively large overlapping home ranges, greater than 8 km, as demonstrated at Comoro and South African sites where expeditions have tracked individual movements using ultrasonic transmitters (Fricke
Temperature use for the Comoran coelacanth, based on survey observations, was found to be between 16.5 and 22.8 °C (Fricke
It is thought that sedimentation and siltation act as a negative influence on coelacanth distribution. This is supported by a hypothesis surrounding
Coelacanths are considered ovoviviparous, meaning the embryos are provided a yolk sac and develop inside the adult female until they are delivered as live births; coelacanth embryos are not surrounded by a solid shell. Embryos remain in gestation for 3 years; this period of embryogenesis has been determined by scale rings of embryo and newborn coelacanth specimens (Froese
Coelacanths are extremely slow drift-hunters. They descend at least 50 to 100 m below their daytime habitat to feed at night on the bottom or near-bottom, and are thought to consume deep-water prey, or prey found at the bottom of the ocean (Uyeno
It was once thought that coelacanths were restricted to the Comoro Island Archipelago, and that individuals caught in other locations in the Western Indian Ocean were strays. However, growing evidence suggests that
Insufficient data exist to quantitatively estimate coelacanth population abundance or trends over time for the majority of its range. Population abundance estimates are greatly challenged by sampling and survey conditions wherein deep technical scuba or submersibles are necessary to reach and document the coelacanth in its natural habitat.
Quantitative estimates of coelacanth abundance have been made only for the Comoro Islands. Coelacanth population abundance estimates for the western coastline of Grand Comoro were initially made in the late 1980s by Fricke
Across the coelacanth's range, juveniles (<100 cm) are largely absent from survey and catch data, suggesting that earlier life stages may exhibit differences in distribution and habitat use (Fricke
Population estimates have not been conducted in other parts of the coelacanth's range, and it is possible that undiscovered populations exist across the Western Indian Ocean because coelacanths have been caught (in low numbers) off the coast of Madagascar, Kenya and Mozambique. Based on current understanding, coelacanth habitat and distribution is determined by the species' need for cool water and structurally complex caves and shelf overhangs for refuge. Using these requirements, Green
Genetic data on coelacanth population structure are limited and known distribution of coelacanth populations is potentially biased by targeted survey efforts and fishery catch data. However, recent whole-genome sequencing and genetic data available for multiple coelacanth specimens can be used to cautiously infer some patterns of population structure and connectivity across the coelacanth's known range (Nikaido
Significant genetic divergence at the species level has been demonstrated to exist between
Intraspecific population structure has been examined using
All coelacanth populations demonstrate the common characteristic of low diversity, but the Comoros population is the least diverse (Nikaido
While population structure is not clearly resolved across the region, available genetic data suggest the following: (1) Oceanographic and environmental conditions may cause uneven gene flow among coelacanth populations across the region; (2) populations across the Western Indian Ocean are independent, and do not represent strays from the Comoros, or a panmictic population (or a population in which all individuals are potential mates); (3) Evolutionary rates of coelacanths are extremely slow, and lower diversity in
Available information regarding current, historical, and potential threats to the coelacanth was thoroughly reviewed (Whittaker, 2014). Across the species' range, we found the threats to the species to be generally low, with isolated threats of overutilization through bycatch and habitat loss in portions of its range. Other possible threats include climate change, overutilization via the curio trade, and habitat degradation in the form of pollution; however, across the species' full range we classify these threats as low. We summarize information regarding each of these threats below according to the factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information does not indicate that neither disease nor predation is operative threats on this species; therefore, we do not discuss those further here. See Whittaker (2014) for additional discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
There is no evidence curtailment of the historical range of
Due to its occurrence in deep water (>100 meters), the coelacanth may be particularly buffered from human disturbance (Heemstra
Human population growth will likely lead to increases in agricultural production, industrial development, and water use along the coast of the Western Indian Ocean; these land use changes may increase near shore sedimentation, possibly affecting coelacanth habitat. As described earlier, sedimentation is theorized to negatively impact coelacanth distribution (Springer, 1999). The coelacanth has been shown to avoid caves with turbid water, even if other preferred conditions of shelter and food are present (Hissmann
Pollution of coastal African waters does not currently pose a direct threat to the coelacanth. A review of heavy metals in aquatic ecosystems of Africa showed generally low concentrations, close to background levels, and much lower than more industrial regions of the world (Biney
Direct habitat destruction is likely to impact coelacanths off the coast of Tanga, Tanzania. Plans are in place to build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani Bay, 8 km south of the original Tanga Port. The construction of the Mwambani port is part of a large project to develop an alternative sea route for Uganda and other land-locked countries that have been depending on the port of Mombasa. Development of the port would include submarine blasting and channel dredging and destruction of known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity of Yambe and Karange islands—the site of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth catches (Hamlin, 2014). The new port is scheduled to be built in the middle of a newly-implemented Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park. The plans for Mwambani Bay's deep-sea port construction appear to be ongoing, despite conservation concerns. If built, the port would likely disrupt coelacanth habitat by direct elimination of deep-water shelters, or by a large influx of siltation that would likely result in coelacanth displacement.
Habitat destruction in the form of nearshore dynamite fishing on coral reefs may indirectly impact the coelacanth due to a reduction in prey availability, but these impacts are highly uncertain. As a restricted shallow-water activity, this destructive fishing would not impact the coelacanth's deep (+100 m) habitat directly. However, coral reefs in this region provide essential fish nursery habitat and are hot spots for biodiversity (Salm, 1983). Loss of nearshore coral habitat may negatively impact pelagic fish species due to loss of nursery habitat; it is highly uncertain how these impacts may affect the prey availability for the coelacanth. Dynamite fishing in the Comoros was observed recently by researchers (Fricke
Since its discovery in 1938, all known coelacanth catches are considered to have been the result of bycatch. Particularly in the Comoro Islands, where the highest number of coelacanth catches has occurred, researchers have found no evidence of a targeted coelacanth fishery given that methods do not exist to directly catch the deep-dwelling fish (Bruton
Out of 294 coelacanth catches since its 1939 discovery, the majority of catches (n = 215 as of 2011) have been a result of bycatch in the oilfish, or
Since its discovery in the Comoros (in 1938), coelacanth catch rate has been very low, between 2–4 individuals per year. Coelacanth catch rate in the Comoros shows no significant trend over time; however, it has fluctuated historically with changes in fishing technology and shifts in the ratio between artisanal and more modern pelagic fishing methods (Stobbs
Outside of the Comoros, coelacanths have been caught in Tanzania, Madagascar, Mozambique, Kenya, and South Africa (Nulens
Expansion of the shark gillnet fishery across the Western Indian Ocean may result in increased bycatch of the coelacanth, as has been observed off the coast of Tanzania, but the potential for such an increase is uncertain. Available information suggests that shark fishing effort has been increasing off the coast of east Africa, including the coelacanth range countries of Mozambique, Madagascar, Kenya, and South Africa (Smale, 2008). Techniques for catching sharks in this region include deep-set shark gillnets, such as those responsible for the commencement of coelacanth bycatch in Tanzania in 2003 (Nulins
The coelacanth is not desirable commercially as a traditional food source or for artisanal handicrafts. Targeted methods of fishing the coelacanth have never been developed, and local cultures do not value the coelacanth commercially or for subsistence purposes (Fricke, 1998).
In the Comoros, the coelacanth has become a source of pride and national heritage (Fricke, 1998). However, cultural interest in the coelacanth does not put the fish at risk, and on the contrary, may encourage its conservation. Commercial interest through tourism to the coelacanth's habitat is not a realistic threat either, as the deepwater habitat is largely inaccessible. In the 1980s there was a rumor that Japanese scientists were attempting to develop a new anti-aging serum using the coelacanth notochord oil. Although these claims made international headlines, the rumor has since been rejected. As Fricke pointed out (Fricke, 1998), the unsubstantiated rumor of the `fountain of youth' serum had an unexpected result of stirring publicity and conservation interest in the fish. Interest in the coelacanth notochord oil for medicinal purposes does not pose a threat to the species, as claims of its life extending properties are unsubstantiated.
Interest in coelacanth specimens on the black market is a possible threat to the species. The concern mostly surrounds a curio trade rather than a potential aquarium trade. Because the fish is deep-water dependent, it survives for only a short period of time at the surface, and thus far, is not maintained in aquariums. Several attempts have been made to keep the coelacanth alive in captivity, but these attempts have demonstrated that the deep water fish is fragile and that it has been shown to survive at the surface for less than 10 hours (Hughes
Since discovery of the species in 1938, international scientists and researchers have cherished the coelacanth as the only representative of an important evolutionary branch in the tree of life. This has led to a long history of surveys to better understand the fish's ecology, habitat, distribution, and evolution. A tissue library from bycaught specimens is maintained at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, which provides the opportunity for scientific use of samples derived from these accidental coelacanth catches (Fricke, 1998). Coelacanth specimens have been used by more than 30 laboratories. In earlier years of coelacanth research, a reward of US$300–400 was offered to fishermen for each coelacanth caught (Fricke, 1998). However, those rewards have not been offered for decades. Prior to strict regulations on coelacanth trade, the global museum trade offered between US$400 and US$2000 for each specimen caught. Today, trade of the coelacanth is prohibited by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) because the coelacanth is listed as an Appendix I species; however, some transfer of specimens for scientific study is permitted. We did not find any evidence that targeted coelacanth catch for scientific purposes is occurring. Thus, the demand for specimens for scientific research is not considered a threat.
In the future, scientific interest and study may be used as a basis for the public display of the coelacanth. The public display of the fish would be of high commercial value, and efforts to keep the coelacanth in captivity have already been made. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, American and Japanese aquariums attempted to directly capture and bring the coelacanth into captivity (Suzuki
Coelacanth habitat preference and distribution is dictated by specialized requirements for appropriate shelter (caves, caverns, and shelves), prey availability, and a combination of depth and temperature that meets the fish's need for oxygen (relating to optimal blood saturation at 15 °C) (Hughes, 1972). Evidence from coelacanth habitation in South Africa is particularly useful in demonstrating the trade-offs among these important characteristics: There, coelacanths occupy depths of 100–140 m. The optimal temperature for the uptake of oxygen (15 °C) occurs at lower depths of 200 m, where fewer caves exist. It is thought that the occupation of shallower depths is a trade-off between the need for shelter and optimal oxygen uptake; increases in oceanic temperature as is expected in connection with climate change may disrupt the tight balance between coelacanths' metabolic needs and the need for refuge (Roberts
Across the globe, ocean temperature is increasing at an accelerated rate (IPCC, 2013). The extent of this warming is reaching deeper and deeper waters (Abraham
The coelacanth is typically observed at 15–20 °C, with upper thermal preferences of 22–23 °C (Hughes
Based on the majority of climate model predictions, it is likely that current coelacanth habitat will reach temperatures exceeding the fish's thermal preferences by 2100 (IPCC, 2013). It is unlikely that the low-diversity fish with long generation times will physiologically adapt to withstand the metabolic stress of a warming ocean. However, the fish may be able to move to suitable habitat outside of its current range, thus adapting its range to avoid the warming deep water conditions. If the fish is displaced based on its need for cooler waters, but complex cave shelters are not available, local extirpation or range restriction may occur. However, currently, these impacts and responses are highly uncertain. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that a warming ocean may impact the fish's distribution, but the impact of warming on the future viability of the species is uncertain. Due to the coelacanth's temperature-dependent oxygen demand, coupled with a highly specific need for deep structurally complex cave shelter, warming oceanic waters may pose a
CITES Appendix I regulates trade in species in order to reduce the threat international trade poses to those species. The coelacanth is included in CITES-Appendix I. Appendix I addresses those species deemed threatened with extinction by international trade. CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, meets criteria for other types of permits, and can otherwise be legally done without affecting the sustainability of the population, for instance, for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it is authorized by the granting of both an import permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). We found no evidence of illegal trade of the coelacanth. Trade is limited to the transfer of specimens for scientific purposes. There is no evidence that CITES regulations are inadequate to address known threats such that they are contributing to the extinction risk of the species.
The coelacanth is also listed as Critically Endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List. The IUCN is not a regulatory body, and thus the critically endangered listing does not impart any regulatory authority to conserve the species.
The threat to the coelacanth stemming from anthropogenic climate change includes elevated ocean temperature reaching its deep-water habitat and resulting in decreased fitness or relocation of populations based on elimination of suitable habitat, which may become restricted due to the tight interaction between the coelacanth's thermal requirements and need for highly complex cave shelter and prey. Impacts of climate change on the marine environment are already being observed in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere (Hoerling
In general, demographic characteristics of the coelacanth make it particularly vulnerable to exploitation. While coelacanth abundance across its entire range is not well understood, it is likely that population sizes across the Western Indian Ocean are small, as described in Whittaker (2014). The likelihood of low abundance makes coelacanth populations more vulnerable to extinction by elevating the impact of stochastic events or chronic threats resulting in coelacanth mortality. Their growth rate and productivity is extremely limited. The coelacanth has one of the slowest metabolisms of any vertebrate, and this relates to their meager demand for food, slow swim speed and passive foraging, need for refuge to rest, and small gill surface area which limits their absorption of oxygen. In addition, their gestation period is longer than any vertebrate (3 years), although their fecundity is moderate. They are long-lived species, with long generation times. The extremely long gestation period and late maturity makes the coelacanth particularly vulnerable to external threats such as bycatch, possibly impeding recovery from mortality events (Froese
While demographic factors increase the coelacanth's vulnerability, the status review classified the risk of threats across its range as low or very low (Whittaker, 2014). We found that, in general, the coelacanth is largely buffered from habitat impacts due to its occurrence in deep water. Thus, the threats of dynamite fishing, pollution, land-use changes, and sedimentation are considered low-risk. The direct loss of coelacanth habitat may occur if the deep port of Mwambami Bay is developed off the coast of Tanzania. However, whether plans to build this port will come to fruition remains uncertain, and the effects will impact a small portion of the coelacanth's range. The threat of port development does not represent a widespread threat to the species, and the port of Mwambami Bay is the only large coastal development project (that we found) that would directly impact the fish.
As for impacts from overutilization, bycatch has historically been thought to pose the greatest threat to the coelacanth, but survey data show there is no observed link between coelacanth bycatch and population decline. A decade ago, the Comoros oilfish fishery was responsible for the highest rate of coelacanth bycatch. Historically, the Comoran fishery was responsible for catch rates of about 3 fish per year, and is not thought to have contributed to declines in population abundance. While the Comoran oilfish fishery has seen recent declines in effort and has never contributed to population decline of the coelacanth, a greater threat of bycatch has emerged in Tanzania over the last decade. As evidenced by high rates of coelacanth bycatch via the shark gillnet fishery, which began in 2001 in Tanzania, this fishing method has the potential to impact the coelacanth. Since 2003 in Tanzania, coelacanth catch rates have been more than 3 times greater than ever observed in the Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is unclear whether this catch rate is
Because threats are low across the species' range, we have no reason to consider regulatory measures inadequate in protecting the species.
Regarding other natural or manmade factors, the threat of climate change via ocean warming may work synergistically to enhance all other threats to the coelacanth across its range, but the nature of these impacts is highly uncertain as described in Whittaker (2014). The extent of this impact on the coelacanth remains uncertain, and there has been no clear or mechanistic link between climate change or temperature warming and coelacanth population declines. Thus, the threat of climate change poses a low risk to the coelacanth.
Overall, the fish's demographic factors make it particularly vulnerable to ongoing and future threats, but existing threats pose a generally low risk. Thus, we find that the coelacanth is at a low risk of extinction due to current and projected threats to the species.
Since its discovery, much debate has surrounded the need to conserve the coelacanth, as an evolutionary relic and for its value to science. The long history of this debate was summarized by Bruton (1991). The international organization the Coelacanth Conservation Council (CCC) has been the primary body advocating for coelacanth conservation over the years since 1987.
The CCC has its headquarters in Moroni, Comoros, and the Secretariat is currently in Grahamstown, South Africa with branches in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Japan. The CCC has set forth general objectives of promoting coelacanth research and conservation, along with establishing an international registry of coelacanth researchers and the compilation of a coelacanth inventory and bibliography, which were published for the first time in 1991 and recently updated in 2011 (Bruton
Several conservation initiatives were implemented in the Comoros in the 1990s to reduce coelacanth bycatch. For instance, fishing aggregation devices were installed to encourage pelagic fishing and reduce pressure on the coelacanth from nearshore handline fishing. During this time, the use of motorized boats was encouraged for the same purpose, in order to direct fishing off-shore and reduce the use of artisanal handlines. Initially, there were some challenges, including lack of infrastructure preventing the repair of motors. However, the fishing trend today in the Comoros shows a clear shift to motorized pelagic fishing, and reduced interest in traditional handline fishing; this trend is occurring due to a natural shift in social perspectives and local economic trends.
A supporter of coelacanth conservation and member of the U.S. Explorer Club, Jerome Hamlin, author and curator of the Web site
Ongoing scientific research on the coelacanth may play a role in coelacanth conservation, as management of the species can improve with a more complete understanding of its biology and natural history. In 2002, South Africa instituted its African Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme, which has coordinated an extensive array of research including bathymetric surveys, taxonomic studies, and observational expeditions. This program is funded by the Global Environment Facility of the World Bank and it is in its third phase, taking an ecosystem-based approach to understanding coelacanth distribution and habitat utilization across the Western Indian Ocean, and providing deep-water research tools and resources for this research.
Local efforts for marine conservation exist in the Comoros. For example, the Mohéli Marine Park takes a co-management approach to stop some destructive fishing and conserve marine habitat using a series of no-take reserves. The park encompasses 212 km
Other conservation efforts in the form of marine parks distributed throughout the Western Indian Ocean may benefit the coelacanth by reducing habitat destruction and improving prey availability; however, the direct impacts of these conservation efforts on the species is difficult to evaluate. Efforts to
A new marine park in Tanga, Tanzania has been put in place, and was prompted by increases in coelacanth catch in the region. The Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park is located on the northern coastline of Tanzania, extending north of the Pangani River estuary 100 km along the coastline towards Mafuriko village just north of Tanga city. The park covers an area of 552 km
Applying the considerations mandated by our PECE policy, we determine that the implementation and enforcement of the park's regulations and goals are unclear and untested; further, there are several reasons to believe that infrastructure, funding, and park management may not be adequate to fully prevent coelacanth bycatch within the park's boundaries: For one, illegal fishing off the coast of Tanzania is high (Tobey
As noted above, we find that the species is at a low risk of extinction throughout its range. In other words, our range-wide analysis for the species does not lead us to conclude that the species meets the definition for either an endangered species or a threatened species based on the rangewide analysis. Thus, under the final Significant Portion of Its Range (SPR) policy announced in July 2014, we must go on to consider whether the species may have a higher risk of extinction in a significant portion of its range (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014).
The final policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a portion for potential listing under the “significant portion of its range” authority only if information indicates that the members of the species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed:
To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we will determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both significant and endangered or threatened merely requires NMFS to engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are actually met (
After a review of the best available information, we identified the Tanzanian population of the African coelacanth as a population facing concentrated threats because of increased catch rates in this region since 2003, and the threat of a deep-water port directly impacting coelacanth habitat in this region. Due to these concentrated threats, we found that the species may be at risk of extinction in this area. Under the policy, if we believe this population also may constitute a “significant” portion of the range of the African coelacanth, then we must go on to a more definitive analysis. We may either evaluate the extinction risk of this population first to determine whether it is threatened or endangered in that portion or first determine if it is in fact “significant.” Ultimately, of course, both tests have to be met to qualify the species for listing.
We proceeded to evaluate whether this population represents a significant portion of the range of the African coelacanth. The Tanzanian population is one of only three confirmed populations of the African coelacanth, all considered to be small and isolated. Because all three populations are isolated, the loss of one would not directly impact the other remaining populations. However, loss of any one of the three known coelacanth populations would significantly increase the extinction risk of the species as a whole, as only two small populations would remain, making them more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as storms, disease, or temperature anomalies. Tanzanian and Comoran populations are approximately 1,000 km apart, ocean currents are thought to have led to their divergence over 200,000 years ago, and connectivity between them is not thought to be maintained (Nikiado
Because the Tanzanian population of the coelacanth was determined to represent a significant portion of the range of the species, we performed an extinction risk assessment on the Tanzanian population by evaluating how the demographic factors (abundance, productivity/growth rate, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity) of the species would be impacted by the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, considering only those factors affecting the Tanzanian population.
Coelacanth abundance across its entire range is not well understood, and no abundance estimates exist for the Tanzanian population. Based on general knowledge of the African coelacanth, the Tanzanian population is likely associated with very restricted and specific habitat requirements and low growth rates. We conclude that it is likely that the population size of the Tanzanian population is small for the same reasons described above for the species as a whole: It exhibits low levels of diversity (Nikaido
Growth rate and productivity for the Tanzanian population is thought to exhibit similar characteristics to other populations of the species. The species as a whole has one of the slowest metabolisms of any vertebrate. The extremely long gestation period and late maturity makes the Tanzanian population particularly vulnerable to external threats such as bycatch, possibly impeding recovery from mortality events (Froese
The Tanzanian population is thought to represent a single isolated population of the species. It has been estimated that this population diverged from the rest of the species 200,000 years ago (Nikaido
Genomic analyses of individuals from the Tanzanian population and other representatives of the species reveal that divergence and diversity within and among populations is very low (Nikaido
Regarding habitat threats to the Tanzanian population, loss and degradation of coelacanth habitat can take the form of pollution, dynamite fishing, sedimentation, and direct loss through development. Future human population growth and land use changes off the coast of Tanzania increase these threats to the Tanzanian population, but their trends and impacts are highly uncertain. In general, the coelacanth is largely buffered from habitat impacts due to its occurrence in deep water, and general effects of pollution and development are similar to those described for the rest of the species. However, specifically related to the Tanzanian population, direct loss of habitat is likely to occur if the deep port of Mwambami Bay is developed. The port is planned to be built just 8 km south of the original old Tanga Port, and this would include submarine blasting and channel dredging and destruction of
As for impacts from overutilization, bycatch has historically been thought to pose the greatest threat to the coelacanth. While survey data from the Comoros show there is no observed link between coelacanth bycatch and population decline, since 2003 in Tanzania, coelacanth catch rates have been more than 3 times greater than ever observed in the Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is unclear whether this catch rate is sustainable due to limited information on trends and abundance of the Tanzanian population. The further expansion of a shark gill net fishery in Tanzania, as has been observed over the last decade, could result in additional coelacanth bycatch. Bycatch in Tanzania is an ongoing threat. While direct data assessing Tanzanian coelacanth population decline are not available, the relatively high and persistent catch rate in this region has the potential to deplete this small and isolated population, which has life history characteristics that greatly impede its recovery and resiliency to mortality.
We consider the threat of overutilization for scientific purposes, public display, or for the curio trade as low for reasons described above, as they apply to the rest of the species.
We consider the threat of inadequate regulatory mechanisms as low for the Tanzanian population for the same reasons described above for the rest of the species. Additionally, we classify the risk of climate change as low for the Tanzanian population for the same reasons described above for the rest of the species.
Overall, the Tanzanian population's demographic factors make it particularly vulnerable to ongoing and future threats, which pose a moderate risk to the species. Based on the best available information, threats of bycatch to the Tanzanian population appear to be persistent, and the potential development of a deep port within this population's habitat could be catastrophic to the population in the foreseeable future. Thus, we find that the Tanzanian population is at a moderate risk of extinction due to current and projected threats.
Therefore, we conclude that the Tanzanian population is at moderate risk of extinction in a significant portion of the African coelacanth's range of the species.
In accordance with the SPR policy, if a species is determined to be threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. Because the Tanzanian population represents a significant portion of the range of the species, and this population is at a moderate risk of extinction, we performed a DPS analysis on that population.
As defined in the ESA (Sec. 3(15)), a “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy on identifying distinct population segments (DPS) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) identifies two criteria for DPS designations: (1) The population must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the taxon (species or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the population must be “significant” (as that term is used in the context of the DPS policy, which is different from its usage under the SPR policy) to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) “It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation”; or (2) “it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)” of the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Significance: If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both of the above conditions, then its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) “Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics” (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The Tanzanian population cannot be differentiated from other populations based on its morphology. In fact, no coelacanth population exhibits significant distinguishing morphological characteristics, and morphological differences within the
As stated above, genetic data on coelacanth population structure are limited and known distribution of coelacanth populations is potentially biased by targeted survey efforts and fishery catch data. However, recent whole-genome sequencing and genetic data available for multiple coelacanth specimens can be used to cautiously infer some patterns of population structure and connectivity across the coelacanth's known range (Nikaido
While population structure of the taxon, described earlier, is not fully resolved, all genetic data available suggest that the Tanzanian population represents a single isolated population of the species. Multiple genetic studies corroborate a significant divergence between Tanzanian individuals, and individuals from the South African and Comoros populations (Nikaido
The Tanzanian population is geographically isolated from the Comoran and South African populations. The Tanzanian population is approximately 1,000 km away from the Comoran population and over 4,000 km away from the South African population, with oceanic currents further reducing their potential for connectivity. While it is thought that the Comoran population is the source of other populations along the Western Indian Ocean, the Tanzanian and South African populations may have been established as many as 200,000 years ago, as genetic data suggest (Nikaido
Based on genetic evidence, and the clear geographic isolation of the Tanzanian population, we determined that the Tanzanian population of
The Tanzanian population does not persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. Although the Tanzanian individuals are thought to inhabit limestone ledges rather than volcanic caves where Comoran and South African individuals are found, the depth, prey, temperature, and shelter requirements are remarkably similar among the known coelacanth populations (Hissman
The Tanzanian population is one of only three known populations within the species. Although it is not the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon, we determined that loss of this population segment would result in a significant gap in the taxon's range for the following reasons: Although coelacanth populations are not thought to maintain reproductive connectivity, loss of one population would make the other two populations more vulnerable to catastrophic events, as explained earlier. The extent of the Tanzanian population's range is not known, but given the existence of only three known coelacanth populations considered to be small and isolated, loss of the Tanzanian population would constitute a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and thus we consider this population to be significant to the taxon as a whole.
We determined that the Tanzanian population is discrete based on evidence for its genetic and geographic isolation from the rest of the taxon. The population also meets the significance criterion set forth by the DPS policy, as its loss would constitute a significant gap in the taxon's range. Because it is both discrete and significant to the taxon as a whole, we identify the Tanzanian population as a valid DPS.
We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the species, viewed across its entire range, experiences a low risk of extinction. However, we determined that the Tanzanian population constitutes a significant portion of the range of the species, as defined by the SPR policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). The Tanzanian population faces ongoing or future threats from overutilization and habitat destruction, with the species' natural biological vulnerability to overexploitation exacerbating the severity of the threats. The Tanzanian population faces demographic risks, such as population isolation with low productivity, which make it likely to be influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes throughout its range, and place the population at an increased risk of extinction from the aforementioned threats within the foreseeable future. In our consideration of the foreseeable future, we evaluated how far into the future we could reliably predict the operation of the major threats to this population, as well as the population's response to those threats. We are confident in our ability to predict out several decades in assessing the threats of overutilization and habitat destruction, and their interaction with the life history of the coelacanth, with its lifespan of 40 or more years. With regard to habitat destruction, we evaluated the likelihood of the deep water port being constructed. If the port is to be developed, the results could significantly impact the Tanzanian coelacanth population. Evidence suggests that the plans for its construction are moving forward; its construction is not certain, but likely. If built, the construction of the port would likely occur within the next decade. With bycatch, and its interaction with the fish's demographic characteristics, we feel that defining the foreseeable future out to several decades is appropriate. Based on this information, we find that the Tanzanian population is at a moderate risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we consider the Tanzanian population to be threatened.
In accordance with the our SPR policy, if a species is determined to be threatened or endangered across a significant portion of its range, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information as presented in the status report and this finding, we do not find that the African coelacanth
Therefore, we propose to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth as threatened under the ESA.
The petition requested that, if the African coelacanth were listed under the ESA, the Indonesian coelacanth also be listed due to its “similarity of
While the African and Indonesian species exhibit morphological similarities, they are clearly geographically and genetically separated. Enforcement personnel would have no difficulty in differentiating between the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth and the Indonesian coelacanth because of similarity of appearance because their geographic separation (in the Western Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific, respectively) should facilitate regulation of taking. The species experience no overlap in range and catch of both species is relatively low, and well-documented. We do not deem ESA protection for the Indonesian coelacanth to be advisable at this time, as the clear genetic and geographic differences between the two species set them apart in a way that allows for easy identification, regardless of their similar appearance.
Because we are proposing to list the Tanzanian DPS as a threatened species under the ESA, we also considered any potential similarity of appearance issues that may arise in differentiating between the proposed DPS and other populations of the species. No morphological characteristics separate the Tanzanian DPS from other populations of the species. However, we do not conclude that listing the South African or Comoran populations based on similarity of appearance is warranted. First, outside of Tanzania, coelacanth catches are infrequent, and well documented. Second, the three known coelacanth populations do not overlap geographically. Differentiation between the African and Indonesian coelacanth, and likewise between the Tanzanian DPS and other populations of the species, could potentially pose a problem for enforcement of section 9 prohibitions on trade, should any be applied. However, that issue is addressed, at least with respect to imports and exports, by the inclusion of coelacanth in CITES Appendix I.
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) and consistent with implementing regulations; Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered species, prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of those species. It is unlikely that the listing of this DPS under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because the DPS occurs outside of the United States and is unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The best available scientific data as discussed above identify the geographical area occupied by the species as being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate critical habitat for this species. We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United States currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. Based on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied area(s) in U.S. water that are currently essential to the species proposed for listing. Thus, as we discussed above, we will not propose critical habitat for this species.
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires NMFS to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA.
Because we are proposing to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth as threatened, no prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to this species.
We are proposing to list Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth,
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting comments and information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties on information in the status review and proposed rule. Comments are encouraged on this proposal (See
(1) Information concerning the threats to the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth proposed for listing;
(2) Taxonomic information on the species;
(3) Biological information (life history, genetics, population connectivity, etc.) on the species;
(4) Efforts being made to protect the species throughout its current range;
(5) Information on the commercial trade of the species;
(6) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends for the species; and
(7) Information relevant to potential ESA section 4(d) protective regulations for the proposed threatened DPS, especially the application, if any, of the ESA section 9 prohibitions on import, take, possession, receipt, and sale of the African coelacanth.
We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation, such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review from qualified specialists, in addition to a public comment period. The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We solicited peer review comments on the African coelacanth status review report, including from: Five scientists with expertise on the African coelacanth. We incorporated these comments into the status review report for the African coelacanth and this 12-month finding.
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available upon request (see
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the countries in which the species occurs, and they will be invited to comment. We will confer with the U.S. Department of State to ensure appropriate notice is given to foreign nations within the range the DPS (Tanzania). As the process continues, we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the U.S. State Department, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR part 223 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of 90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding for a petition to list the common thresher shark (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by May 4, 2015.
You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by “NOAA–NMFS–2015–0025” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, (301) 427–8469.
On August 26, 2014, we received a petition from Friends of Animals requesting that we list the common thresher shark (
The petitioner states that the common thresher shark merits listing as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA because of the following: (1) The species faces threats from historical and continued fishing for both commercial and recreational purposes; (2) life history characteristics and limited ability to recover from fishing pressure makes the species particularly vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3) there is a lack of regulations that specifically protect the common thresher shark.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
The common thresher shark (
The common thresher shark possesses an elongated upper caudal lobe almost equal to its body length, which is unique to this family. It has a moderately large eye, a broad head, short snout, narrow tipped pectoral fins, no grooves on the head above the gills, and lateral teeth without distinct cusplets. The origin of the pelvic fins is well behind the insertion of the first dorsal fin. While some of the above characteristics may be shared by other thresher shark species, diagnostic features separating this species from the other two thresher shark species (bigeye thresher,
Surveys of the common thresher shark from our Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) demonstrate habitat separation between juveniles and adults (PMFC, 2003; Smith
Common thresher sharks feed at mid-trophic levels on small pelagic fish and squid. Given their more specialized diet compared to other local pelagic sharks, they are more likely to exert top-down effects on their prey, although this remains to be demonstrated. Based on studies at the SWFSC, the top six prey species, in order, are northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific hake, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, and market squid (Preti
The life span of the common thresher shark is estimated between 15 and 50 years, although additional research to confirm this is necessary (Gervalis, 2013). Thresher sharks reach maturity at approximately 5 years of age and at around 166 cm fork length for both sexes. They grow approximately 30 cm per year for the first 5 years of their lives (Gervalis, 2013; Smith
The petition requests that we list the common thresher shark throughout its range, or list the species as six DPSs. The petitioner identifies six subpopulations that it believes may qualify for listing: Eastern Central Pacific, Indo-West Pacific, Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Northeast Atlantic. To meet the definition of a DPS, a population must be both discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the species as a whole (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The petition does not provide biological evidence to support the existence of the six “subpopulations” identified; however, the petition states that six subpopulations of the common thresher shark are discrete. The petition goes on to define this discreteness according to the second discreteness factor listed in the NMFS/USFWS joint DPS policy, where a population can be considered discrete if it “is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.” The petitioner maintains that the “broad and varied spectrum of harvest control, habitat management, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms” addressing the species may qualify different “subpopulations” as discrete under this discreteness factor, asserting that, “due to broad differences in regulation of their management and capture, the subpopulations of common thresher sharks should be considered sufficiently discrete for protection as DPSs under the ESA.”
The petition does not propose any boundaries for the six suggested DPSs, nor does the petition describe in any detail the ways in which different management relating to international governmental boundaries may delineate the species into boundaries aligning with the six suggested DPSs. Specific gaps in management or intergovernmental boundaries are not described as they relate to any of the six proposed DPSs. We were also unable to find information to define the six subpopulations as discrete on biological grounds. In our files, only a single preliminary study was available to suggest population structure of the
Based on information in the petition and readily available in our files, we were unable to find evidence to support the discreteness of any of the six DPSs proposed. Because of this, arguments made by the petitioner describing the potential significance of any suggested DPS are irrelevant. Thus, we conclude that the petition provides insufficient evidence to identify any DPSs of the common thresher shark at this time.
The following sections contain information found in the petition and readily available in our files to determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
The petition does not provide a population abundance estimate for common thresher sharks, but points to its “vulnerable” status on the IUCN Red List, and quotes extensively from the Encyclopedia of Life, an online collaborative database intended for documenting information on all species of life. The petition asserts that a global decline of common thresher sharks has been caused mainly by commercial and recreational fishing (both direct harvest and bycatch), particularly during the 1970s and early 1980s. The petition references high commercial catch rates for common threshers along the U.S. West Coast during the 1980s, and declines in catch by the mid-1990s, indicative of overexploitation (Goldman
Although historical overfishing of the common thresher shark led to serious declines in population abundance, particularly during the 1980s, regulations since the early 1990s have contributed to trends of rebuilding of the species over the past two decades in some portions of its range, particularly in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (PFMC, 2011; NMFS Common Thresher Shark Fact Sheet). However, in other portions of the species' global range, declines due to overutilization (bycatch, recreation, and directed catch) may be ongoing, leading to declines in abundance. The threat of commercial fishing is discussed in more detail below (see “Overutilization”).
The last IUCN assessment of the common thresher shark was completed in 2009 and since then several estimates of global and subpopulation trends and status have been made. Perhaps most heavily studied have been common thresher sharks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the shark has historically been most heavily fished. Commercial fishing of thresher sharks in the U.S. was eliminated by gill net regulations by 1990, and within a decade, the population began to slowly rebuild to just below 50 percent of the initial subpopulation size (Camhi
In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in relative abundance cited by the petitioner were derived from analyses of logbook data, reported in Cortés (2007). This study reported a 63 percent decline of thresher sharks (on the genus level) based on logbook data, occurring between 1986 and 2006 (Cortés, 2007). The observer index data from the same study shows an opposite trend in relative abundance, with a 28 percent increase of threshers in the Northwest Atlantic since 1992. Logbook data over the same period (1992–2006) showed a 50 percent decline in thresher sharks. The logbook dataset is the largest available for the western North Atlantic Ocean, but the observer dataset is generally more reliable in terms of consistent identification and reporting. According to observer data, relative abundance of thresher sharks (again, only at the genus level) in the western North Atlantic Ocean appears to have stabilized or even be increasing since the late 1990s (Cortés, 2007). A more recent analysis using logbook data between 1996 and 2005 provides some supporting evidence that the abundance of thresher sharks has stabilized over this time period (Baum, 2010). However, the conflicting evidence between logbook and observer data showing opposite trends in thresher shark abundance cannot be fully resolved at this time. Data are not available in the petition or in our own files to assess the trend in population abundance in this region since 2006, or to assess the trend specific to the common thresher shark. Because the logbook data from this region shows consistent evidence of a significant and continued decline in thresher sharks, we must consider this information in our 90-day determination.
For the Northeast Atlantic, there are no population abundance estimates available, but data indicate that the species is taken in driftnets and gillnets. In the Mediterranean Sea, estimates show significant declines in thresher shark abundance during the past two decades, reflecting data up to 2006; according to historical data compiled using a generalized linear model, thresher sharks have declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti
In other areas of the world, estimates of thresher shark abundance are limited. For the Indo-West Pacific, little information is currently available on common thresher sharks. Although pelagic fishing effort in this region is high, with reported increases in recent years, the common thresher shark is more characteristic of cooler waters, and further information needs to be collected on records and catches of the species in this region (IUCN assessment, 2009).
In conclusion, trends throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean portion of the species' range suggest that the population there is rebuilding from
The petition indicated three main categories of threats to the common thresher shark: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We discuss each of these below, as well as an additional evaluation of other 4(a)(1) factors based on information in the petition, and the information readily available in our files.
The petition does not list threats to habitat as impacting the common thresher shark. In our files, we were also unable to find evidence that destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range were negatively impacting the species. Supporting this conclusion, in our files, we found evidence demonstrating that habitat pollution has not resulted in high concentrations of pollutants in the bodies of common thresher sharks. For example, Suk
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files do not comprise substantial information indicating there is present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the common thresher shark's habitat or range such that listing may be warranted.
The petition states that “historical and continued trends of fishing of this commercially and recreationally valuable shark remain a threat,” listing commercial exploitation as the first threat of overutilization of the species. Historically, common thresher sharks were primarily caught in the drift gillnet fishery established off the West Coast of the United States, which targeted the species in the late 1970s. The fishery had shifted its focus to a swordfish fishery by the mid-1980s due to economic drivers, but also to protect pupping female thresher sharks (PFMC, 2003). Since that time, common thresher sharks have only been targeted secondarily or caught incidentally in the drift gillnet fishery there. West Coast commercial landings are down from 1,800 metric tons (mt) in the early 1980s to below 200 mt in 2008 and 2009 (PFMC, 2010). As stated above, based on preliminary stock assessment results, there appears to be an initial period of decline from 1981 to 1986, followed by a gradual rebuilding of the stock (NMFS SWFSC, unpublished data). Average annual landings since 2004 have been about 200 mt (PFMC, 2011), well below an established sustainable and precautionary harvest level of 450 mt, and this level of landings has allowed the population to further rebuild. Regulations on commercial fishing operations (
The petition states that in addition to broad commercial harvest of the species, direct catch related to the shark fin trade has resulted in population decline. No information connecting population declines as a result of this direct catch is provided in the petition. The petition states that common thresher shark fins are valuable due to their large size and longer fin needles. Evidence suggests that the three thresher shark species, collectively, may account for approximately 2.3 percent of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, the world's largest fin-trading center (Clarke, 2006). This translates to 0.4 million to 3.9 million threshers that may enter the global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006). However, information on the species-specific impact of this harvest on common thresher shark abundance is not provided by the petitioner, and is not available in our files. The bigeye thresher shark is of higher value and vulnerability to fishing than the common thresher shark (Cortez, 2010); however, the relative proportion of each thresher shark species comprising the shark-fin trade is not available in this genus-level assessment. Overall, evidence that common thresher sharks (and threshers in general) are highly valued for their fins and comprise a portion of the Hong Kong fin-trading auction suggests that this threat may impact the species.
Indirect catch is another category of overutilization identified by the petition, which states that post-release mortality may be high in the species. However, no information is provided in the petition to connect the effect of bycatch on population declines of the species. In our own files, we found evidence to support that adults and juveniles of common thresher shark are caught as bycatch in longline, purse seine and mid-water fisheries (IATTC, 2006). As stated in the petition, in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean prior to 2000, estimated landings fluctuated at 13–17 t, and in 2000–2001 they exceeded 100 t, after which they dropped to 4 t in 2002 and have not exceeded 7 t since (ICES, 2006). In the Mediterranean, there are no large-scale fisheries targeting pelagic sharks and rays, but these species are taken as bycatch in surface longline fisheries (Cahmi, 2009). In our files, we found evidence that, in the last two decades, common thresher sharks have declined between 96 and 99 percent in abundance and biomass in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti, 2008). Currently, there is no commercial fishery for common thresher sharks on the East Coast of the United States, but they are taken as bycatch on pelagic longlines and in gillnets; here, commercial bycatch landings averaged 19,958 kg (dressed weight) from 2003 to 2011, with landings peaking at 27,801 kg (dressed weight) in 2010 (NMFS, 2012; Gervalis
The petition identified recreational fishing as the fourth category of overutilization. In our files, we found evidence that common thresher sharks are valued by recreational sport fishermen throughout the species' U.S. East Coast and West Coast range, and those that are caught are generally landed; the common thresher shark is considered one of the better species for human consumption (Compagno, 2001). The species appears to be increasing in importance at shark tournaments in the Northeastern United States. As described in the petition, at one major tournament, common thresher shark numbers increased steadily such that the percent of total catch increased from 0.1 percent to 4.8 from 1965 to 1995 and jumped to 27.8 percent of the total catch in 2004 (Gervalis
Overall, trends throughout the Eastern Pacific Ocean suggest that the species either may be rebuilding from historical overexploitation, or may be stable. Elsewhere across the species' range, information in the petition and in our files suggests that the species may continue to experience declines as a result of overutilization. While measures may be implemented to improve post-release mortality of a recreational common thresher shark fishery, and to reduce bycatch, we found no evidence that these measures have been incorporated into common practice. In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files comprise substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted because of overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes.
The petitioner does not identify predation and disease as a threat to the common thresher shark, and we were unable to find any information in our files to suggest that this factor is affecting the continued survival of the species.
The petition states that “the U.S. does not provide adequate protection for this species. Additionally, this global species lacks international protection under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and regional management mechanisms remain ineffective.”
On the contrary, we found that national fishing regulations on common thresher shark fishing in the United States are precautionary, and have led to the rebuilding of the species in U.S. waters over the last two decades. The Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species includes an annual harvest guideline of 340 mt for thresher shark. This is a precautionary harvest guideline for commercial catch, which is estimated to be 75 percent of the regional maximum sustainable yield for this population. Time and area restrictions in the pelagic drift gillnet fishery were imposed off California in the mid-1980s to protect thresher sharks, and more regulations were added in 2000 to protect sea turtles, resulting in reduced effort. In the United States Atlantic Ocean, the species has been managed as part of the pelagic shark complex under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. Management measures include the following: Commercial quotas, limited entry, time-area closures, and recreational bag limits. Sharks are required to be landed with fins naturally attached to the carcass. Overfishing and overfished status is currently unknown (NMFS HMS 3rd Qtr 2011 stock status), but preliminary stock assessment data suggest that the species is rebuilding in U.S. waters due to management measures to conserve the species (SWFSC, unpublished).
Since we received the petition, the common thresher shark has been listed in Appendix II under the International Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The petitioner stated that there are no laws specifically addressing the needs of the common thresher shark; however, a CMS Appendix II listing now encourages international cooperation towards conservation of the species.
We agree with the petition that the majority of other international regulations provide general protection for all sharks, and that includes the common thresher shark. The petition asserts that finning regulations are “inadequate” for protecting the common thresher shark species because common thresher sharks may still be caught, either directly or indirectly as bycatch. The petition also cites several regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) that implement a 5-percent fin-to-carcass ratio regulation, describes what the petitioner contends are potential loopholes in those regulations, and states that these general regulations are inadequate for the common thresher shark, whose larger fins make it a more targeted species. We agree with the petitioner that the common thresher shark is highly valued for its fins, and can be identified in the shark fin market, although only to the genus level. However, we do not find that national and international regulations are inadequate for protecting the common thresher shark.
Finning regulations are a common form of shark management regulation and have been adopted by far more countries and regional fishery management organizations than the petition lists (see HSI, 2012). While the petitioner asserts that there may be some loopholes in regulations using a 5% fin-to-carcass ratio, we find that the common thresher shark is rebuilding in broad portions of its range and is of lower vulnerability due to its demographic characteristics, such that current regulations are not considered inadequate. In addition, a number of countries have also enacted complete shark fishing bans, with the Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Honduras, Sabah (Malaysia), and Tokelau (an island territory of New Zealand) added to the list in 2011, and an area of 1.9 million km off the Cook Islands added in 2012. The petition states that Tokelau and the Cook Islands have only partial fishing bans, but this statement appears to be based on incomplete information. Shark sanctuaries can also be found in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (which encompasses around 2,000,000 km
The petition also mentions the lack of CITES protections for the common thresher shark. The common thresher shark is not a CITES listed species, however, a CITES listing would only address threats associated with the international trade of the species, and would not address such impacts as bycatch or recreational catch-and-release of the species. Although a CITES Appendix II listing or international reporting requirements would provide better data on the global catch and trade of the common thresher shark, the lack of a CITES listing or requirements would not suggest that current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the common thresher shark population from becoming endangered under the ESA.
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files do not comprise substantial information indicating that the species is impacted by inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms such that listing may be warranted.
The petition states that the biological constraints of the common thresher shark, such as its low reproduction rate (typically 2–4 pups a year), coupled with the time required to reach maturity (approximately 5 years), contribute to the species' vulnerability to harvesting and its inability to recover rapidly. It is true that the common thresher shark and pelagic sharks, in general, exhibit relatively slow growth rates and low fecundity; however, not all species are equally vulnerable to fishing pressure due to these life history characteristics.
An ecological risk assessment conducted to inform the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) categorized the relative risk of overexploitation of the 11 major species of pelagic sharks, including the common thresher shark (Cortés
In summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files do not comprise substantial information indicating that the species is impacted by “other natural or manmade factors,” including the life history trait of slow productivity, such that listing of the species may be warranted.
We conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the ESA section (4)(a)(1) threats of “other manmade or natural factors” or “inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the global population of the common thresher shark. In addition, neither the petition nor information in our files indicated that the “present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range,” or “disease or predation” are threats to the species. However, we do conclude that the petition and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the section 4(a)(1) factor “overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes” may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the species.
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition and information readily available in our files presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the common thresher shark worldwide as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the common thresher shark is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, including identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data on common thresher shark bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on common thresher shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the trade of common thresher shark products, including fins, jaws, meat, and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Revised Notice of Proposed Amendments and Open Hearing.
The public hearing on the amendments to the Appellate Rules and Forms previously scheduled in Washington, DC for February 17, 2015, was canceled due to weather conditions. That public hearing has been rescheduled for March 6, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in the Mecham Center of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure has proposed amendments to the following rules and forms:
Appellate Rules 4, 5, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28.1, 29, 32, 35, and 40, and Forms 1, 5, 6, and New Form 7.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 7–240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502–1820.
United States Agency for International Development.
New system of records notice.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is issuing new public notice for a system of records entitled “USAID–1 Foreign Service Personnel Records”. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4), to publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, any comments must be received on or before April 2, 2015. Unless comments are received that would require a revision, this altered system of records will become effective on April 2, 2015.
You may submit comments:
•
•
•
•
The USAID Privacy Office at United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Assurance Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523; or via email at
USAID has recently conducted a review of systems of records notices and has determined that it deleted USAID–1 Foreign Service Personnel Records in error at 72 FR 50096 (August 30, 2007). USAID–1 was last published at 42 FR 47371 (Sept. 20, 1977). USAID will create a new USAID–1 with the same title, Foreign Service Personnel Records. Also, USAID has determined that USAID–6 Recruiting, Examining and Placement Records and USAID–7 Foreign Service Personnel Evaluation Records were deleted in error on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50096). In addition, USAID has determined that the portions of USAID–11 Employee Conduct and Discipline Records, USAID–12 Executive Assignment Records, USAID–13 Orientation and Training Records, and USAID–24 Emergency Case File that cover Foreign Service personnel records were deleted in error on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50096). In order to reflect the current status of the USAID Foreign Service personnel system of records, the new USAID–1 Foreign Service Personnel Records will incorporate the Foreign Service personnel records from USAID–1, USAID–6, USAID–7, USAID–11, USAID–12, USAID–13, and USAID–24.
Foreign Service Personnel Records.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523 and other USAID offices in the United States and throughout the world; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Finance Center (NFC), New Orleans, LA 70129; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, IRS-Enterprise Computing Center-Detroit, Detroit, MI 48232; Washington National Records Center, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD 20746–8001; and National Personnel Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 111 Winnebago Street, St. Louis, MO 63118.
The system encompasses all individuals who are current or former employees hired under the Foreign Service Act authority by 1) USAID or 2) another federal agency and on detail to USAID.
This system consists of records created or compiled for Foreign Service Act personnel actions, including official personnel files; work experience, education level achieved, and specialized education or training obtained both inside and outside of Foreign Service; Federal service, past and present positions held, grades, salaries, duty station locations; notices of all personnel actions, such as appointments, transfers, reassignments, details, promotions, demotions, reductions-in-force, resignations, separations, suspensions, and removals; life and health insurance benefits; position classification; recruiting, examining, and placement; disability, race/ethnicity, and national origin classification data; evaluation and performance management; employee conduct and discipline; executive assignments; orientation and training; awards and incentives; workers compensation; designations for lump-sum death benefits; classified information nondisclosure agreements; Thrift Savings Plan; and ethics pledges and all pledge waiver certifications. Medical records, forms, and reports are included when they are related to the application for and employment as a Foreign Service position, including health records related to workers' compensation claims, employee health promotion and wellness activities, and drug testing. All categories of records may include identifying information, such as name, Social Security Number, mailing address, home telephone number, cell phone number, resume, clearance level, pay grade, salary, direct-deposit financial information, position title, and position number.
The system was established and is maintained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 5 U.S.C. 302, Delegation of Authority; 22 U.S.C. Ch. 32, Foreign Assistance, Subchapter I, International Development; 22 U.S.C. Ch. 52, Foreign Service.
The records are collected, used, maintained, and disseminated for the purpose of documenting all processes associated with individual Foreign Service employment histories and career progression, including screening qualifications of employees; determining status, eligibility, and employee's rights and benefits; computing length of service; other Foreign Service personnel services; and making personnel management determinations about Foreign Service personnel throughout their Foreign Service careers.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records contained in this system of records may be disclosed outside USAID as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To a court, magistrate, or other administrative body in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal proceedings, when USAID is a party to the proceeding or has a significant interest in the proceeding, to the extent that the information is determined to be relevant and necessary.
(2) To the Department of Justice or other appropriate Federal Government agency when the records are arguably relevant to a proceeding in a court or other tribunal in which USAID or a USAID official in his or her official capacity is a party or has an interest, or when the litigation is likely to affect USAID.
(3) To a Federal Government agency or entity that furnished the record or information for the purpose of permitting that agency or entity to make a decision as to access to or correction of the record or information.
(4) In the event of an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by statute or particular program pursuant thereto, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
(5) To the Department of State and its posts abroad for the purpose of transmission of information between organizational units of the Agency, or for purposes related to the responsibilities of the Department of State in conducting United States foreign policy or protecting United States citizens, such as the assignment of employees to positions abroad, the reporting of accidents abroad, evacuation of employees and dependents, and other purposes for which officers and employees of the Department of State have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
(6) To a foreign government or international agency in response to its request for information to facilitate the conduct of U.S. relations with that government or agency through the issuance of such documents as visas, country clearances, identification cards, drivers' licenses, diplomatic lists, licenses to import or export personal effects, and other official documents and permits routinely required in connection with the official service or travel abroad of the individual and his or her dependents.
(7) To Federal agencies with which USAID has entered into an agreement to provide services to assist USAID in carrying out its functions under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Such disclosures would be for the purpose of transmission of information between organizational units of USAID; of providing to the original employing agency information concerning the services of its employee while under the supervision of USAID, including performance evaluations, reports of conduct, awards and commendations, and information normally obtained in the course of personnel administration and employee supervision; or of providing other information directly related to the purposes of the inter-agency agreement as set forth therein, and necessary and relevant to its implementation.
(8) To appropriate officials and employees of a Federal Government agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
(9) To a committee or subcommittee of Congress and the Government Accountability Office for the purposes of responding to inquiries.
(10) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Information Security Oversight Office, Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, for the purpose of adjudicating an appeal from a USAID denial of a request for mandatory declassification review of records, made under the applicable
(11) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
(12) To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(13) To a former employee of USAID for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable agency regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where USAID requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(14) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) USAID suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) USAID 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 this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the USAID or another agency, entity, or person) 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 USAID's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(15) To attorneys, union representatives, or other persons designated by USAID employees in writing to represent them in complaints, grievance, appeal, or litigation cases.
(16) To requestors in determining a former spouse's entitlement to benefits and other inquiries related to retirement benefits.
(17) To labor organization officials when such information is relevant to personnel policies affecting employment conditions and necessary for exclusive representation by the labor organization.
(18) To officials of foreign governments and other U.S. government agencies for clearance before a Federal employee is assigned to that country as well as for the procurement of necessary services for American personnel assigned overseas, such as permits of free entry and identity cards.
(19) To the Department of Labor, Department of Veterans Affairs, Social Security Administration, Department of Defense, or any other Federal agencies that have special civilian employee retirement and disability programs; or to a national, state, county, municipal, or other publicly recognized income administration agency (
(20) To the Office of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance, information necessary to verify election, declination, or waiver of regular and/or optional life insurance coverage, or eligibility for payment of a claim for life insurance.
(21) To health insurance carriers contracting with the Federal government to provide a health benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, information necessary to identify enrollment in a plan, to verify eligibility for payment of a claim for health benefits, or to carry out the coordination or audit of benefit provisions of such contracts.
(22) To any person who is responsible for the care of an individual to whom a record pertains who is mentally incompetent or under other legal disability. Information in the individual's record may be disclosed to said person to the extent necessary to assure payment of benefits to which the individual is entitled.
(23) To public and private organizations, including news media, which grant or publicize employee recognition to consider and select employees for incentive awards and other honors and to publicize awards and honors granted.
(24) To the Department of Justice in connection with proceedings before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body when any of the following is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation and USAID determines that the use of such records is arguably relevant and necessary to the litigation of (1) the USAID or any component thereof, (2) any employee of the USAID in his or her official capacity, (3) any employee of the USAID in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the USAID has agreed to represent the employee, or (4) the United States, when the USAID determines that litigation is likely to affect the USAID or any of its components.
(25) To implement court decisions and/or terms of settlement agreements reached by the parties.
(26) To prepare reports to the courts in compliance with monitoring requirements.
(27) To courts or federal agencies including, but not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Foreign Service Grievance Board, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, in response to an order directing the production of personnel records.
(28) To other Government agencies and private organizations, institutions or individuals to verify employment, to process security clearances and to request record or credit checks.
(29) To officials of other Federal agencies for purposes of performance of official duties in support of the functions for which the records were collected and maintained.
(30) To disclose information to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselors and EEO investigators in connection with EEO complaints and to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discrimination practices in the Federal sector, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, compliance by Federal agencies with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions vested in the Commission.
(31) To the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation programs relating to benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act.
(32) To disclose information to the news media and the public when a matter involving the USAID has become public knowledge; the Assistant Administrator Under Secretary for Management determines that in response to the matter in the public domain, disclosure is necessary to provide an accurate factual record on the matter; and the Assistant Administrator for Management determines that there is a legitimate public interest in the information disclosed.
Paper and microfiche records are maintained by USAID and are safeguarded in secured cabinets within secured rooms. The electronic records are stored in the HR Connect system, Electronic Official Personnel File (eOPF) system, and National Finance Center Payroll/Personnel System, which are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable USAID automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the records 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.
Records are retrieved by the name of the Foreign Service personnel and numeric identifier.
Information in this system is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the agency's automated directive system. In general, records and technical equipment are maintained in buildings with restricted access. The required use of password protection identification features and other system protection methods also restrict access. Access is limited to those officers and authorized USAID employees who have an official need to access the records in the performance of their official duties.
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives Records Administration's General Records Disposition Schedules and the agency's approved disposition schedules.
Director, Foreign Service Center, Human Capital and Talent Management, United States Agency for International Development, Office of Human Resources, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523.
Same as Record Access Procedures.
Under the Privacy Act, individuals may request access to records about themselves. If an agency or a person, who is not the individual who is the subject of the records, requests access to records about an individual, the written consent of the individual who is the subject of the records is required.
Requesters may submit requests for records under the Privacy Act: (1) By mail to the USAID FOIA Office, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.07C–RRB, Washington, DC 20523–2701; (2) via Facsimile to 202–216–3070; (3) via email to
Requesters using 1 through 4 may provide a written statement or may complete and submit USAID Form 507–1, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, which can be obtained: (a) On the USAID Web site at
In addition, requesters using 1 through 4 must include proof of identity information by providing copies of two (2) source documents that must be notarized by a valid (un-expired) notary public. Acceptable proof-of-identity source documents include: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card (both sides); unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.
Requesters using 1 through 4 must also provide a signed and notarized statement that they are the person named in the request; that they understand that any falsification of their statement is punishable under the provision of 18 U.S.C. 1001 by a fine, or by imprisonment of not more than five years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisonment of not more than eight years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining records under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.
Requesters using 5 must provide such personal identification as is reasonable under the circumstances to verify the requester's identity, including the following: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card; unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained on himself or herself must clearly and concisely state that information is being contested, and the proposed amendment to the information sought. Requests to amend a record must follow the Record Access Procedures above.
These records contain information provided directly by the individuals who are the subject of these records; and from administrative officers in USAID bureaus and missions, Office of Human Resources employees, and other sources of records maintained in the official personnel files of Foreign Service personnel.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), subject to the provisions of section 552(b)(1), records are exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f) to protect material required to be kept Secret. Pursuant to
United States Agency for International Development.
New system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is issuing public notice for a new system of records entitled, “USAID–34 Personal Services Contracts Records”. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4), to publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, any comments must be received on or before April 2, 2015. Unless comments are received that would require a revision, this new system of records will become effective on April 2, 2015.
You may submit comments:
•
•
•
•
The USAID Privacy Office at United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Assurance Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523; or via email at
USAID has recently conducted a review of systems of records notices and has determined that a new system of records “USAID–34 Personal Services Contracts Records” is needed to document records created during the development, operation, and conclusion of personal services contracts by USAID. A personal services contract creates an employer-employee relationship between USAID and the contractor, requires continuous monitoring of the contractor by USAID, and must be specifically authorized by a statute applicable to USAID. The new USAID–34 Personal Services Contracts Records will read as set forth below.
Personal Services Contracts Records.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523; Terremark, 50 NE 9th Street, Miami, FL 33132; U.S. Department of State COOP Beltsville (BIMC), 8101 Odell Road, Floor/Room—173, Beltsville, MD 20705; U.S. Department of State, Global Financial Service Center (GFSC—DoS), 1969 Dyess Ave., Building A, Computer Room 2A228, Charleston, SC 29405; and other USAID offices in the United States and throughout the world that have personal services contractor hiring authority.
The system encompasses all individuals who are personal services contractors with USAID.
This system consists of records created or compiled for contract actions related to personal services contractors, including personal services contractor files and contract documents. A personal services contractor file includes name, Social Security Number, address, citizenship, resume, education, professional experience, other qualifications, Selective Service registration data, language proficiencies, licenses and certifications, clearance level, salary, direct-deposit financial information, contract number, position title, travel availability, training received, assignments, position number, applicable medical clearances, and performance evaluations. Contract documents include applications, salary worksheet computations, statements of work, qualifications approval memoranda, final offer letters, contract, performance evaluations, correspondence, advanced leave requests, training certifications, release forms, and out-processing checklists.
The system was established and is maintained pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act, Public Law 87–165, as amended; 48 CFR 37.104, Personal services contracts; 48 CFR Ch. 7, App. D, Direct USAID Contracts with a U.S. Citizen or a U.S. Resident Alien for Personal Services Abroad.
The records are collected, used, maintained, and disseminated for the purposes of documenting personal services contracts processing, including personal services contracts records, pay and benefits determinations and processing, determining accountability and liability of contract parties, reports of contractor actions, and the records required in connection with the personal services contractor during the contract cycle.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records contained in this system of records may be disclosed outside USAID as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration for the purposes of reporting earnings information.
(2) To a court, magistrate, or other administrative body in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal proceedings, when USAID is a party to the proceeding or has a significant interest in the proceeding, to the extent that the information is determined to be relevant and necessary.
(3) To the Department of Justice or other appropriate Federal Government agency when the records are arguably
(4) To a Federal Government agency or entity that furnished the record or information for the purposes of permitting that agency or entity to make a decision as to access to or correction of the record or information.
(5) In the event of an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by statute or particular program pursuant thereto, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
(6) To the Department of State and its posts abroad for the purposes of transmission of information between organizational units of the Agency, or for the purposes related to the responsibilities of the Department of State in conducting United States foreign policy or protecting United States citizens, such as the assignment of employees to positions abroad, the reporting of accidents abroad, evacuation of employees and dependents, and for other purposes for which officers and employees of the Department of State have a need for the records in the performance of their duties.
(7) To a foreign government or international agency in response to its request for information to facilitate the conduct of U.S. relations with that government or agency through the issuance of such documents as visas, country clearances, identification cards, drivers' licenses, diplomatic lists, licenses to import or export personal effects, and other official documents and permits routinely required in connection with the official service or travel abroad of the individual and his or her dependents.
(8) To Federal agencies with which USAID has entered into an agreement to provide services to assist USAID in carrying out its functions under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Such disclosures would be for the purpose of transmission of information between organizational units of USAID; of providing to the original employing agency information concerning the services of its employee while under the supervision of USAID, including performance evaluations, reports of conduct, awards and commendations, and information normally obtained in the course of personnel administration and employee supervision; or of providing other information directly related to the purposes of the inter-agency agreement as set forth therein, and necessary and relevant to its implementation.
(9) To appropriate officials and employees of a Federal Government agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
(10) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Information Security Oversight Office, Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, for the purposes of adjudicating an appeal from a USAID denial of a request for mandatory declassification review of records, made under the applicable executive order(s) governing classification.
(11) To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(12) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) USAID suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) USAID 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 this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the USAID or another agency, entity, or person) 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 USAID's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(13) To a Federal, State, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, or to private individuals, for the purposes of requesting information relevant to a USAID decision concerning the hiring, retention, or promotion of a personal services contractor, the issuance of a security clearance, or other decision within the purposes of this system of records.
(14) To a prospective employer of a current or former USAID personal services contractor for the purposes of providing the following information to prospective employers: Job descriptions, dates of contract, and reason for termination of contract.
(15) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons for the purposes of confirming the qualifications of an applicant for the award of a personal services contract.
Records in this system are stored on paper and/or electronic form; and are maintained in locked cabinets and/or user-authenticated, password-protected systems.
Records are retrieved by the name of the personal services contractor and the contract number.
Information in this system is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the agency's automated directive system. In general, records and technical equipment are maintained in buildings with restricted access. The required use of password protection identification features and other system protection methods also restrict access. Paper records and Sensitive But Unclassified records are kept in an approved security container at the USAID Washington headquarters, and at the relevant locations where USAID has a program. The electronic records are stored in the Agency Secure Image and Storage Tracking (ASIST) or other document management systems, which are safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies, including USAID's automated systems security and access policies. Access to the records is restricted to those authorized USAID personnel and authorized contractors who have an official need to access the records in the performance of their official duties.
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and/or the National Archives Records Administration's General Records Disposition Schedules, and the agency's approved disposition schedules.
USAID Contracting Officers or Heads of Contracting Activities, United States
Same as Record Access Procedures.
Under the Privacy Act, individuals may request access to records about themselves. If an agency or a person, who is not the individual who is the subject of the records, requests access to records about an individual, the written consent of the individual who is the subject of the records is required.
Requesters may submit requests for records under the Privacy Act: (1) By mail to the USAID FOIA Office, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.07C–RRB, Washington, DC 20523–2701; (2) via Facsimile to 202–216–3070; (3) via email to
Requesters using 1 through 4 may provide a written statement or may complete and submit USAID Form 507–1, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, which can be obtained: (a) On the USAID Web site at
In addition, requesters using 1 through 4 must include proof of identity information by providing copies of two (2) source documents that must be notarized by a valid (un-expired) notary public. Acceptable proof-of-identity source documents include: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card (both sides); unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.
Requesters using 1 through 4 must also provide a signed and notarized statement that they are the person named in the request; that they understand that any falsification of their statement is punishable under the provision of 18 U.S.C. 1001 by a fine, or by imprisonment of not more than five years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisonment of not more than eight years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining records under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.
Requesters using 5 must provide such personal identification as is reasonable under the circumstances to verify the requester's identity, including the following: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card; unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained on himself or herself must clearly and concisely state that information is being contested, and the proposed amendment to the information sought. Requests to amend a record must follow the Record Access Procedures above.
These records contain information directly from the individuals who are the subject of these records; as well as from contracting officers and contracting officers' representatives in USAID bureaus and missions, and Office of Human Resources employees.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) and as specified in 22 CFR 215.14(a)(5) and (c)(5), certain records in this system of records are exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G); (H); (I); and (f).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600
The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota. Written comments may be submitted as described under
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605–673–9216, or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide:
(1) Climate Change and Forest Management presentation.
(2) Motorized Travel Fees for FY 16—Working Group Update;
(3) Over Snow Use—Subpart c discussion; and
(4) Lakes Enhancement Project Update;
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by March 9, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Briefing notice.
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 briefing is open to the public.
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will convene an open public meeting of the Board on March 25, 2015, preceded by meetings of the Board Committees on March 24, 2015.
On March 24, 2015 between 9:00 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time there will be sequential meetings of FirstNet's four Board Committees: (1) Governance and Personnel; (2) Technology; (3) Outreach; and (4) Finance. The full FirstNet Board will hold a meeting on March 25, 2015 between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The meetings on March 24 and 25, 2015 will be held in the auditorium of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (703) 648–4165; email:
This notice informs the public that the Board of FirstNet will convene an open public meeting of the Board on March 25, 2015, preceded by meetings of the Board Committees on March 24, 2015.
The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, at (703) 648–4165 or
The meetings will also be webcast. Please refer to FirstNet's Web site at
First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Public meeting notice.
The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) will hold a Special Meeting via telephone conference (teleconference) on March 9, 2015.
The Special Meeting will be held on Thursday, March 9, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The Special Meeting will be conducted via teleconference. Members of the public may listen to the meeting by dialing toll-free 1–888–997–9859 and using passcode 3572169. Due to the limited number of ports, attendance via teleconference will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
Uzoma Onyeije, Secretary, FirstNet, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (703) 648–4165; email:
On November 17, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of Waco, grantee of FTZ 246, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 246, on behalf of Spenco Medical Corporation, in Waco, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 246A is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 246's 412-acre activation limit.
On January 8, 2015, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 30, on behalf of Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request by Positec USA, Inc., and RQ Direct, Inc. (collectively, Positec), and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on the information received, we preliminarily intend to revoke, in part, the
Scott Hoefke, 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; telephone: (202) 482–4947 or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the
The merchandise subject to this AD order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, a final affirmative determination that resulted in an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.
On December 9, 2014, Positec requested the Department conduct a changed circumstances review on an expedited basis. On December 10, 2014, Petitioners filed a letter stating that they did not oppose partial revocation of the
Therefore, at the request of Positec and in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), we are initiating this changed circumstances review of hand trucks to determine whether partial revocation of the
We find that Petitioners' affirmative statement of no interest constitutes a reasonable basis for the conduct of this review. Additionally, our decision to expedite this review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) stems from the domestic industry's lack of interest in application of the
Based on the expression of no interest by Petitioners, and absent any objections by other domestic interested parties, we preliminarily determine that substantially all of the domestic producers have no interest in the continued application of the
Excluded from the scope of the order is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame than can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the `Aerocart'.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such comments, may be filed no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.309, parties who submit written comments or rebuttal comments in this changed circumstances review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days after publication of this notice.
We intend to issue our final results of this changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which we initiated the changed circumstances review or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e).
If final revocation, in part, occurs, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to end the suspension of liquidation for the merchandise covered by the revocation on the effective date of the notice of revocation and to release any cash deposit or bond. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated AD duties on all subject
This initiation, preliminary results of review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221(b)(1) and (4), and 351.222(g).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of EFP applications; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application for 2015 and 2016 that would continue work done in 2013 and 2014, and is considering issuance of EFPs for vessels participating in the EFP fishery. The EFPs are necessary to allow activities that are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations. The EFPs would be effective no earlier than March 18, 2015, and would expire no later than December 31, 2016, but could be terminated earlier under terms and conditions of the EFPs and other applicable laws.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on March 18, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by 0648–XD739, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Colby Brady (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206–526–6117, fax: 206–526–6736.
This action is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745, which states that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. At the June 2014 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in Garden Grove, CA, the Council considered an EFP application from the San Francisco Community Fishing Association and Dan Platt. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting. For more details on this EFP application and to view a copy of the application, see the Council's Web site at
The San Francisco Community Fishing Association and Dan Platt submitted an application to continue their 2013–2014 EFP work for two more years. The primary purpose of the EFP is to test a commercial hook and line gear to target underutilized yellowtail rockfish, while keeping bycatch of overfished species low. During their work in 2013 and 2014, a total of approximately 3.6 mt (3,600 kg) of yellowtail rockfish was harvested with very little bycatch of co-occurring overfished species.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS received an application from Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. (Shell) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to Shell to take, by Level B harassment only, seven species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 2, 2015.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
A copy of the application, which contains several attachments used in this document, including Shell's marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) and Plan of Cooperation, may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On December 2, 2014, Shell submitted an application to NMFS for the taking of marine mammals incidental to ice overflight surveys the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. After receiving comments and questions from NMFS, Shell revised its IHA application on January 13, 2015. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on January 15, 2015.
The proposed activity would occur between May 1, 2015 and April 30, 2016. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Ice overflight surveys using fixed and rotate winged aircraft when flying at low altitudes.
Shell has requested an authorization to take seven marine mammal species by Level B harassment. These species include: Beluga whale (
Shell plans to conduct two periods of ice overflight surveys during May 2015–April 2016: Break-up surveys and freeze-up surveys.
Shell plans to conduct the overflight surveys from fixed wing and rotary aircraft. The aircraft to be used for the surveys are not currently under contract to Shell or a contractor to Shell. Ice and weather conditions will influence when and where the surveys can be conducted.
For initial planning purposes, Shell proposes to conduct the overflight surveys during May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016.
The ice overflight survey areas are the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska, as indicated in Figure 1–1 of Shell's IHA application. Aircraft supporting these surveys will operate out of Barrow and Deadhorse, Alaska.
The break-up surveys will occur between June and July in either the Chukchi or Beaufort Sea and will include:
• Up to five fixed-wing flights of approximately 1,500 nm total for up to approximately 13 hours total;
• One helicopter flight totaling of approximately 200 nm total for up to approximately 3 hours total.
Flight altitudes for fixed wing surveys will range from 30 to 610 m (100 to 2,000 ft) but will mostly be at or above 152 m (500 ft). For helicopter flights, the altitude will range from 15 to 152 m (50 to 500 ft) but will mostly be at or above 61 m (200 ft). Flights will occur when there is daylight. Aircraft are not scheduled to fly at the same time.
The freeze-up surveys will occur between November 2015 and March 2016 in either the Chukchi or Beaufort Sea and will include:
• Up to seven fixed-wing flights of approximately 2,500 nautical miles (nm) total in early winter for up to approximately 21 hours total;
• One helicopter flight in the Beaufort of approximately 200 nm that will include approximately 4 landings to collect ice measurements during late freeze-up including sampling with a battery powered ice auger for up to approximately 3 hours total.
Flight altitudes for fixed wing surveys will range from 30 to 610 m (100 to 2,000 ft) but will mostly be at or above 152 m (500 ft). For helicopter flights, the altitude will range from 15 to 152 m (50 to 500 ft) but will mostly be at or above 61 m (200 ft). Helicopter flights will also include landings. Flights will occur when there is daylight. Aircraft are not scheduled to fly at the same time.
Shell plans to conduct the ice overflight surveys with an Aero Commander (or similar) fixed winged aircraft and a Bell 412, AW 139, EC 145 (or similar) helicopter.
Shell will also have a dedicated helicopter for Search and Rescue (SAR) for the spring 2015 surveys. The SAR helicopter is expected to be a Sikorsky S–92 (or similar). This aircraft will stay grounded at the Barrow shorebase location except during training drills, emergencies, and other non-routine events.
The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including: Bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, and bearded seals; narwhals; polar bears; and walruses. Both the walrus and the polar bear are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered further in this proposed IHA notice.
Among the rest of marine mammal species, only beluga, bowhead, and gray whales, and ringed, spotted, bearded, and ribbon seals could potentially be affected by the proposed ice overflight activity. The remaining cetacean species
The bowhead whale is listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as depleted under the MMPA. The ringed seal is listed as “threatened” under the ESA. Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as endangered under the ESA; however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area.
Shell's application contains information on the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, abundance, and life history of each of the species under NMFS' jurisdiction mentioned in this document. When reviewing the application, NMFS determined that the species descriptions provided by Shell correctly characterized the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, and abundance of each species. Please refer to the application for that information (see
Table 1 lists the seven marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
The reasonably expected or reasonably likely impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals will be related primarily to localized, short-term acoustic disturbance from aircraft flying primarily over areas covered by sea ice with limited flight activity over open water and adjacent ice edges. The acoustic sense of marine mammals probably constitutes their most important distance receptor
Dominant tones in noise spectra from helicopters are generally below 500 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995). Harmonics of the main rotor and tail rotor usually dominate the sound from helicopters; however, many additional tones associated with the engines and other rotating parts are sometimes present. Because of Doppler shift effects, the frequencies of tones received at a stationary site diminish when an aircraft passes overhead. The apparent frequency is increased while the aircraft approaches and is reduced while it moves away.
Aircraft flyovers are not heard underwater for very long, especially when compared to how long they are heard in air as the aircraft approaches an observer. Very few cetaceans, including the species in the proposed ice overflight survey areas, are expected to be encountered during ice overflights due to the low density of cetacean species in the winter survey area and small area to be flown over open water during spring. Most of these effects are expected in open-water where limited aircraft noise could penetrate into the water column. For cetaceans under the ice, the noise levels from the aircraft are expected to be dramatically reduced by floating ice. Long-term or population level effects are not expected.
Evidence from flyover studies of ringed and bearded seals suggests that a reaction to helicopters is more common than to fixed wing aircraft, all else being equal (Born
Historically, there have been far greater levels of aviation activity in the offshore Chukchi and Beaufort Seas compared with that of the proposed ice overflights. None of this previous offshore aviation activity is believed to have resulted in long-term impacts to marine mammals, as demonstrated by results from a wide range of monitoring programs and scientific studies. Impacts to marine mammals from aviation activities in Arctic offshore habitats have been shown to be, at most, short-term and highly-localized in nature (
The effect of aircraft overflight on marine mammals will depend on the behavior of the animal at the time of reception of the stimulus, as well as the distance from the aircraft and received level of sound. Cetaceans (such as bowhead, gray, and beluga whales) will only be present, and thus have the potential to be disturbed, when aircraft fly over open water in between ice floes; seals may be disturbed when aircraft are over open water or over ice on which seals may be present. Disturbance reactions are likely to vary among some of the seals in the general vicinity, and not all of the seals present are expected to react to fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.
Behavioral distances from marine mammals also depend on the altitudes of the aircraft overflight. Marine mammals are not likely to be affected by aircraft overflights that are above 1,000 ft. Therefore, behavioral harassments discussed above are only limited to those aircraft flying at lower altitudes. Proposed monitoring measures discussed below would further reduce potential affects from Shell's proposed ice overflight surveys.
In light of the nature of the activities, and for the reasons described below, NMFS does not expect marine mammals will be injured or killed as a result of ice overflight surveys. In addition, due to the low received noise levels from aircraft overflights, NMFS does not expect marine mammals will experience hearing impairment such as TTS or PTS.
Of the seal species which may be encountered, only ringed seals are abundant in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during the winter and early spring when the overflights are scheduled to occur. In March–April, ringed seals give birth in subnivean lairs established on shorefast and stable pack ice (Smith and Stirling 1975; Smith 1973). Ringed seals in subnivean layers have been known to react to aircraft overhead by entering the water in some instances (Kelly
Bearded seals spend the winter season in the Bering Sea, and then follow the ice edge as it retreats in spring (MacIntyre and Stafford 2011). Large numbers of bearded seals are unlikely to be present in the project area during the time of planned operations. However, some individuals may be encountered. Spotted seals are found in the Bering Sea in winter and spring where they breed, molt, and pup in large groups (Quakenbush 1988; Rugh
Based on extensive analysis of digital imagery taken during aerial surveys in support of Shell's 2012 operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, ice seals are very infrequently observed hauled out on the ice in groups of greater than one individual (Shell 2015). Tens of thousands of images from 17 flights that took place from July through October were reviewed in detail. Of 107 total observations of spotted or ringed seals on ice, only three of those sightings were of a group of two individuals (Shell 2015). Since seals typically are found as individuals or in very small groups when they are in the project area, the chance of a stampede event is very unlikely. Finally, ice seals are well adapted to move between ice and water without injury, including “escape reactions” to avoid predators.
Ringed and bearded seals sometimes, but not always, dive when approached by low-flying aircraft (Burns and Frost 1979; Burns
The sound of aircraft is also reduced by the snow of the lair (Cummings and Holliday 1983). Spotted seals are sensitive to aircraft, reacting erratically at considerable distances which may result in mother-pup separation or injury to pups (Frost
Shell's planned 2015/16 ice overflight surveys will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to their prey sources. The primary potential impacts on marine mammal habitat and prey resources that are reasonably expected or reasonably likely are associated with elevated sound levels from the aircraft passing overhead. Effects on marine mammal habitat from the generation of sound from the planned surveys would be negligible and temporary, lasting only as long as the aircraft is overhead. Water column effects will be localized and ephemeral, lasting only the duration of the aircrafts presence. All effects on marine mammal habitat from the planned surveys are expected to be negligible and confined to very small areas within the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
The primary effect of the sound energy generated by ice overflight survey activities on marine mammal habitat will be the ensonification of the water column and air at the surface. Sound energy can also affect invertebrates and fish that are marine mammal prey, and thereby indirectly impact the marine mammals.
Levels and duration of sounds received by marine mammals underwater from a passing helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft are a function of the type of aircraft, orientation and altitude of the aircraft, depth of the animal, and water depth. Aircraft sounds are detectable underwater at greater distances when the receiver is in shallow rather than deep water. Generally, sound levels received underwater decrease as the altitude of the aircraft increases (Richardson
Aircraft sounds are audible for much greater distances in air than in water. Under calm conditions, rotor and engine sounds are coupled into the water within a 26° cone beneath the aircraft. Some of the sound will transmit beyond the immediate area, and some sound will enter the water outside the 26 degree area when the sea surface is rough. However, scattering and absorption will limit lateral propagation in shallow water. Dominant tones in noise spectra from helicopters are generally below 500 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995). Because of Doppler shift effects, the frequencies of tones received at a stationary site diminish when an aircraft passes overhead. The apparent frequency is increased while the aircraft approaches and is reduced while it moves away. Sounds generated underwater from aircraft flyovers are of short duration.
Helicopters will generally maintain straight-line routes, thereby limiting the sound levels at and below the surface. Given the timing and location of the proposed ice overflight activities, as well as the mitigation measures that will be implemented as a part of the program, any impacts from aircraft traffic on marine mammal habitat or prey will be localized and temporary with no anticipated population level effects.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). This section summarizes the contents of Shell's Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (4MP). Later in this document in the “Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization” section, NMFS lays out the proposed conditions for review, as they would appear in the final IHA (if issued).
Shell submitted a 4MP as part of its application (see
• A PSO will be aboard all flights recording all sightings/observations (
• The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi radius when flying over areas where seals appear to be concentrated in groups of ≥5 individuals;
• The aircraft will not land on ice within 0.5 mi of hauled out pinnipeds or polar bears;
• The aircraft will avoid flying over polynyas and along adjacent ice margins as much as possible to minimize potential disturbance to cetaceans; and
• Shell will routinely engage with local communities and subsistence groups to ensure no disturbance of whaling or other subsistence activities.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned, and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of noises generated from ice overflight surveys, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of noises generated from ice overflight surveys, or other activities expected to
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of noises generated from ice overflight surveys, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Shell submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Appendix B of the Shell's IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period or from the peer review panel (see the “Monitoring Plan Peer Review” section later in this document).
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of noises generated from ice overflight surveys that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
Aerial monitoring for marine mammals will be conducted by a trained protected species observer (PSO) aboard each flight. PSO duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals, recording their numbers, distances from, and potential reactions to the presence of the aircraft, in addition to working with the helicopter pilots to identify areas for landings on ice that is clear of marine mammals.
Observers will have previous marine mammal observation experience in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. All observers will be trained and familiar with the marine mammals of the area, data collection protocols, reporting procedures, and required mitigation measures.
The following specialized field equipment for use by the onboard PSO: Fujinon 7 X 50 binoculars for visual monitoring, a GPS unit to document the route of each ice overflight, a laptop computer for data entry, a voice recorder to capture detailed observations and data for post flight entry into the computer, and digital still cameras.
The observer on the aircraft will record observations directly into computers using a custom software package. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified in the field by computerized validity checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking following the flight. Additionally, observers will capture the details of sightings and other observations with a voice recorder, which will maximize observation time and the collection of data. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the surveys, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other programs for further processing.
During the course of the flights, the observer will record information for each sighting including number of individuals, approximate age (when possible to determine), and any type of potential reaction to the aircraft. Environmental information the observer will record includes weather, air temperature, cloud and ice cover, visibility conditions, and wind speed.
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed “where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing regulations state, “Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan” (50 CFR 216.108(d)).
NMFS has established an independent peer review panel to review Shell's 4MP for ice overflight survey in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The panel is scheduled to meet in early March 2015, and will provide comments to NMFS shortly after they meet. After completion of the peer review, NMFS will consider all recommendations made by the panel, incorporate appropriate changes into the monitoring requirements of the IHA (if issued), and publish the panel's findings and recommendations in the final IHA notice of issuance or denial document.
The results of Shell's ice overflight monitoring report will be presented in the “90-day” final report, as required by NMFS under the proposed IHA. The initial final report is due to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA (if issued). The report will include:
• Summaries of monitoring effort: Total hours, total distances flown, and environmental conditions during surveys;
• Summaries of occurrence, species composition, and distribution of all marine mammal sightings including date, numbers, age/size/gender categories (when discernible), group sizes, ice cover and other environmental variables; data will be visualized by plotting sightings relative to the position of the aircraft; and
• Analyses of the potential effects of ice overflights on marine mammals and the number of individuals that may have been disturbed by aircraft.
The “90-day” report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
Shell will be required to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' Stranding Network of any sighting of an injured or dead marine mammal. Based on different circumstances, Shell may or may not be required to stop operations upon such a sighting. Shell will provide NMFS with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available). The specific language describing what Shell must do upon sighting a dead or injured marine mammal can be found in the “Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization” section of this document.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B behavioral harassment is anticipated as a result of the proposed ice overflight surveys.
As discussed earlier in this document, potential noise impacts to marine mammals from ice overflight surveys would be limited in a 26° cone under the flight path. The intensity of noise enters the water depends on the altitude of the aircraft (Richardson
Exposures were calculated in the following sections for cetaceans and seals. The methods used to estimate exposure for each species group was fundamentally the same with minor differences as described below. Exposure estimates for cetaceans were calculated by multiplying the anticipated area to be flown over open water each season (winter and spring) by the expected densities of cetaceans that may occur in the survey area.
Exposures of seals were calculated by multiplying the anticipated area to be flown over open water and ice in each season (winter and spring) by the expected densities of seals that may occur in the survey area by the proportion of seals on ice that may actually show a disturbance reaction to each type of aircraft (Born
Marine mammal density estimates in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have been derived for two time periods: The winter period covering November through April, and the spring period including May through early July.
There is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and assumptions used in the calculations. To provide some allowance for uncertainties, “average” as well as “maximum” estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected have been derived. For a few species, several density estimates were available. In those cases, the mean and maximum estimates were determined from the reported densities or survey data. In other cases, only one or no applicable estimate was available, so correction factors were used to arrive at “average” and “maximum” estimates. These are described in detail in the following sections.
In Polar Regions, most pinnipeds are associated with sea ice and typical census methods involve counting pinnipeds when they are hauled out on ice. In the Beaufort Sea, abundance surveys typically occur in spring when ringed seals emerge from their lairs (Frost
Detectability bias, quantified in part by f(0), is associated with diminishing sightability with increasing lateral distance from the survey trackline. Availability bias, g(0), refers to the fact that there is <100 percent probability of sighting an animal that is present along the survey trackline. Some sources below included these correction factors in the reported densities (
Beluga whale density estimates were calculated based on aerial survey data collected in October in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea by the NMML (as part of the BWASP program funded by BOEMRE) in 2007–2010. They reported 31 sightings of 66 individual whales during 1597 km of on-transect effort over waters 200–2000 m deep. An f(0) value of 2.326 was applied and it was calculated using beluga whale sightings data collected in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (Innes
Bowhead whale density estimates in the winter in the planned ice overflight area are expected to be quite low. Miller
Gray whales may be encountered as they have been detected near Pt. Barrow throughout the winter (Moore
Spring densities of beluga whales in offshore waters are expected to be low, with somewhat higher densities in ice-margin and nearshore areas. Past aerial surveys have recorded few belugas in the offshore Chukchi Sea during the summer months and belugas are most likely encountered in offshore waters of the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Moore
Those aerial surveys recorded 10 on-transect beluga sightings (22 individuals) during 22,154 km of on transect effort in waters 36–50 m deep in the Chukchi Sea during July and August. The mean group size of the sightings was 2.2. An f(0) value of 2.841 and g(0) value of 0.58 from Harwood
Eastward migrating bowhead whales were recorded during industry aerial surveys of the continental shelf near Camden Bay in 2008 until 12 July (Christie
Gray whales are expected to be present in the Chukchi Sea but are unlikely in the Beaufort Sea. Moore
Ringed seal densities were taken from offshore aerial surveys of the pack ice zone conducted in spring 1999 and 2000 (Bengtson
Other seal species are not expected to be present in the ice overflight survey area in large numbers during the winter period of the ice overflights. Bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals would be present in the area in smaller numbers than ringed seals during spring through fall summer, but these less common seal species generally migrate into the southern Chukchi and Bering Seas during fall and remain there through the winter (Allen and Angliss 2014). Few satellite-tagging studies have been conducted on these species in the Beaufort Sea, winter surveys have not been conducted, and a few bearded seals have been reported over the continental shelf in spring prior to general break-up. However, the tracks of three bearded seals tagged in 2009 moved south into the Bering Sea along the continental shelf by November (Cameron and Boveng 2009). These species would be more common in the area during spring through fall, but it is possible that some individuals, bearded seals in particular, may be present in the area surveyed in winter. Ribbon seals
Three species of pinnipeds under NMFS' jurisdiction are likely to be encountered in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during planned ice overflights in spring of 2015: Ringed, bearded, and spotted seals. Ringed and bearded seals are associated with both the ice margin and the nearshore open water area during spring. Spotted seals are often considered to be predominantly a coastal species except in the spring when they may be found in the southern margin of the retreating sea ice. However, satellite tagging has shown that some individuals undertake long excursions into offshore waters during summer (Lowry
Ringed seal and bearded seal “average” and “maximum” spring densities were available in Bengtson
Little information on spotted seal densities in offshore areas of the Alaskan Arctic is available. Spotted seal densities in the spring were estimated by multiplying the ringed seal densities by 0.02. This was based on the ratio of the estimated occurrence of the two species during ice overflight surveys and the assumption that the vast majority of seals present in areas of pack ice would be ringed seals (Funk
Four ribbon seal sightings were reported during industry vessel operations in the Chukchi Sea in 2006–2010 (Hartin
Encounters that may result in potential disturbance of cetaceans will likely occur only in open water. Flight paths over open water and adjacent ice edges will be minimized by the objectives of the program as an effort to reduce encounters with cetaceans. It is estimated that five to ten percent of distance flown in winter will be over open water, and ten to twenty percent of distance flown in spring will be over open water. We applied the most conservative of these percentages to the proposed tracklines in winter and spring to estimate the area of open water exposed by planned ice overflights.
The potential disturbance area for each season was based on flight altitude and lateral distance of cetaceans from the center trackline. Based on known air-to-water propagation paths, cetaceans may be exposed to sounds produced by the aircraft when individuals are up to 13 degrees from the aircraft's center (Snell's law; Urick 1972 in Richardson
Table 2 summarizes potential disturbance radii, maximum flight distances over open water, and potential disturbance areas for cetaceans from fixed wing aircraft and helicopters during Shell's proposed ice overflights program in winter (November through April) and spring (May through early July). Maximum percentage of total trackline over open water, as based on previous surveys, is 10% and 20% of the total trackline for winter and spring, respectively. Based on maximum flight distances, percent open water, and a potential disturbance radius of 75 m for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, a total of 169 km
Fixed wing and helicopter flights over ice at ice overflight survey altitudes have the potential to disturb seals hauled out on ice, although the flight altitude and lateral distances at which seals may react to aircraft are highly variable (Born et al. 1999; Burns
Born
Table 3 summarizes potential disturbance radii, maximum flight distances, and potential disturbance areas for seals from fixed wing aircraft and helicopters during Shell's proposed ice overflights program in winter (November through April) and spring (May through early July). Based on maximum flight distances and potential disturbance radii of 600 and 1500 m for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, respectively, a total of 11,112 km
This subsection provides estimates of the number of individual cetaceans that could potentially be disturbed by aircraft during Shell's proposed ice overflights. The estimates are based on an estimate of the anticipated open-water area that could be subjected to disturbance from overflights, proximity of cetaceans in open water to the aircraft, and expected cetacean densities in those areas during each season.
The number of individuals of each cetacean species potentially disturbed by fixed wing aircraft or helicopters was estimated by multiplying:
The numbers of individual cetaceans potentially disturbed were then summed for each species across the two seasons.
Estimates of the average and maximum number of individual cetaceans that may be disturbed are shown by season in Table 4. Less than one individual of each cetacean species was estimated to be disturbed in winter. This was due to the low density of cetaceans in the survey area in winter and extensive ice cover during this period. In spring, a few beluga whales, bowhead whales, and gray whales are estimated to potentially be disturbed during ice overflights when aircraft transit over open water for short periods. The numbers of individuals exposed represent very small proportions of their populations.
This subsection provides estimates of the number of individual ice seals that could potentially be disturbed by aircraft during Shell's proposed ice overflights. The estimates are based on a consideration of the proposed flight distances, proximity of seals to the aircraft trackline, and the proportion of ice seals present that might actually be disturbed appreciably (
The number of individuals of each ice seal species potentially disturbed by fixed wing aircraft or helicopters was estimated by multiplying:
The numbers of individuals potentially disturbed were then summed for each species across the two seasons.
Estimates of the average number of individual seals that may be disturbed are shown by season in Table 4. The estimates shown represent proportions of the total number of seals encountered that may actually demonstrate a disturbance reaction to each type of aircraft. Estimates shown in Table 4 were based on Born
Ringed seal is by far the most abundant species expected to be encountered during the planned ice overflights. The best (average) estimate of the numbers of ringed seals potentially disturbed during ice overflights is 793 individuals, which represents only a small proportion of the estimated population of ringed seals in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Fewer individuals of other pinniped species are estimated to be encountered during ice overflights, also representing very small proportions of their populations.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of Shell's proposed ice overflight surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and none are proposed to be authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (
Aircraft flyovers are not heard underwater for very long, especially when compared to how long they are heard in air as the aircraft approaches an observer. Very few cetaceans are expected to be encountered during ice overflights due to the low density of cetacean species in the winter survey area and small area to be flown over open water during spring. Long-term or population level effects are not expected. The majority of seals encountered by fixed wing aircraft will unlikely show a notable disturbance reaction, and approximately half of the seals encountered by helicopters may react by moving from ice into the water. Any potential disturbance from aircraft to seals in the area of ice overflights will be localized and short-term in duration with no population level effects.
Of the seven marine mammal species likely to occur in the proposed ice overflight survey area, only the bowhead whale and ringed seal are listed as endangered under the ESA. These two species are also designated as “depleted” under the MMPA. Despite these designations, the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing at a rate of 3.4% annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2011), even in the face of ongoing industrial activity. Additionally, during the 2001 census, 121 calves were counted, which was the highest yet recorded. The calf count provides corroborating evidence for a healthy and increasing population (Allen and Angliss, 2011). Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as endangered or are proposed for listing under the ESA; however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area. Ringed seals were recently listed under the ESA as threatened species. On July 25, 2014 the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated the rule listing to the Beringia bearded seal DPS and remanded the rule to NMFS to correct the deficiencies identified in the opinion. None of the other species that may occur in the project area is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. There is currently no established critical habitat in the proposed project area for any of these seven species.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the “Anticipated Effects on Habitat” section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor. Based on the vast size of the Arctic Ocean where feeding by marine mammals occurs versus the localized area of the ice overflight surveys, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area would be of little consequence, as marine mammals would have access to other feeding grounds.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from Shell's proposed 2015 ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The estimated takes proposed to be authorized represent less than 0.3% of the affected population or stock for all species in the survey area.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: “an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Subsistence hunting continues to be an essential aspect of Inupiat Native life, especially in rural coastal villages. The Inupiat participate in subsistence hunting activities in and around the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion of the food that will last the community through the year. Marine mammals represent on the order of 60–80% of the total subsistence harvest. Along with the nourishment necessary for survival, the subsistence activities strengthen bonds within the culture, provide a means for educating the younger generation, provide supplies for artistic expression, and allow for important celebratory events.
Activities associated with Shell's planned ice overflight survey program is not likely to have an un-mitigable adverse impact on the availability of bowhead whales for taking for subsistence uses. Ice overflight surveys that may occur near Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik would traverse bowhead subsistence areas. Most flights would take place after the date of fall and prior to spring bowhead whale hunting from the villages. The most commonly observed reactions of bowheads to aircraft traffic are hasty dives, but changes in orientation, dispersal, and changes in activity are sometimes noted. Such reactions could potentially affect subsistence hunts if the flights occurred near and at the same time as the hunt. Shell has developed and proposes to implement a number of mitigation measures to avoid such impacts. These mitigation measures include minimum flight altitudes, use of Village Community Liaison Officers (CLOs), Subsistence Advisors (SAs), and Communication Centers in order to avoid conflicts with subsistence activities. SA calls will be held while subsistence activities are underway during the ice overflight survey program and are attended by operations staff, logistics staff, and CLOs. Aircraft flights are adjusted as needed and planned in a manner that avoids potential impacts to bowhead whale hunts and other subsistence activities. With these mitigation measures any effects on the bowhead whale as a subsistence resource, or effects on bowhead subsistence hunts would be minimal.
Activities associated with Shell's planned ice overflight survey program will not have an un-mitigable adverse impact on the availability of beluga whales for taking for subsistence uses.
Ice overflight surveys may occur near Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik would and traverse beluga whale hunt subsistence areas. Most flights would take place when belugas are not typically harvested. Survey activities could potentially affect subsistence hunts if the flights occurred near and at the same time as the hunt. Shell has developed and proposes to implement a number of mitigation measures to avoid such impacts. These mitigation measures include minimum flight altitudes, use of CLOs, SAs, and Communication Centers. SA calls will be held while subsistence activities are underway during the ice overflight survey program and are attended by operations staff, logistics staff, and CLOs. Aircraft flights are adjusted as needed and planned in a manner that avoids potential impacts to beluga whale hunts and other subsistence activities. With these mitigation measures any effects on the beluga whale as a subsistence resource, or effects on beluga subsistence hunts would be minimal.
Seals are an important subsistence resource with ringed and bearded seals making up the bulk of the seal harvest. The survey areas are far outside of areas reportedly utilized for the harvest of seals by the villages of Point Hope, thus the ice overflight surveys will not have an un-mitigable adverse impact on the availability of ice seals for taking for subsistence uses. The survey areas encompass some areas utilized by residents of Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik for the harvest of seals. Most ringed and bearded seals are harvested in the winter and a harvest of seals could possibly be affected by Shell's planned activities. Spotted seals are harvested during the summer and may overlap briefly with Shell's planned activities. Most seals are harvested in coastal waters, with available maps of recent and past subsistence use areas indicating that seal harvests have occurred only within 30–40 mi (48–64 km) off the coastline. Some of the planned ice overflight surveys would take place in areas used by the village residents for the harvest of seals. The survey aircraft could potentially travel over areas used by residents for seal hunting and could potentially disturb seals and, therefore, subsistence hunts for seals. Any such effects from the survey activities would be minimal due to the infrequency of the planned surveys. Shell has developed and proposes to implement a number of mitigation measures which include a proposed 4MP, use of CLOs, SAs, operation of Communication Centers, and minimum altitude requirements. SA calls will be held while subsistence activities are underway during the ice overflight survey program and are attended by operations staff, logistics staff, and CLOs. Aircraft movements and activities are adjusted as needed and planned in a manner that avoids potential impacts to subsistence activities. With these mitigation measures any effects on ringed, bearded, and spotted seals as subsistence resources, or effects on subsistence hunts for seals, would be minimal.
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of Cooperation (POC) or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
Shell is preparing to implement a POC in accordance with NMFS' regulations. The POC relies upon the Chukchi Sea Communication Plans to identify the measures that Shell has developed in consultation with North Slope subsistence communities and will implement during its planned 2015/2016 ice overflight surveys to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. In addition, the POC will detail Shell's communications and consultations with
The POC identifies and documents potential conflicts and associated measures that will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use. Outcomes of POC meetings are typically included in updates attached to the POC as addenda and distributed to federal, state, and local agencies as well as local stakeholder groups that either adjudicate or influence mitigation approaches for Shell's activities.
Shell will engage with the villages potentially impacted by the 2015/2016 ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in 2014 and early 2015. Meetings were held in Barrow and Point Lay in early November 2014 and additional engagements are scheduled with other villages in early 2015. Throughout 2015, and 2016 Shell anticipates continued engagement with the marine mammal commissions and committees active in the subsistence harvests and marine mammal research.
Following the 2015/2016 season, Shell intends to have a post-season co-management meeting with the commissioners and committee heads to discuss results of mitigation measures and outcomes of the preceding season. The goal of the post-season meeting is to build upon the knowledge base, discuss successful or unsuccessful outcomes of mitigation measures, and possibly refine plans or mitigation measures if necessary.
In addition to the POC, the following subsistence mitigation measures will be implemented for Shell's proposed ice overflight surveys.
• Shell has developed a Communication Plan and will implement this plan before initiating ice overflight survey operations to coordinate activities with local subsistence users, as well as Village Whaling Captains' Associations, to minimize the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting activities, and keep current as to the timing and status of the bowhead whale hunt and other subsistence hunts.
• Shell will employ local CLOs and/or SAs from the Chukchi Sea villages that are potentially impacted by Shell's ice overflight surveys. The CLOs and SAs will provide consultation and guidance regarding the whale migration and subsistence activities. There will be one per village. The CLO and/or SA will use local knowledge (Traditional Knowledge) to gather data on the subsistence lifestyle within the community and provide advice on ways to minimize and mitigate potential negative impacts to subsistence resources during the survey season. Responsibilities include reporting any subsistence concerns or conflicts; coordinating with subsistence users; reporting subsistence-related comments, concerns, and information; and advising how to avoid subsistence conflicts.
• The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius when flying over areas where seals appear to be concentrated in groups of ≥5 individuals.
• The aircraft will not land on ice within 0.5 mi (805 m) of hauled out pinnipeds.
• The aircraft will avoid flying over polynyas and along adjacent ice margins as much as possible to minimize potential disturbance to cetaceans.
• Aircraft shall not operate below 1,500 ft (457 m) in areas of active whale hunting; such areas to be identified through communications with the Com Centers and SAs.
• Shell will routinely engage with local communities and subsistence groups to ensure no disturbance of whaling or other subsistence activities.
NMFS considers that these mitigation measures including measures to reduce overall impacts to marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed ice overflight survey area and measures to mitigate any potential adverse effects on subsistence use of marine mammals are adequate to ensure subsistence use of marine mammals in the vicinity of Shell's proposed ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from Shell's proposed activities.
There are two marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: The bowhead whale and ringed seal. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division will initiate consultation with NMFS' Endangered Species Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to Shell under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.
NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether the issuance of an IHA to Shell for its 2015/2016 ice overflight surveys may have a significant impact on the human environment. NMFS has released a draft of the EA for public comment along with this proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Shell for conducting ice overflight surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during 2015/2016, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
(1) This Authorization is valid from May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016.
(2) This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with Shell's 2015/2016 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas ice overflight surveys. The specific areas where Shell's ice overflight surveys will be conducted are the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska, as indicated in Figure 1–1 of Shell's IHA application.
(3)(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species: Bowhead whale; gray whale; beluga whale; ringed seal; bearded seal; spotted seal; and ribbon seal.
(3)(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
(4) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following activities:
Ice overflight surveys during freeze-up, winter, and break-up periods in 2015 and 2016 by aircraft.
(5) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or her designee.
(6) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at least 48 hours prior to the start of ice overflight surveys (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).
(7) Ice Overflight Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements: The Holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species or stocks:
(a) A PSO will be aboard all flights recording all sightings/observations (
(b) The aircraft will maintain a 1 mi radius when flying over areas where seals appear to be concentrated in groups of ≥5 individuals;
(c) The aircraft will not land on ice within 0.5 mi of hauled out pinnipeds or polar bears; and
(d) The aircraft will avoid flying over polynyas and along adjacent ice margins as much as possible to minimize potential disturbance to cetaceans.
(8) Subsistence Mitigation Measures: To ensure no unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals, the Holder of this Authorization shall:
(a) Develop and implement a Communication Plan before initiating ice overflight survey operations to coordinate activities with local subsistence users, as well as Village Whaling Captains' Associations, to minimize the risk of interfering with subsistence hunting activities, and keep current as to the timing and status of the bowhead whale hunt and other subsistence hunts.
(b) Employ local Community Liaison Officers (CLOs) and/or Subsistence Advisors (SAs) from the Chukchi Sea villages that are potentially impacted by the ice overflight surveys.
(A) The CLOs and SAs will provide consultation and guidance regarding the whale migration and subsistence activities.
(B) The CLOs and SAs will also report any subsistence concerns or conflicts; coordinate with subsistence users; report subsistence-related comments, concerns, and information; and advise how to avoid subsistence conflicts.
(c) Routinely engage with local communities and subsistence groups to ensure no disturbance of whaling or other subsistence activities.
(9) Monitoring Measures:
(a) Protected Species Observers:
(A) Aerial monitoring for marine mammals will be conducted by a trained protected species observer (PSO) aboard each flight.
(B) PSO duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals, recording their numbers, distances from, and potential reactions to the presence of the aircraft, in addition to working with the helicopter pilots to identify areas for landings on ice that is clear of marine mammals.
(b) Observer Qualifications and Training:
(A) Observers will have previous marine mammal observation experience in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
(B) All observers will be trained and familiar with the marine mammals of the area, data collection protocols, reporting procedures, and required mitigation measures.
(c) Specialized Field Equipment:
(A) Fujinon 7 × 50 binoculars for visual monitoring,
(B) GPS unit to document the route of each ice overflight,
(C) Laptop computer for data entry,
(D) Voice recorder to capture detailed observations and data for post flight entry into the computer,
(E) Digital still cameras.
(d) Field Data-Recording
(A) The observer on the aircraft will record observations directly into computers using a custom software package.
(B) The accuracy of the data entry will be verified in the field by computerized validity checks as the data are entered, and by subsequent manual checking following the flight.
(C) Observers will capture the details of sightings and other observations with a voice recorder, which will maximize observation time and the collection of data.
(D) During the course of the flights, the observer will record information for each sighting including:
• Number of individuals,
• Approximate age (when possible to determine),
• Any type of potential reaction to the aircraft.
• Weather, air temperature, wind speed, cloud and ice cover, and
• Visibility conditions.
(10) Reporting Requirements:
(a) Final Report: The results of Shell's ice overflight monitoring report will be presented in the “90-day” final report, as required by NMFS under the proposed IHA. The initial final report is due to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The report will include:
(A) Summaries of monitoring effort: Total hours, total distances flown, and environmental conditions during surveys;
(B) Summaries of occurrence, species composition, and distribution of all marine mammal sightings including date, numbers, age/size/gender categories (when discernible), group sizes, ice cover and other environmental variables; data will be visualized by plotting sightings relative to the position of the aircraft; and
(C) Analyses of the potential effects of ice overflights on marine mammals and the number of individuals that may have been disturbed by aircraft.
(b) The “90-day” report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
(11)(a) In the unanticipated event that the ice overflight surveys clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality, Shell shall immediately cease operations and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone or email and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information: (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; (ii) the name and type of vessel involved; (iii) the vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident; (iv) description of the incident; (v) status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; (vi) water depth; (vii) environmental conditions (
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Shell to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Shell may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that Shell discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(c) In the event that Shell discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2 of this Authorization (
(12) The Plan of Cooperation outlining the steps that will be taken to cooperate and communicate with the native communities to ensure the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses must be implemented.
(13) Shell is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) corresponding to NMFS's Biological Opinion issued to NMFS's Office of Protected Resources.
(14) A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
(15) Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as authorized under the MMPA.
(16) This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.
As noted above, NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for Shell's 2015/2016 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas ice overflight surveys. Please include, with your comments, any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Shell's request for an MMPA authorization.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 19 March 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.
Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15–09 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Slovakia has requested a possible sale of nine UH–60M Black Hawk Helicopters in standard U.S. Government configuration with designated unique equipment and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE); twenty T700–GE–701D Engines (18 installed and 2 spares); twenty Embedded Global Positioning Systems/Inertial Navigation Systems; two Aviation Mission Planning Systems; one Aviation Ground Power Unit; eleven AN/APX–123 Identification Friend or Foe Transponders; twenty Very High Frequency (VHF)/Digitally Selective Calling AN/ARC–231 radios; eleven ARN–147 VHF Omni Ranging/Instrument Landing System (VOR/ILS); eleven AN/ARN–153 Tactical Air Navigation Systems; and eleven AN/ARC–201D Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems radios. Also included are aircraft warranty, ammunition, air worthiness support, facility construction, spare and repair parts, support equipment, communication equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, site surveys, tool and test equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related element of program and logistics support. The estimated cost is $450 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally.
The proposed sale will improve Slovakia's capability to deter regional threats and strengthen its homeland defense, as well as support counter-terrorism operations. The sale of these UH–60 helicopters will bolster Slovakia's ability to provide border patrol, rapid reaction, and field expedient fire fighting capability for its air and ground forces in counter-terrorism, border security, and humanitarian operations. Slovakia will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be the Sikorsky Aircraft Company in Stratford, Connecticut; and General Electric Aircraft Company in Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of an additional three U.S. Government and five contractor representatives in Slovakia to support the delivery and training for approximately two-five years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The UH–60M aircraft is a medium lift aircraft which is equipped with two T–701D Engines, and the integrated flight and management system, which provides aircraft system, flight, mission, and communication management systems. The cockpit includes five Multifunction Displays (MFDs), two General Purpose Processor Units (GPPUs), two Control Display Units (CDUs) and two Data Concentrator Units (DCUs). The Navigation System will have Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) (EGIs), and two Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS).
2. The H764–G EGI unit provides GPS and INS capabilities to the aircraft. The EGI will include Selective Availability anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) security modules to be used for secure GPS PPS if required.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Slovakia.
Defense Travel Management Office, DoD.
Notice of Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates.
The Defense Travel Management Office is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 295. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States when applicable. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 295 is being published in the
Ms. Sonia Malik, 571–372–1276.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Defense Travel Management Office for non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 294. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Directorate, Department of Army.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 4, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile; ATTN: PM–IC (Linda Peterson); 109 Saint Joseph Street, Mobile, Alabama 36602 or call 251.694.3848.
Respondents include all organizational representatives who participated in the planning or execution of a Civil Works (CW) project within the targeted calendar year. These are external agents with whom Corps staff has had significant interaction who can potentially impact or influence the successful execution of a Corps CW project. This includes `traditional customers'
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Survival Innovations, LLC located at 59 Bradley Branch Road, Arden, North Carolina 28704–9472, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license throughout the United States (U.S.) in all the fields of use in the Government-Owned invention described in U.S. Patent number 8,056,196 B2 issued on November 15, 2001 entitled “Quick Release Fitting”.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Technology Transfer Office, Attention Michelle Miedzinski, Code 5.0H, 22473 Millstone Road, Building 505, Room 117, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670.
Michelle Miedzinski, 301–342–1133, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, 22473 Millstone Road, Building 505, Room 117, Patuxent River, Maryland 20670.
(35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.)
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) 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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET4/14/15.
Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET3/11/15.
284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/15.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Sunoco Pipeline L.P. filed a petition for a declaratory order approving the proposed tariff rate structure, proration policy, and various aspects of the Transportation Service Agreement for the Delaware Basin Extension project, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On February 10, 2015, the Cub River Irrigation Company filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Middle Ditch Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 480 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the existing Middle Ditch Canal, which transports water for agricultural irrigation purposes. The project would be located near the Town of Franklin in Franklin County, Idaho.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
On December 4, 2014, Paul Greyshock filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Ft. Pierce Pilot Project (Ft. Pierce Project or project) to be located in the Fort Pierce Inlet, near the City of Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: A prototype sub-surface propeller generator encased within 6-foot-diameter, 2-foot-wide tube, screened on both ends to protect marine life and protect the mechanism from debris. The generator has a capacity of 40 kilowatts, and will be suspended in 18-foot-deep water near the mouth of the inlet. Anchors on each end of the generator housing will secure it to the inlet floor. A transmission cable will connect the generator to a series of batteries located behind the Manatee Bar and Grill to monitor load and output. The estimated annual generation of the Ft. Pierce Project would be 80.0 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on February 13, 2015, Enable Bakken Crude Services, LLC requested waiver of the verified statement requirements under 18 CFR 342.4(c), consistent with the declaratory order authorization granted in Docket No. OR14–24–000.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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 OMB 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 OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 4, 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 Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
(
1. For VRS applicants operating five or fewer call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the applicant within the United States;
2. For VRS applicants operating more than five call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for a representative sampling (taking into account size (by number of communications assistants) and location) of five call centers operated by the applicant within the United States;
3. For VRS applicants operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the Applicant outside of the United States;
4. For all applicants, a list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote 10 percent or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or de facto control over the applicant, a description of the applicant's organizational structure, and the names of its executives, officers, members of its board of directors, general partners (in the case of a partnership), and managing members (in the case of a limited liability company);
5. For all applicants, a list of the number of applicant's full-time and part-time employees involved in TRS operations, including and divided by the following positions: Executives and officers; video phone installers (in the case of VRS), communications assistants, and persons involved in marketing and sponsorship activities;
6. Where applicable, a description of the call center infrastructure, and for all core call center functions (automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration) a statement whether such equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed) and proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements, including a complete copy of any lease or license agreement for automatic call distribution;
7. For all applicants, copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's employees directly involved in TRS operations, executives and communications assistants, and a list of names of employees directly involved in TRS operations, need not be submitted with the application, but must be retained by the applicant and submitted to the Commission upon request; and
8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to Internet-based TRS, including any associated written agreements.
(
(
(i) Its justification for such interruption;
(ii) Its plan to notify customers about the impending interruption; and
(iii) Its plans for resuming service, so as to minimize the impact of such disruption on consumers through a smooth transition of temporary service to another provider, and restoration of its service at the completion of such interruption.
(
(
(
(
(
On October 17, 2011, in document FCC 11–155, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order (
Therefore, the information collection requirements listed above in section (
6. A description of the technology and equipment used to support their call center functions—including, but not limited to, automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS Fund, and registration—and for each core function of each call center for which the applicant must provide a copy of technology and equipment proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements in accordance with paragraphs (a)–(d) listed below, a statement whether such technology and equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed);
(
(
(
(
8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to Internet-based TRS, including on that list a description of any associated written agreements; copies of all such arrangements and agreements must be retained by the applicant for three years from the date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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 OMB 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 OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 4, 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 Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
A final rulemaking has not been adopted by the Commission to date. The Commission would like to keep this collection in OMB's inventory. We will receive OMB final approval once the final rulemaking is adopted by the Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 27, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
In connection with this proposal, UniBanc Corp. has applied to acquire Stapleton Investment Company, and thereby engage in general insurance activities in a town greater than 5,000 in population, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A).
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Karen Mandel, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326–2491, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 25, 2015. Write “Health Discovery Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 1323211” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Health Discovery Corporation—Consent Agreement; File No. 1323211” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order as to Health Discovery Corporation (hereafter “the company”).
The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed order and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves the company's advertising for the MelApp mobile device software application. The Commission's complaint alleges that the company violated Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by representing that MelApp accurately analyses moles and other skin lesions for melanoma and increases consumers' chances of detecting melanoma in early stages, because such claims were false or misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. The complaint also alleges that the company violated Sections 5(a) and 12 by making the false or misleading representation that scientific testing proves that MelApp accurately detects melanoma.
The proposed order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related violations. The proposed order covers any Device, as the term is used within the meaning of Sections 12 and 15 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 52, 55. As additional fencing-in relief, the proposed order requires the company to follow appropriate recordkeeping and compliance reporting requirements, as well as document preservation requirements for human clinical studies that it conducts or sponsors on the Device.
Part I prohibits any representation that a Device detects or diagnoses melanoma or risk factors of melanoma, or increases users' chances of detecting melanoma in early stages, unless it is non-misleading and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Such evidence must consist of human clinical testing of the Device that is sufficient in quality and quantity, based on standards generally accepted by experts in the field, is blinded, conforms to actual use conditions, includes a representative range of skin lesions, and is conducted by researchers qualified by training and experience to conduct such testing. In addition, the company must maintain all underlying or supporting data that experts in the relevant field generally would accept as relevant to an assessment of such testing.
Part II prohibits any representation about the health benefits or health efficacy of a Device, unless it is non-
Part III triggered when the human clinical testing requirement in Parts I or II applies, requires the company to secure and preserve all underlying or supporting data and documents generally accepted by experts in the relevant field as relevant to an assessment of the test, such as protocols, instructions, participant-specific data, statistical analyses, and contracts with the test's researchers. There is an exception for a “Reliably Reported” test, defined as a test that is published in a peer-reviewed journal and that was not conducted, controlled, or sponsored by any proposed respondent or supplier. Also, the published report must provide sufficient information about the test for experts in the relevant field to assess the reliability of the results.
Part IV prohibits the company from misrepresenting, including through the use of a product or service name, endorsement, depiction, or illustration, the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research, or that any benefits of such product or service are scientifically proven, including, but not limited to, that studies, research, testing, or trials prove that a product or service detects or diagnoses a disease or the risks of a disease.
Part V provides the company will pay an equitable monetary payment of Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-three Dollars ($17,693).
Part VI contains recordkeeping requirements for advertisements and substantiation relevant to representations covered by Parts I through III, as well as order receipts covered by Part VII.
Parts VII through IX require the company to deliver a copy of the order to officers, employees, and representatives having managerial responsibilities with respect to the order's subject matter, notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations, and file compliance reports with the Commission.
Part X provides that, with exceptions, the order will terminate in twenty years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting.
Today the Commission is announcing actions in two matters challenging the advertising for the mobile apps MelApp and Mole Detective.
Advertising for MelApp stated that it used “patent protected state-of-the-art mathematical algorithms and image-based pattern recognition technology to analyze the uploaded image [of a skin lesion],” to “provide a risk analysis of the uploaded picture being a melanoma” and “assist[ ] in the early detection of melanoma.”
The claims that these apps would provide an accurate, automated analysis of skin lesions were the central selling points for both MelApp and Mole Detective, and these claims needed to be substantiated.
We disagree. We think the powerful language of the advertising, such as that quoted above, is clear on its face, so no extrinsic evidence of consumer interpretation is needed to support the challenged representations that the apps accurately analyze moles for symptoms of melanoma and increase the chance of detecting skin cancer in its early stages. Because the defendants and the respondent lacked substantiation for those claims, we have reason to believe they violated Section 5. Thus, it is not necessary to hypothesize about what implied claims, such as the accuracy relative to different types of assessments, consumers may have read into the advertising.
Commissioner Ohlhausen also suggests that the orders would,
If these advertisers make other claims about the health benefits or efficacy of any product or service, the orders require such claims to be non-misleading and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The orders further describe what constitutes competent and reliable scientific evidence and make it quite clear that the evidence required is directly tied to the claim made, expressly or implicitly, by the advertiser.
Technologies such as health-related mobile apps have the potential to provide tremendous conveniences and benefits to consumers. However, the same rules of the road apply to all media and technologies—advertisers must have substantiation to back up their claims. The Commission will continue to hold advertisers accountable for the promises they make to consumers, especially when they pertain to diseases and other serious health conditions.
For the foregoing reasons, we have reason to believe that the complaint allegations and proposed relief reached by consent of the settling parties are appropriate.
These matters are another example of the Commission using an unduly expansive interpretation of advertising claims to justify imposing an inappropriately high substantiation requirement on a relatively safe product.
I do not dispute that companies must have adequate substantiation to support the claims that they make, and I thus would have supported complaints and substantiation requirements based on the app developers' claims that their apps automatically assessed cancer risk more accurately than a consumer's unaided self-assessment using the ABCDE factors.
However, the complaints and orders in these cases go further, demanding a high level of substantiation for a wide range of potential advertising claims. Specifically, the orders require rigorous, well-accepted, blinded, human clinical tests to substantiate any claim that the app increases consumers' chances of detecting skin cancer in the early stages.
Substantiation requirements must flow from the claims made by the advertiser. Under
Yet, having acknowledged that the app developers need only ensure that their advertising conveys the appropriate level of accuracy, the majority still supports complaints that do not specify what claimed level of accuracy their advertisements conveyed to consumers. Instead, the complaints describe the allegedly unlawful advertising claims amorphously. The Mole Detective complaint, for example, characterizes the defendants' ads as claiming that the app “accurately analyzes moles for the ABCDE symptoms of melanoma; and/or increases consumers' chances of detecting skin cancer in early stages.”
This amorphous claim construction leaves two unresolved questions: “Accurate compared to what?” and “Increases chances compared to what?” We must know how reasonable consumers answered those questions—and thus establish what claims consumers likely took from the ads—before we can determine whether defendants provided the appropriate level of substantiation for those claims.
There is little reason to think that consumers interpreted the ads to promise early detection as accurate and efficacious as a dermatologist. The ads never claim that the apps substitute for a dermatologist exam. In fact, the ads describe the apps as tools to enhance self-assessment in conjunction with visits to dermatologists, and both apps emphasize the importance of regular dermatologist visits. Without extrinsic evidence, I do not have reason to believe that a reasonable consumer would take away the implied claim that using these apps would increase their chances of detecting skin cancer in the early stages
Thus, the orders impose a high level of substantiation despite lacking evidence that the marketing claims require such substantiation, and the complaints' vague claim construction obscures this flawed approach.
This approach concerns me. Health-related apps have enormous potential to improve access to health information for underserved populations and to enable individuals to monitor more effectively their own well-being, thereby improving health outcomes. Health-related apps need not be as accurate as professional care to provide significant value for many consumers. The Commission should not subject such apps to overly stringent substantiation requirements, so long as developers adequately convey the limitations of their products. In particular, the Commission should be very wary of concluding that consumers interpret marketing for health-related apps as claiming that those apps substitute for professional medical care, unless we can point to express claims, clearly implied claims, or extrinsic evidence. If the Commission continues to adopt such conclusions without any evidence of consumers' actual interpretations, and thus requires a very high level of substantiation for health-related apps, we are likely to chill innovation in such apps, limit the potential benefits of this innovation, and ultimately make consumers worse off.
I therefore respectfully dissent.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Preparedness and Response Science Board (NPRSB), also known as the National Biodefense Science Board, will be holding a public teleconference.
The NPRSB will hold a public meeting on March 30, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
Individuals who wish to participate should send an email to
Please submit an inquiry via the NPRSB Contact Form located at
Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (
Correction: This notice was published in the
The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
This announcement is a request for approval of the proposed information collection system, the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM). CB will use a web-based data collection form and database to gather critical reviewer information in drop down menu format for data such as: degree, occupation, affiliations with organizations and institutions that serve special populations, and demographic information that may be voluntarily provided by a potential reviewer.
These data elements will help CB find and select expert grant reviewers for objective review committees. The web-based system will permit reviewers to access and update their information at will and as needed. The RRM will be accessible by the general public via
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments 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) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 2, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 403(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C)), as amended by the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, provides that any person may market a food product whose label bears a nutrient content claim or a health claim that is based on an authoritative statement of a scientific body of the U.S. Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under this section of the FD&C Act, a person that intends to use such a claim must submit a notification of its intention to use the claim 120 days before it begins marketing the product bearing the claim. In the
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
These estimates are based on our experience with health claims, nutrient content claims, and other similar notification procedures that fall under our jurisdiction. To avoid estimating the number of respondents as zero, we estimate that there will be one or fewer respondents annually for nutrient content claim and health claim notifications. We estimate that we will receive one nutrient content claim notification and one health claim notification per year over the next 3 years.
Section 403(r)(2)(G) and (r)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act requires that the notification include the exact words of the claim, a copy of the authoritative statement, a concise description of the basis upon which such person relied for determining that this is an authoritative statement as outlined in the FD&C Act, and a balanced representation of the scientific literature relating to the relationship between a nutrient and a disease or health-related condition to which a health claim refers or to the nutrient level to which the nutrient content claim refers. This balanced representation of the scientific literature is expected to include a bibliography of the scientific literature on the topic of the claim and a brief, balanced account or analysis of how this literature either supports or fails to support the authoritative statement.
Since the claims are based on authoritative statements of a scientific body of the U.S. Government or NAS, we believe that the information that is required by the FD&C Act to be submitted with a notification will be readily available to a respondent. However, the respondent will have to collect and assemble that information. Based on communications with firms that have submitted notifications, we estimate that one respondent will take 250 hours to collect and assemble the information required by the statute for a nutrient content claim notification. Further, we estimate that one respondent will take 450 hours to collect and assemble the information required by the statute for a health claim notification.
Under the guidance, notifications should also contain information on analytical methodology for the nutrient that is the subject of a claim based on an authoritative statement. The guidance applies to both nutrient content claim and health claim notifications. We have determined that this information should be readily available to a respondent and, thus, we estimate that it will take a respondent 1 hour to incorporate the information into each notification. We expect there will be two respondents for a total of 2 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 2, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
All blood and blood components introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce are subject to section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(a)). Section 351(a) requires that manufacturers of biological products, which include blood and blood components intended for further
Section 351(j) of the PHS Act states that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act also applies to biological products. Blood and blood components for transfusion or for further manufacture into injectable products are drugs, as that term is defined in section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)). Because blood and blood components are drugs under the FD&C Act, blood and plasma establishments must comply with the substantive provisions and related regulatory scheme of the FD&C Act. For example, under section 501 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)), drugs are deemed “adulterated” if the methods used in their manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) and related regulations.
The CGMP regulations for blood and blood components (21 CFR part 606) and related regulations implement FDA's statutory authority to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. The public health objective in testing human blood donors for evidence of infection due to communicable disease agents and in notifying donors is to prevent the transmission of communicable disease. For example, the “lookback” requirements are intended to help ensure the continued safety of the blood supply by providing necessary information to users of blood and blood components and appropriate notification of recipients of transfusion who are at increased risk for transmitting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
The information collection requirements in the CGMP, donor testing, donor notification, and “lookback” regulations provide FDA with the necessary information to perform its duty to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of blood and blood components. These requirements establish accountability and traceability in the processing and handling of blood and blood components and enable FDA to perform meaningful inspections.
The recordkeeping requirements serve preventive and remedial purposes. The third-party disclosure requirements identify the various blood and blood components and important properties of the product, demonstrate that the CGMP requirements have been met, and facilitate the tracing of a product back to its original source. The reporting requirements inform FDA of certain information that may require immediate corrective action.
Under the reporting requirements, § 606.170(b), in brief, requires that facilities notify FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), as soon as possible after confirming a complication of blood collection or transfusion to be fatal. The collecting facility is to report donor fatalities, and the compatibility testing facility is to report recipient fatalities. The regulation also requires the reporting facility to submit a written report of the investigation within 7 days after the fatality. In fiscal year 2013, FDA received 72 of these reports.
Section 610.40(g)(2) (21 CFR 610.40(g)(2)) requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to ship human blood or blood components for further manufacturing use prior to completion of testing for evidence of infection due to certain communicable disease agents.
Section 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(A), in brief, requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to use or ship human blood or blood components found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of certain communicable disease agent(s) or collected from a donor with a record of a reactive screening test.
Under the third-party disclosure requirements, § 610.40(c)(1)(ii), in brief, requires that each donation dedicated to a single identified recipient be labeled as required under § 606.121 and with a label containing the name and identifying information of the recipient. The information collection requirements under § 606.121 are part of usual and customary business practice.
Sections 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D), in brief, require an establishment to label certain reactive human blood and blood components with the appropriate screening test results, and, if they are intended for further manufacturing use into injectable products, to include a statement on the label indicating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA. Also, § 610.40(h)(2)(vi) requires each donation of human blood or blood components, excluding Source Plasma, that tests reactive by a screening test for syphilis and is determined to be a biological false positive to be labeled with both test results.
Section 610.42(a) requires a warning statement “indicating that the product was manufactured from a donation found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of infection due to the identified communicable disease agent(s)” in the labeling for medical devices containing human blood or a blood component found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of infection due to a communicable disease agent(s) or syphilis.
In brief, §§ 610.46 and 610.47 require blood collecting establishments to establish, maintain, and follow an appropriate system for performing HIV and HCV prospective “lookback” when: (1) A donor tests reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection or (2) the collecting establishment becomes aware of other reliable test results or information indicating evidence of HIV or HCV infection (prospective “lookback”) (see §§ 610.46(a)(1) and 610.47(a)(1)). The requirement for “an appropriate system” requires the collecting establishment to design standard operating procedures (SOPs) to identify and quarantine all blood and blood components previously collected from a donor who later tests reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection, or when the collecting establishment is made aware of other reliable test results or information indicating evidence of HIV or HCV infection. Within 3 calendar days of the donor testing reactive by an HIV or HCV screening test or the collecting establishment becoming aware of other reliable test results or information, the collecting establishment must, among other things, notify consignees to quarantine all identified previously collected in-date blood and blood components (§§ 610.46(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 610.47(a)(1)(ii)(B)) and, within 45 days, notify the consignees of supplemental test results, or the results of a reactive screening test if there is no available supplemental test that is approved for such use by FDA (§§ 610.46(a)(3) and 610.47(a)(3)).
Consignees also must establish, maintain, and follow an appropriate system for performing HIV and HCV “lookback” when notified by the collecting establishment that they have received blood and blood components previously collected from donors who later tested reactive for evidence of HIV or HCV infection, or when the collecting
Section 630.6(a) (21 CFR 630.6(a)) requires an establishment to make reasonable attempts to notify any donor who has been deferred as required by § 610.41, or who has been determined not to be eligible as a donor. Section 630.6(d)(1) requires an establishment to provide certain information to the referring physician of an autologous donor who is deferred based on the results of tests as described in § 610.41.
Under the recordkeeping requirements, § 606.100(b), in brief, requires that written SOPs be maintained for all steps to be followed in the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage, and distribution of blood and blood components used for transfusion and further manufacturing purposes. Section 606.100(c) requires the review of all records pertinent to the lot or unit of blood prior to release or distribution. Any unexplained discrepancy or the failure of a lot or unit of final product to meet any of its specifications must be thoroughly investigated, and the investigation, including conclusions and followup, must be recorded.
In brief, § 606.110(a) provides that the use of plateletpheresis and leukapheresis procedures to obtain a product for a specific recipient may be at variance with the additional standards for that specific product if, among other things, the physician certifies in writing that the donor's health permits plateletpheresis or leukapheresis. Section 606.110(b) requires establishments to request prior approval from CBER for plasmapheresis of donors who do not meet donor requirements. The information collection requirements for § 606.110(b) are approved under OMB control number 0910–0338 and, therefore, are not reflected in tables 1 and 2.
Section 606.151(e) requires that SOPs for compatibility testing include procedures to expedite transfusion in life-threatening emergencies; records of all such incidents must be maintained, including complete documentation justifying the emergency action, which must be signed by a physician.
So that each significant step in the collection, processing, compatibility testing, storage, and distribution of each unit of blood and blood components can be clearly traced, § 606.160 requires that legible and indelible contemporaneous records of each such step be made and maintained for no less than 10 years. Section 606.160(b)(1)(viii) requires records of the quarantine, notification, testing and disposition performed under the HIV and HCV “lookback” provisions. Furthermore, § 606.160(b)(1)(ix) requires a blood collection establishment to maintain records of notification of donors deferred or determined not to be eligible for donation, including appropriate followup. Section 606.160(b)(1)(xi) requires an establishment to maintain records of notification of the referring physician of a deferred autologous donor, including appropriate followup.
Section 606.165, in brief, requires that distribution and receipt records be maintained to facilitate recalls, if necessary.
Section 606.170(a) requires records to be maintained of any reports of complaints of adverse reactions arising as a result of blood collection or transfusion. Each such report must be thoroughly investigated, and a written report, including conclusions and followup, must be prepared and maintained. Section 606.170(a) also requires that when an investigation concludes that the product caused the transfusion reaction, copies of all such written reports must be forwarded to and maintained by the manufacturer or collecting facility.
Section 610.40(g)(1) requires an establishment to appropriately document a medical emergency for the release of human blood or blood components prior to completion of required testing.
In addition to the CGMP regulations in part 606, there are regulations in 21 CFR part 640 that require additional standards for certain blood and blood components as follows: Sections 640.3(a)(1), (a)(2), and (f); 640.4(a)(1) and (a)(2); 640.25(b)(4) and (c)(1); 640.27(b); 640.31(b); 640.33(b); 640.51(b); 640.53(b) and (c); 640.56(b) and (d); 640.61; 640.63(b)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(3); 640.65(b)(2); 640.66; 640.71(b)(1); 640.72; 640.73; and 640.76(a) and (b). The information collection requirements and estimated burdens for these regulations are included in the part 606 burden estimates, as described in tables 1 and 2.
Respondents to this collection of information are licensed and unlicensed blood establishments that collect blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, inspected by FDA, and other transfusion services inspected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Based on information received from CBER's database systems, there are approximately 416 licensed Source Plasma establishments with multiple locations and approximately 1,265 licensed blood collection establishments, for an estimated total of 1,681 licensed blood collection establishments. Also, there are an estimated total of 680 unlicensed, registered blood collection establishments for an approximate total of 2,361 collection establishments (416 + 1,265 + 680 = 2,361 establishments). Of these establishments, approximately 990 perform plateletpheresis and leukapheresis. These establishments annually collect approximately 40 million units of Whole Blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes, and are required to follow FDA “lookback” procedures. In addition, there are another 4,961 establishments that fall under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (Pub. L. 100–578) (formerly referred to as facilities approved for Medicare reimbursement) that transfuse blood and blood components.
The following reporting and recordkeeping estimates are based on information provided by industry, CMS, and FDA experience. Based on information received from industry, we estimate that there are approximately 25 million donations of Source Plasma from approximately 2 million donors and approximately 15 million donations of Whole Blood, including approximately 225,000 (approximately 1.5 percent of 15 million) autologous donations, from approximately 10.9 million donors. Assuming each autologous donor makes an average of 2 donations, FDA estimates that there are approximately 112,500 autologous donors.
FDA estimates that approximately 5 percent (3,600) of the 72,000 donations
Under §§ 610.40(g)(2) and (h)(2)(ii)(A), Source Leukocytes, a licensed product that is used in the manufacture of interferon, which requires rapid preparation from blood, is currently shipped prior to completion of testing for evidence of certain communicable disease agents. Shipments of Source Leukocytes are preapproved under a biologics license application (BLA) and each shipment does not have to be reported to the Agency. Based on information from CBER's database system, FDA receives less than one application per year from manufacturers of Source Leukocytes. However, for calculation purposes, we are estimating one application annually.
Under §§ 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D), FDA estimates that each manufacturer would ship an estimated 1 unit of human blood or blood components per month (12 per year) that would require two labels; one as reactive for the appropriate screening test under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C), and the other stating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(D). According to CBER's database system, there are approximately 40 licensed manufacturers that ship known reactive human blood or blood components.
Based on information we received from industry, we estimate that approximately 18,000 donations: (1) Annually test reactive by a screening test for syphilis; (2) are determined to be biological false positives by additional testing; and (3) are labeled accordingly (§ 610.40(h)(2)(vi)).
Human blood or a blood component with a reactive screening test, as a component of a medical device, is an integral part of the medical device,
FDA estimates that approximately 3,500 repeat donors will test reactive on a screening test for HIV. We also estimate that an average of three components was made from each donation. Under §§ 610.46(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (a)(3), this estimate results in 10,500 (3,500 × 3) notifications of the HIV screening test results to consignees by collecting establishments for the purpose of quarantining affected blood and blood components, and another 10,500 (3,500 × 3) notifications to consignees of subsequent test results.
We estimate that § 610.46(b)(3) will require 4,961 consignees to notify transfusion recipients, their legal representatives, or physicians of record an average of 0.35 times per year resulting in a total number of 1,755 (585 confirmed positive repeat donors × 3) notifications. Also under § 610.46(b)(3), we estimate and include the time to gather test results and records for each recipient and to accommodate multiple attempts to contact the recipient.
Furthermore, we estimate that approximately 7,800 repeat donors per year would test reactive for antibody to HCV. Under §§ 610.47(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 610.47(a)(3), collecting establishments would notify the consignee 2 times for each of the 23,400 (7,800 × 3 components) components prepared from these donations, once for quarantine purposes and again with additional HCV test results for a total of 46,800 notifications as an annual ongoing burden. Under § 610.47(b)(3), we estimate that approximately 4,961 consignees would notify approximately 2,050 recipients or their physicians of record annually.
Based on industry estimates, approximately 13 percent of approximately 10 million potential donors (1.3 million donors) who come to donate annually are determined not to be eligible for donation prior to collection because of failure to satisfy eligibility criteria. It is the usual and customary business practice of approximately 1,945 (1,265 + 680) blood collecting establishments to notify onsite and to explain why the donor is determined not to be suitable for donating. Based on such available information, we estimate that two-thirds (1,297) of the 1,945 blood collecting establishments provided onsite additional information and counseling to a donor determined not to be eligible for donation as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, we estimate that only one-third, or 648, approximately, blood collecting establishments would need to provide, under § 630.6(a), additional information and onsite counseling to the estimated 433,333 (one-third of approximately 1.3 million) ineligible donors.
It is estimated that another 4.5 percent of 10 million potential donors (450,000 donors) are deferred annually based on test results. We estimate that approximately 95 percent of the establishments that collect 99 percent of the blood and blood components notify donors who have reactive test results for HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, HCV, Human T-Lymphotropic Virus, and syphilis as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, 5 percent of the 1,681 establishments (84) collecting 1 percent (4,500) of the deferred donors (450,000) would notify donors under § 630.6(a).
As part of usual and customary business practice, collecting establishments notify an autologous donor's referring physician of reactive test results obtained during the donation process required under § 630.6(d)(1). However, we estimate that approximately 5 percent of the 1,265 blood collection establishments (63) may not notify the referring physicians of the estimated 2 percent of 112,500 autologous donors with the initial reactive test results (2,250) as their usual and customary business practice.
The recordkeeping chart reflects the estimate that approximately 95 percent of the recordkeepers, which collect 99 percent of the blood supply, have developed SOPs as part of their customary and usual business practice. Establishments may minimize burdens associated with CGMP and related regulations by using model standards developed by industries' accreditation organizations. These accreditation organizations represent almost all registered blood establishments.
Under § 606.160(b)(1)(ix), we estimate the total annual records based on the approximately 1.3 million donors determined not to be eligible to donate and each of the estimated 1.75 million (1.3 million + 450,000) donors deferred based on reactive test results for evidence of infection because of communicable disease agents. Under § 606.160(b)(1)(xi), only the 1,945 registered blood establishments collect autologous donations and, therefore, are required to notify referring physicians. We estimate that 4.5 percent of the 112,500 autologous donors (5,063) will be deferred under § 610.41, which in turn will lead to the notification of their referring physicians.
FDA has concluded that the use of untested or incompletely tested but appropriately documented human blood or blood components in rare medical emergencies should not be prohibited. We estimate the recordkeeping under § 610.40(g)(1) to be minimal with one or fewer occurrences per year. The reporting of test results to the consignee
The average burden per response (hours) and average burden per recordkeeping (hours) are based on estimates received from industry or FDA experience with similar reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 2, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA is requesting OMB approval for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in FDA regulations entitled “Investigational New Drug Application” in part 312 (21 CFR part 312). Part 312 implements provisions of section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) to issue regulations under which the clinical investigation of the safety and effectiveness of unapproved new drugs and biological products can be conducted.
FDA is charged with implementing statutory requirements that drug products marketed in the United States be shown to be safe and effective, properly manufactured, and properly labeled for their intended uses. Section 505(a) of the FD&C Act provides that a new drug may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce in the United States unless FDA has previously approved a new drug application (NDA). FDA approves an NDA only if the sponsor of the application first demonstrates that the drug is safe and effective for the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the product's labeling. Proof must consist, in part, of adequate and well-controlled studies, including studies in humans, that are conducted by qualified experts. The IND regulations establish reporting requirements that include an initial application as well as amendments to that application, reports on significant revisions of clinical investigation plans, and information on a drug's safety or effectiveness. In addition, the sponsor is required to give FDA an annual summary of the previous year's clinical experience.
Submissions are reviewed by medical officers and other Agency scientific reviewers assigned responsibility for overseeing the specific study. The IND regulations also contain recordkeeping requirements that pertain to the responsibilities of sponsors and investigators. The detail and complexity of these requirements are dictated by the scientific procedures and human subject safeguards that must be followed in the clinical tests of investigational new drugs.
The IND information collection requirements provide the means by which FDA can monitor the clinical investigation of the safety and effectiveness of unapproved new drugs and biological products, including the following: (1) Monitor the safety of ongoing clinical investigations; (2) determine whether the clinical testing of a drug should be authorized; (3) ensure production of reliable data on the metabolism and pharmacological action of the drug in humans; (4) obtain timely information on adverse reactions to the drug; (5) obtain information on side effects associated with increasing doses; (6) obtain information on the drug's effectiveness; (7) ensure the design of well-controlled, scientifically valid studies; and (8) obtain other information pertinent to determining whether clinical testing should be continued, and information related to the protection of human subjects. Without the information provided by industry as required under the IND regulations, FDA cannot authorize or monitor the clinical investigations which must be conducted prior to authorizing the sale and general use of new drugs. These reports enable FDA to monitor a study's
There are two forms that are required under part 312:
Form FDA–1571—“Investigational New Drug Application.” A person who intends to conduct a clinical investigation submits this form to FDA. It includes the following information:
(1) A cover sheet containing background information on the sponsor and investigator;
(2) A table of contents;
(3) An introductory statement and general investigational plan;
(4) An investigator's brochure describing the drug substance;
(5) A protocol for each planned study;
(6) Chemistry, manufacturing, and control information for each investigation;
(7) Pharmacology and toxicology information for each investigation; and
(8) Previous human experience with the investigational drug.
Form FDA–1572—“Investigator Statement.” Before permitting an investigator to begin participation in an investigation, the sponsor must obtain and record this form. It includes background information on the investigator and the investigation, and a general outline of the planned investigation and the study protocol.
FDA is requesting OMB approval for the following reporting and recordkeeping requirements in part 312.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public scientific workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public scientific workshop to discuss dystrophin protein quantification methodologies for human tissue. This workshop is being cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of the workshop is to discuss currently available methodologies and to identify scientific knowledge gaps and opportunities for improving dystrophin protein detection in the context of drug development. The intended audiences for this workshop are scientists and clinicians involved in the acquisition, measurement, and analysis of proteins associated with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).
The scientific workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503A), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Participants must enter through Building 1 and undergo security screening. For parking and security information, please refer to
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, contact Mary Gross or Georgiann Ienzi at least 7 days in advance.
A summary of the scientific workshop's highlights will be made available for review at the Division of Dockets Management and at
FDA and NIH are cosponsoring this scientific workshop to discuss current methodologies being used in drug development and scientific research for DMD. Recent scientific advances present an opportunity for the development and validation of robust methods for the objective, reliable, and quantitative measurement of DMD-associated proteins.
Dystrophinopathies result from genetic mutations in the dystrophin gene that decrease dystrophin protein expression levels and result in altered dystrophin function. These changes can lead to muscle degeneration and, in many patients, downstream pathologies including inflammation and fibrosis that interfere with muscle regeneration, loss of movement, orthopedic complications, and ultimately respiratory and cardiac failure.
The workshop will include sessions which will focus on current technologies used in the detection of dystrophin. Presentations will provide overviews of the technologies (including limitations, detection sensitivities, linearity, and reproducibility). A panel discussion will help identify development challenges for each method. Muscle biopsy collection, sample handling, reference materials, and image analysis will also be discussed.
FDA will post the agenda and other background material approximately 2 days before the public scientific workshop at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Division of Gastroenterology and Inborn Errors Products Division and Division of Pediatric and Maternal Health in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics in the Office of the Commissioner are announcing a 2-day public workshop. Day 1 of the workshop is entitled “Assessment of Neurocognitive Outcomes in the Inborn Errors of Metabolism”. Day 2 of the workshop is entitled, “Advancing the Development of Pediatric Therapeutics: Assessment of Pediatric Neurocognitive Outcomes”. The purpose of this 2-day workshop is to provide a forum to consider issues related to advancing pediatric regulatory science in the evaluation of neurocognitive outcomes in pediatric patients.
The public workshop will be held on April 16 and 17, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The public workshop will be held in the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503A), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
For questions regarding Day 1 of the workshop, contact Richard (Wes) Ishihara, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–0069,
For questions regarding Day 2 of the workshop, contact Denise Pica-Branco, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
The first day of the workshop will focus on approaches for assessing the efficacy of therapeutic products on neurocognitive outcomes in patients diagnosed with inborn errors of metabolism disorders. The session will address the role of natural history studies and methodological approaches for selecting appropriate assessment scales and standardizing neurocognitive assessments. The second day of the workshop will discuss identification of signals in animal studies and clinical trials that warrant further clinical investigation and testing that may be predictive of neurocognitive outcome in children. Additionally, strategies and methods to address the challenges of assessing long-term neurocognitive outcomes for products used to treat pediatric patients will be discussed.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Denise Pica-Branco (see
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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.,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gives notice of the availability of the “Where am I, Where is my Team?” ideation prize competition and rules. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) First Responders Group (FRG) is seeking innovative methods for real-time, robust indoor tracking of the next generation first responder. The development of sensors and communications able to perform well across a variety of indoor environments is one of the biggest challenges in first responder tracking research and development. This prize competition seeks personalized, modular and scalable approaches to track the next generation of first responders indoors using current and emerging technologies, sensors, and techniques. Submissions should consist of a concept/design for a low cost, robust, real-time indoor tracking capability. The total cash prize payout for this competition is $25,000 (USD) consisting of a first place award of $20,000 (USD) and a second place award of $5,000 (USD). The awards will be paid to the best submission(s) as solely determined by the Seeker.
This prize competition consists of the following unique features:
• Terminology
○ Seeker: DHS S&T First Responders Group
○ Solvers: Ideation Prize competition submitters
• The Solvers are not required to transfer exclusive intellectual property rights to the Seeker. Rather, by submitting a proposal, the Solvers grants to the Seeker a royalty-free, perpetual, and non-exclusive license to use any information included in this proposal.
Questions about this prize competition may be emailed to
The America Creating Opportunities to
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate and in accordance with the description provided, below, under “Registration Information;”
(2) Shall have complied with all of the requirements under this section;
(3) Pursuant to the America COMPETES Act of 2010, awards for this Prize competition may only be given to an individual that is a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States, or an entity that is incorporated in and whose primary place of business is in the United States, subject to verification by the Seeker before Prizes are awarded. An individual or private entity must be the registered entrant to be eligible to win a prize. Further restrictions apply—see the Ideation Challenge-Specific Agreement found at the competition registration Web site and this
(4) Contestants must own or have access at their own expense to a computer, an Internet connection, and any other electronic devices, documentation, software, or other items that Contestants may deem necessary to create and enter a Submission;
(5) The following individuals (including any individuals participating as part of an entity) are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria set forth above:
(i) any individual under the age of 18;
(ii) any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel (hereafter, referenced simply as a “Judge”) or otherwise has a material business relationship or affiliation with any Judge;
(iii) any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household;
(iv) any individual who has been convicted of a felony;
(v) the Seeker, Participating Organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor or other individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or distribution of the Contest; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, representative, or agent;
(vi) any Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, or as may otherwise be prohibited by Federal law (employees should consult their agency ethics officials);
(vii) any individual or entity that used Federal facilities or relied upon significant consultation with Federal employees to develop a Submission, unless the facilities and employees were made available to all Contestants participating in the Contest on an equal basis; and
(viii) any individual or entity that used Federal funds to develop a Submission, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable Federal funds awarding document. If a grantee using Federal funds enters and wins this Contest, the prize monies will need to be treated as program income for purposes of the original grant in accordance with applicable Office of Management and Budget Circulars. Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop a Submission for this competition.
(ix) Employees and contractors of the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate are ineligible to compete in this competition. Likewise, members of their immediate family (spouses, children, siblings, parents), and persons living in the same household as such persons, whether or not related, are not eligible to participate in any portion of this competition, shall not work on their submission during assigned duty hours. Note: Federal ethical conduct rules may restrict or prohibit federal employees from engaging in certain outside activities, so any federal employee not excluded under the prior paragraph seeking to participate in this competition outside the scope of employment should consult his/her agency's ethics official prior to developing a submission; and
(x) Individuals, contractors and educational institutions currently participating in or pending participation in a DHS program of the same subject of the competition or connected to or aligned with the competition subject are ineligible to compete in this competition.
(6) For purposes hereof:
(i) the members of an individual's immediate family include such individual's spouse, children and step-children, parents and step-parents, and siblings and step-siblings; and
(ii) the members of an individual's household include any other person who shares the same residence as such individual for at least three (3) months out of the year.
(7) Per 15 U.S.C. 3719(h), an individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible under these eligibility rules because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis; and
(8) Use of Marks: Except as expressly set forth in the Participant Agreement or the contest rules, participants shall not use the names, trademarks, service marks, logos, insignias, trade dress, or any other designation of source or origin subject to legal protection, copyrighted material or similar intellectual property (“Marks”) of the organizers or other prize competition partners, sponsors, or collaborators in any way without such party's prior written permission in each instance, which such party may grant or withhold in its sole and absolute discretion.
(9) An individual or entity that is currently on the Excluded Parties List will not be selected as a Finalist or prize winner.
(1) A comprehensive description including drawings and diagrams, as appropriate, of the proposed solution in 10 pages or less, 8.5 x 11 inch page, 12-point font or greater and one inch margins including:
(i) A one-paragraph executive summary that clearly states the technical question to be solved;
(ii) Background information supporting the significance of the technical question(s) and the proposed approach, pitfalls, and validation scheme that addresses efforts to support reproducibility; if possible, citing selected peer-reviewed articles that strengthen the proposed solution;
(iii) Descriptions of methods and technologies key to implementation;
(iv) A “state-of-the-art” statement that describes approaches currently in use (if any) and clearly explains how the methods and measures proposed advance existing capabilities; and
(v) A feasibility assessment and a statement describing your ability to execute the proposed solution, including the estimated timeframe, supporting precedents and any special resource you may have or will need.
The three use cases, listed under (1) below, apply to this competition and, at a minimum; at least two of these must be addressed. The judging panel will use the following criteria and rating scales for evaluating proposed solutions with high scores reflecting the most highly rated solutions: (Maximum 100 points; plus up to 50 bonus points)
(1) Building structure (0–30 points)—
(i) Case 1—Should be able to track multiple first responders inside of a 2-story residential structure above and below grade;
(ii) Case 2—Should be able to track multiple first responders inside of a warehouse structure with a minimal footprint of 20,000 square feet;
(iii) Case 3—Should be able to track multiple first responders inside of a multi-storied commercial building above grade and below grade.
(2) Location Accuracy (0–50 points)—Location capability should provide 3-dimentional positioning where X is less than or equal to 3 meters with a position error of less than equal to +/−0.50 meters; where Y is less than or equal to 3 meters with a position error of less than equal to +/−0.50 meters; and where Z is less than or equal to 2 meters with a position error of less than equal to +/−0.25 meters.
(3) Real-time reporting (0–10 points)—The solution should be able to provide real-time reporting of +/−15 seconds to the on-scene commander and must be able to transmit, omni-directional, position location no less than 1500 feet from within the structure.
(4) The modular form should be man-portable and weigh less than 5 pounds (0—10 points).
(5) Bonus Points (Maximum 50 bonus points)—
(i) Feasibility (Bonus worth up to 30 points)—Solvers should provide sufficient details to support the feasibility that the proposed solution can be demonstrated with further research and development in less than two years, including published or unpublished data, scientific basis, technological capability, and resources.
(ii) Adaptability (Bonus worth up to 20 points)—Must describe broad utility and scalability. The approach should lend itself to more than one first responder discipline, such as law enforcement, firefighting, and emergency medical services.
(1) A Solver retains all ownership in intellectual property rights, if any, in the ideas, concepts, inventions, data, and other materials submitted in the prize competition. By entering the prize competition, each Solver agrees to grant to the United States Government, a Limited Purpose Research and Development License that is royalty free and non-exclusive for a period of four years from the date of submission. The Limited Purpose Research and Development License authorizes the United States Government to conduct research and development, or authorize others to do so on behalf of the United States Government. The Limited Purpose License does not include rights to commercialize the intellectual property in the Proposed Solution.
(2) Each Solver warrants that he or she is the sole author and owner of any copyrightable works that the Submission comprises, that the works are wholly original with the Solver (or is an improved version of an existing work that the Solver has sufficient rights to use and improve), and that the Submission does not infringe any copyright or any other rights of any third party of which Solver is aware.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Land Buy-Back Program (Program) for Tribal Nations will host a listening session on March 19, 2015, in Laveen, Arizona. The Program hopes to receive feedback from tribes and individuals on critical issues related to the Program as well as the 2014 Status Report:
The listening session will take place on March 19, 2015, at the Vee Quiva Hotel, 15091 South Komatke Lane, Laveen, Arizona 85339. Written comments are also encouraged and must be received by April 20, 2015, and may be emailed to
Please RSVP and direct questions to Ms. Treci Johnson at
The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations is the Department of the Interior's (Department) collaborative effort with Indian Country to realize the historic opportunity afforded by the
The Department is currently implementing the Buy-Back Program at multiple locations across Indian Country. Thus far, the Program has made more than $780 million in offers to individual landowners and paid nearly $350 million directly to more than 20,000 individuals that decided to sell fractional interests. This has restored the equivalent of more than 541,000 acres to tribes. Our working relationships with tribes (17 cooperative agreements or other arrangements to date) and continued outreach to landowners are important elements of continued progress.
The purpose of the upcoming listening session is to gather input from tribes in order for the Department to continue to refine its land consolidation processes and engage individual landowners who may have questions about the Program. The listening session will begin at 1 p.m. with opening remarks from Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor and other senior Departmental officials and will continue until 4 p.m. Tribal leaders and individual landowners will have an opportunity to present comments.
The Buy-Back Program is committed to continuous consultations throughout the life of the Program in compliance with the letter and spirit of Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) and Secretarial Order 3314 (Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes).
At the beginning of 2013, Department officials conducted extensive tribal consultations on the following:
(1) Developing an efficient, fair process for landowners of fractionated interests to participate in the Buy-Back Program;
(2) Identifying and maximizing opportunities for tribal involvement; and
(3) Offering tribes flexibility to execute Program requirements in the manner best suited for the unique needs of each community.
Tribal input has been critical to making necessary enhancements to the Buy-Back Program. We are committed to learning from every sale at every location and making adjustments where necessary that are transparent and fair. For example, among adjustments influenced by tribal input, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (
The updated SORNs will make it easier to exchange information with tribal governments as they work to help implement land consolidation activities in cooperation with the program. These updates respond to comments during government-to-government consultations, presentations, and the Program's 2014 Listening Session, in which tribal representatives have expressed a need for greater and simpler access to landowner information to effectively conduct outreach and land consolidation activities for the Program.
While the Department welcomes feedback related to any aspect of the Program, the following areas are of particular interest:
1.
The Program seeks comment on the most efficient and cost effective way to work with less-fractionated locations, including comment on specific steps the Program can take to facilitate earlier purchases at less fractionated locations.
2.
The Program utilizes various outreach tools, including a comprehensive Web site to provide landowners, tribes, and the public with information about the
The Program seeks comment on what, if any, additional information on the Program's Web site would be helpful in assisting individual landowners to reach informed decisions about the disposition of their fractional interests.
The Program also seeks comments on what additional steps can be taken to ensure landowners have sufficient information and answers to their questions.
3.
The Program is now seeking general feedback on whether the Program should incorporate public domain or off reservation land areas into the Program, and if so, what criteria should be applied.
4.
The Program's November 2014 Status Report expounds on the purchase estimate approach. Among other things, it noted that the Program was implementing several steps to “make sure the Consolidation Fund is used before November 2022,” including the creation of opportunities for willing sellers, leveraging efficient mass appraisal results, making a single wave of offers, and continually learning from experience and data. Moreover, the Status Report described a number of factors the Program will consider to determine how to best expend funds, such as:
a. Level of interested or documented willing sellers;
b. availability of valuation related-information;
c. tribal readiness or interest;
d. severity of fractionation;
e. cost and time efficiency;
f. promotion of tribal sovereignty and self-determination;
g. economic and/or cultural value for the community, as evidenced by well-articulated tribal priorities; and
h. loss of historical reservation land as a result of allotment.
Such steps are intended to help the Program address instances where sales fall below estimates to ensure full use of the Consolidation Fund by November 2022. The Program seeks comment on these steps, including the most equitable, efficient, and cost effective way to utilize/repurpose purchase estimate amounts remaining following active implementation at each individual location.
5.
The Program seeks comment on what, if any, additional changes would assist in making offer package documents as clear and user friendly as possible.
6.
The Program seeks comment on what criteria it should apply in making reimbursement decisions.
7.
The Program seeks comment on a recommended policy regarding acquiring interests in tracts with structural improvements, including instances in which the Program might choose to acquire interests.
8.
The Program has not exercised WAU purchases thus far and is seeking input from tribes and individuals on whether and how it should implement the provision.
The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations 2014 Status Report and additional information about the Buy-Back Program is available at:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and notice of public meeting; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), intend to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, for the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and a related land exchange. The SDEIS will be a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), for which the Service, the BLM, and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District) intend to gather information necessary for preparation. The proposed HCP has been drafted to meet the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and the State of California's Endangered Species Act and Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act. The BLM, in compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended, will consider this NEPA process and the resulting HCP documents in its analysis toward possible amendment of the BLM South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP) to support the land exchange.
Please send written comments on or before May 4, 2015.
We will hold two public scoping meetings on March 18, 2015, from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District office located at 1630 West Redlands Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373. In addition to this notice, we will announce the public scoping meetings in local news media and on the Internet at the BLM Web site (
Comments or requests for more information specific to the proposed land exchange and amendment to the SCRMP should be sent via any one of the following methods:
Comments or requests for more information specific to the issuance of an incidental take permit and the HCP should be sent to the following:
For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Brandon Anderson, Santa Ana River Wash Project, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs South Coast Field Office, by telephone at 760–833–7117, or by email at
In 1993, representatives of numerous agencies, including water, mining, flood control, wildlife, and municipal interests, formed a Wash Committee to address mining issues that were local to the upper Santa Ana River wash area. The role of the Committee was subsequently expanded, and it began meeting in 1997 to determine how this area might accommodate the ongoing and contemplated future activities of the participating entities. To achieve this goal, the Wash Committee worked with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Service to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which would establish a structure to integrate ongoing operations and planned projects with biological resource conservation within the Plan area. The District prepared a draft HCP on behalf of the Wash Committee in November 2008 and subsequently revised it in January 2010. The District and the Wash Committee subsequently worked with the Service and CDFW to revise the HCP, which now provides additional conservation. The District and the Wash Committee have also been working with the BLM to facilitate a land exchange to accommodate the HCP conservation strategy.
The Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS (SDEIS) will provide an updated analysis to the 2009 Draft EIS issued by the BLM in April 2009 for the Proposed Santa Ana River Wash Land Use Plan Amendment and Land Exchange and the Final EIR issued by the District for the HCP. The SDEIS will consider the environmental effects associated with the proposed land exchange, the proposed amendment to the SCRMP, and the proposed HCP, as well as those of several alternatives.
The SDEIS will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of several alternatives related to the proposed land exchange and to the proposed issuance of Endangered Species Act permits to permit applicants in San Bernardino County, California. The permit applicants intend to apply for a 30-year permit from the Service that would authorize the incidental take of species resulting from implementation or approval of covered activities, including aggregate mining, the construction of ground water recharge basins, road improvements, trail construction, and other kinds of projects.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.2(c), notice is hereby given that the BLM is considering a proposal to amend the 1994 SCRMP and exchange lands with the District. Additionally, the Service is considering the issuance of an incidental take permit consistent with the Upper Santa Ana River Wash HCP. The SDEIS will describe and analyze alternatives to the proposed land use plan amendment, and HCP. The lands proposed for exchange in the 2009 Draft EIS have been revised to incorporate the activities and conservation strategy to be carried out consistent with the terms of the HCP and the refinement of exchange parcels to allow water conservation, mining, flood control, and other public actions within the study area while protecting and consolidating the natural resources, especially the threatened and endangered species in the area. This analysis will also review reasonably foreseeable activities currently undergoing initial feasibility review for an additional flood control activity, potentially resulting in a new Area of Critical Environmental Concern designation. Covered activities will also be reviewed for potential impacts to land designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Area for protection of two plants federally listed as endangered,
The Service and BLM are publishing this notice to announce the initiation of a public scoping period, during which we invite other agencies (local, State, and Federal), Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and the public to submit written comments providing suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the SDEIS. Concurrently with this notice, the District has publicly released a California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Preparation for its EIR via State and local media.
The project area lies within San Bernardino County, California, primarily in the cities of Highland and Redlands, as well as within the unincorporated County area. The project area encompasses approximately 4,467 acres within the area bounded by Greenspot Road to the north and east, Alabama Street to the west, and the Santa Ana River Wash to the south.
The Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan is being prepared through a collaboration of Federal, State, and local agencies as the basis for the BLM to amend the SCRMP and exchange lands for the HCP, for the HCP approval and potential issuance of incidental take permits for the implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan by the District, City of Highland, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and others. The incidental take permits would be issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and section 2081 (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code. Only the applicants listed in the applications and HCP could receive incidental take permits for the covered activities and the covered species.
The HCP is intended to cover two types of activities in the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan project area:
(1) Activities related to the operations and maintenance of existing facilities or land uses already in operation in the Wash, covering an area totaling 166.9 acres; and
(2) Expansion or enhancement of facilities planned for the Wash area, totaling 634.1 acres.
It should be noted that activities related to all utilities belonging to Southern California Edison within the project footprint, and the EBX Foothill Pipeline, also located within the project footprint, are excluded from the covered activities described in the HCP.
All listed project activities can be subdivided into the following categories:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Covered Species are those species addressed in the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan for which conservation actions will be implemented and for which the applicants will seek incidental take authorizations for a period of up to 30 years. Proposed Covered Species are expected to include threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA, species listed under CESA, and unlisted species of Federal and State conservation concern.
Under the ESA, there is no take of federally listed plant species, and authorization under an ESA section 10 permit is not required. Section 9 of ESA does, however, prohibit certain actions related to plants including the removal of federally listed plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal or destruction of endangered plants in knowing violation of State law. In addition, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA prohibits Federal agencies from jeopardizing the continued existence of any listed plant or animal species, or destroying or adversely modifying the critical habitat of such species. The species that may be affected by the proposed actions include two plants federally listed as endangered,
The species noted above will be evaluated for inclusion in the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan as proposed Covered Species. However, the list of Covered Species may change as the planning process progresses; species may be added or removed as more is learned about the nature of Covered Activities and their impact on native species within the Plan area.
Before deciding whether to issue the requested Federal incidental take permit, the land exchange and the SCRMP, the Service and BLM will prepare a SDEIS, and a final EIS as part of the joint EIS/EIR, in order to analyze the environmental impacts associated with potential adoption and implementation of the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan as a HCP, land exchange, and SCRMP amendment. In the EIS component of the joint EIS/EIR, the Service and BLM intend to consider the following alternatives:
(1) The proposed action, which includes the Service issuance of incidental take Permit consistent with the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan HCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the applicants, and BLM's approval of a land exchange and SCRMP amendment;
(2) No action (no Federal ESA permit issuance, no land exchange, and no SCRMP amendment); and
(3) A reasonable range of alternatives that address different scenarios of development and species conservation on both Federal and non-Federal land. The SDEIS will include a detailed analysis of the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. The range of alternatives to be considered and analyzed will represent varying levels of conservation and impacts, and may include variations in the scope of
The SDEIS will identify and analyze potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Service's authorization of incidental take (permit issuance) and the implementation of the proposed Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan on biological resources, land uses, utilities, air quality, water resources (including surface and groundwater supply and water quality), cultural resources, socioeconomics and environmental justice, outdoor recreation, visual resources, induced growth, climate change and greenhouse gases, and other environmental issues that could occur with implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. The Service and the BLM will use all practicable means, consistent with NEPA and other essential considerations of national policy, to avoid or minimize significant effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.
The CDFW has requested and agreed to be a State cooperating agency. The Service, BLM, and CDFW agree that establishing a cooperating agency relationship will create a more streamlined and coordinated approach in developing this joint EIS/EIR.
The Service and BLM are committed to providing access to these scoping meetings for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to Kennon Corey at 760–322–2070 (telephone),
We invite other government agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and all other interested parties to participate in this scoping process and provide comments and information. Comments on issues and potential impacts, or suggestions for additional or different alternatives, may be submitted in writing at any public scoping meeting or through one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has funding available for support of tribal climate change adaptation and ocean and coastal management planning. Any federally recognized tribe (or tribal organization whose application is supported by a tribal resolution) may submit an application for these funds. The BIA is mailing application packets to each tribal leader. Funds will be awarded under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).
Applications must be submitted by April 24, 2015.
An application packet has been mailed to tribal leaders. Submit your ISDEAA contract proposal in accordance with the directions in the application packet to
If you do not receive an application packet or if you would like additional information on how to apply, please contact Helen Riggs, BIA Office of Trust Services, at
The BIA has up to $8 million in funding available for federally recognized tribes for climate change adaptation and for ocean and coastal management planning. Because limited funding is available, no more than $250,000 is available for any one proposal. The funds are awarded pursuant to ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. 450
•
•
•
•
•
The application packets mailed to tribal leaders will provide additional information, including tips on preparing a proposal, and information on BIA's review and ranking of proposals.
Office of Self-Governance, Interior.
Notice of application deadline.
In this notice, the Office of Self-Governance (OSG) establishes a March 20, 2015, deadline for Indian tribes/consortia to submit completed applications to begin participation in the tribal self-governance program in Fiscal Year 2016 or Calendar Year 2016.
Completed application packages must be received by the Director, Office of Self-Governance, by March 20, 2015.
Application packages for inclusion in the applicant pool should be sent to Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance, Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 355–G–SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Dr. Kenneth D. Reinfeld, Office of Self-Governance, telephone (703) 390–6551.
Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–413) (Act), as amended by the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104–208) and section 1000.15(a) of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Director, Office of Self-Governance may select up to 50 additional participating tribes/consortia per year for the tribal self-governance program and negotiate and enter into a written funding agreement with each participating tribe. The Act mandates that the Secretary of the Interior submit copies of the funding agreements at least 90 days before the proposed effective date to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to each tribe that is served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs' agency that is serving the tribe that is a party to the funding agreement. Initial negotiations with a tribe/consortium located in a region and/or agency which has not previously been involved with self-governance negotiations will take approximately 2 months from start to finish. Agreements for an October 1 to September 30 funding year need to be signed and submitted by July 1. Agreements for a January 1 to December 31 funding year need to be signed and submitted by October 1.
The regulations at 25 CFR 1000.10 to 1000.31 will be used to govern the application and selection process for tribes/consortia to begin their participation in the tribal self-governance program in Fiscal Year 2016 and Calendar Year 2016. Applicants should be guided by the requirements in these subparts in preparing their applications. Copies of these subparts may be obtained from the information contact person identified in this notice.
Tribes/consortia wishing to be considered for participation in the tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2016 or calendar year 2016 must respond to this notice, except for those tribes/consortia which are: (1) Currently involved in negotiations with the Department of the Interior (Interior); or (2) one of the 114 tribal entities with signed agreements.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR 1320, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The application and reporting requirements related to this program are considered to be a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. These submissions are required to obtain and/or retain a benefit. OMB has approved the information collections related to this program and has assigned control number 1076–0143, Tribal Self-Governance Program, which expires January 31, 2016. We estimate the annual burden associated with this collection to average 55 hours per respondent. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering, and submitting the information to the Department. Comments regarding the burden or other aspects of this information collection may be directed to: Information Collection Officer, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS–3642–MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.2, that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted its 2015 preliminary annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.065% (.00065) for tier 2. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the 2015 preliminary fee rate on Class II revenues shall be 0.0325% (.000325) which is one-half of the annual fee rate. The preliminary fee rates being adopted here are effective March 1, 2015 and will remain in effect until new rates are adopted.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 514.16, the National Indian Gaming Commission has also adopted its fingerprint processing fees of $21 per card effective March 1, 2015.
Yvonne Lee, National Indian Gaming Commission, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 632–7003; fax (202) 632–7066.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.
Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are
Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe. Based on that review, the Commission hereby sets the 2015 fingerprint processing fee at $21 per card effective March 1, 2015.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of the proposed notice of sale for WPA Lease Sale 246.
BOEM announces the availability of the Proposed NOS for proposed WPA Sale 246. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 556.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides affected States the opportunity to review the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.
Affected States may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed WPA Sale 246 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the
Robert Samuels, Chief, Leasing Division,
The Proposed NOS for WPA Sale 246 and the Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394. Telephone: (504) 736–2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available on BOEM's Web site at
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 4, 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 Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On February 25, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the regulations that govern the handling and disposal of refrigerant containing appliances at defendant's scrap metal and iron recycling facility in Detroit, Michigan. The consent decree requires that the defendant perform injunctive relief and pay a civil penalty of $25,000 based on ability to pay.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $7.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the ACVETEO. The ACVETEO will discuss the VETS core programs and services regarding efforts that assist veterans seeking employment and raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans. There will be an opportunity for persons or organizations to address the committee. Any individual or organization that wishes to do so should contact Mr. Timothy Green at 202–693–4723.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
The meeting will take place at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Building, 1275 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20002, Room 801. Members of the public are encouraged to arrive early to allow for security clearance into the facility.
1. Present a valid photo ID to receive a visitor badge.
2. Know the name of the event being attended: The meeting event is the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO).
3. Visitors will be escorted to the meeting room by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and DOL VETS staff.
4. Laptops and other electronic devices may be inspected and logged for identification purposes.
5. Due to limited parking options, Metro is the easiest way to access the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Mr. Timothy Green, Designated Federal
The ACVETEO is a Congressionally mandated advisory committee authorized under Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 4110 and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended. The ACVETEO is responsible for: Assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans; making recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary of Labor for VETS, with respect to outreach activities and employment and training needs of Veterans; and carrying out such other activities necessary to make required reports and recommendations. The ACVETEO meets at least quarterly.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 4, 2015.
Submit comments on this collection of information by any of the following methods:
All comments should be identified with the OMB Control Number 1293–0009. Written comments should be limited to 10 pages or fewer. Receipt of comments will not be acknowledged but the sender may request confirmation that a submission has been received by telephoning VETS at (312) 353–4942 or via fax at (312) 353–4943.
Joel H. Delofsky, Office of National Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, VETS, 230 South Dearborn, Suite 1064, Chicago, Illinois 60604–1777, by email at
I. With respect to the continuation of the approved collection of information, VETS is particularly interested in comments on these topics:
(1) Whether the continued collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and oversight of the Jobs for Veterans State Grant, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the VETS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate and other forms of information technology.
II. Comments are requested on the following ICR:
(1) Title: Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Chapter 31) Tracking Report (VETS 201)
ICR numbers: VETS ICR No. 1293–0009, OMB Control No. 1293–0009
ICR status: This ICR is for a continued information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for VETS information collections are displayed on the applicable data collection instrument.
Abstract: VETS and the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VA VR&E) share a mutual responsibility for the successful readjustment of disabled veterans into the civilian workforce. Since August, 1995, the two Federal Agencies have worked together under a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate and coordinate services provided to veterans and transitioning service members referred to or completing a program of vocational rehabilitation authorized under title 31, United States Code (hereinafter referred to as the Chapter 31 program).
To help Congress understand the extent to which federal agencies coordinate programs and the performance of this coordination, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study and released Report Number GAO–13–29: Veterans' Employment and Training—Better
As a result of the GAO recommendations, a Joint Work Group was directed to establish and standardize processes to ensure disabled veterans participating in the Chapter 31 program achieve the ultimate goal of successful career transition and suitable employment after the provision of Labor Market Information and employment services from the Jobs for Veterans State Grant recipients. The Joint Work Group refined processes and strengthened the team approach to serving these disabled veterans.
The Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (Chapter 31) Tracking Report (VETS 201) is designed to respond to the GAO finding by compiling information on disabled veterans jointly served by the VA, VETS and Jobs for Veterans State Grant recipients. All partners agree to share information exclusively to facilitate job development and placement services for participating veterans. The information is collected only with documented consent from veterans in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and other applicable regulations and each agency will provide practical and appropriate safeguards to protect Personally Identifiable Information in accordance with applicable regulations and laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and reauthorizations, and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The information is collected by the Jobs for Veterans State grant recipient and submitted to the state Director for Veterans' Employment and Training (DVET) once per Federal fiscal quarter. The results are shared between VETS and VA VR&E.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the agency's request for OMB approval of the information collection request. Comments will become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on this proposed collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Request for Information Concerning Patient Release Practices.”
Submit comments by May 4, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6258; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0020 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–0020 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from February 5, 2015 to February 18, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on February 17, 2015.
Comments must be filed by April 2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 4, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–5411, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–0041, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
One function of the CEAs is to provide a means of rapid negative reactivity addition into the core. This occurs upon receipt of a signal from the Reactor Protection System. This function will continue to be accomplished with the approval of the proposed change. Typically, once per 92 days each CEA is moved at least five inches to ensure the CEA is free to move. CEA 18 remains trippable (free to move) as illustrated by the last performance of SR 4.1.3.1.2 in January 2015. However, due to abnormally high coil voltage and current measured on the CEA 18 Upper Gripper Coil (UGC), future exercising of the CEA could result in the CEA inadvertently inserting into the core, if the UGC were to fail during the exercise test. The mis-operation of a CEA, which includes a CEA drop event, is an abnormal occurrence and has been previously evaluated as part of the ANO–2 accident analysis. Inadvertent CEA insertion will result in a reactivity transient and power reduction, and could lead to a reactor shutdown if the CEA is deemed to be unrecoverable. The proposed change would minimize the potential for inadvertent insertion of CEA 18 into the core by maintaining the CEA in place using the Lower Gripper Coil (LGC), which is operating normally. The proposed change will not affect the CEAs ability to insert fully into the core upon receipt of a reactor trip signal.
No modifications are proposed to the Reactor Protection System or associated Control Element Drive Mechanism Control System logic with regard to the ability of CEA 18 to remain available for immediate insertion. The accident mitigation features of the plant are not affected by the proposed amendment. Because CEA 18 remains trippable, no additional reactivity considerations need to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, Entergy has evaluated the reactivity consequences associated with failure of CEA 18 to insert upon a reactor trip in accordance with TS requirements for Shutdown Margin (SDM) and has determined that SDM requirements would be met should such an event occur at any time during the remainder of Cycle 24 operation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
CEA 18 remains trippable. The proposed change will not introduce any new design changes or systems that can prevent the CEA from [performing] its specified safety function. As discussed previously, CEA mis-operation has been previously evaluated in the ANO–2 accident analysis. Furthermore, SDM has been shown to remain within limits should an event occur at any time during the remainder of operating Cycle 24 such that CEA 18 fails to insert into the core upon receipt of a reactor trip signal.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
SR 4.1.3.1.2 is intended to verify CEAs are free to move (
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed change relocates Technical Specifications (TS) 3.9.6 (Refuel Machine) and TS 3.9.7 (Crane Travel) to the Waterford 3 Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). This is consistent with the requirements of [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] and aligns with NUREG–1432 (Combustion Engineering Standard Technical Specifications).
The applicable TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 design basis accident is the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.7.3.4. The limiting FHA results in all the fuel pins in the dropped and impacted fuel assemblies failing (472 pins or 236 per assembly). The analysis assumes that a fuel assembly is dropped as an initial condition and no equipment or intervention can prevent the initiating condition. The proposed change was evaluated against [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria and shows no impact to the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility because the TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 requirements do not prevent the accident conditions from occurring and do not limit the severity of the accident. Since, the dropped fuel assembly and the impacted fuel assembly are both already failed in the design basis accident scenario, this change could not result in a significant increase in the accident consequences. The TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 equipment are not required to respond, mitigate, or terminate any design basis accident, thus this change will not adversely impact the likelihood or probability of a design basis accident.
The TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 requirements do not prevent the accident conditions from occurring and do not limit the severity of the accident.
Therefore the TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 relocation to the TRM would not cause a significant increase in the accident probability or accident consequences.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed change relocates TS 3.9.6 (Refuel Machine) and TS 3.9.7 (Crane Travel) to the Waterford 3 TRM. In general, Technical Specifications are based upon the accident analyses. The accident analyses assumptions and initial conditions must be protected by the Technical Specifications. This is a requirement as outlined in [10 CFR 50.36].
[10 CFR 50.36(b)] states the technical specifications will be derived from the analyses and evaluation included in the safety analysis report.
[10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i)] states that [“]the limiting conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility[. . . .”] [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] provides the four criteria in which any one met requires a limiting condition for operation. The proposed change demonstrated that the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria were not met and the relocation to the TRM is allowable. By not meeting the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria for inclusion into the TS means that TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 do not impact the accident analyses previously evaluated and would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Specifically, TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 equipment are not instrumentation used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (Criterion 1). TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 do not contain a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier (Criterion 2). TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 does not contain a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier (Criterion 3). Lastly, TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 do not contain a structure, system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety (Criterion 4).
TS 3.9.6 and 3.9.7 are not required to meet the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility.
Therefore, the accident analyses are not impacted and the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated has not changed.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS 3.9.6 (Refuel Machine) and TS 3.9.7 (Crane Travel) relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM is administrative in nature because all requirements will be relocated. Any changes after being relocated to the Waterford 3 TRM will require that the [10 CFR 50.59] process be entered ensuring the public health and safety is maintained. By using the [10 CFR 50.59] process for future changes, the regulatory requirements ensure that no significant reduction in the margin of safety occurs.
In addition, the TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 requirements do not prevent the design basis accident conditions from occurring and do not limit the severity of the accident. Thus, TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 relocation will not adversely impact the accident analyses and will not cause a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the performance of any equipment credited in the radiological consequences of an accident is not affected by the change in the leak detection capability.
The Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure Temperature—High is provided to detect a steam leak in the lead enclosure and provides diversity to the high flow instrumentation. This function provides a mitigating action for a steam leak in the Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure, which could lead to a pipe break. This function does not affect any accident precursors, and the proposed changes do not affect the leak detection capability. Additionally, the proposed changes do not degrade the performance of or increase the challenges to any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed changes do not add or remove equipment and do not physically alter the isolation instrumentation. In addition, the Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure LDS [Leak Detection System] is not utilized in a different manner. The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators and new failure modes, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform their safety function. The Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure LDS will continue to be operated in the same manner.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the changes eliminate the temperature setpoint dependency on lead enclosure temperature while maintaining the existing upper AV [Allowable Value] = 175.6 °F, that was previously evaluated and approved. There is no adverse impact on the existing equipment capability as well as associated structures. The increase in the steam leak rate and associated crack size continues to be well below the leak rate associated with critical crack size that leads to pipe break. The proposed changes continue to provide the same level of protection against a main steam line break as the existing setpoint values.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequency requirements to a licensee-controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04–10 (Revision 1), “Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies” (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). The licensee stated that the NEI 04–10 methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177, “An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176). The licensee stated that the changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF–425, “Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 5b,” Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, FPL will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI 04–10, Revision 1 in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04–10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed TS changes involve TS 3.5.2 Action `a', new TS 3.5.2 Action `h', and the provision in SR [Surveillance Requirement] 4.5.2.a to address non-conservative TS requirements. Editorial changes are also proposed for consistency and clarity. These changes do not affect any precursors to any accident previously evaluated and subsequently, will not impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, these changes do not adversely affect mitigation equipment or strategies.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
No. The proposed TS changes involve TS 3.5.2 Action `a', new TS 3.5.2 Action `h', and the provision in SR 4.5.2.a to address non-conservative TS requirements. Editorial changes are also proposed for consistency and clarity. The proposed changes provide better assurance that the ECCS systems, subsystems, and components are properly aligned to support safe reactor operation consistent with the licensing basis requirements. The proposed changes do not introduce new modes of plant operation and do not involve physical modifications to the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). There are no changes in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system, or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analyses were performed remain valid.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
No. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their accident mitigation functions. The proposed TS changes involve TS 3.5.2 Action `a', new TS 3.5.2 Action `h', and the provision in SR 4.5.2.a to address non-conservative TS requirements. Editorial changes are also proposed for consistency and clarity. The proposed changes provide better assurance that the ECCS systems, subsystems, and components are properly aligned to support safe reactor operation consistent with the licensing basis requirements. The proposed changes do not physically alter any SSC. There will be no effect on those SSCs necessary to assure the accomplishment of specified functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.8 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage probability] and ICLERP [incremental large early release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, PPL will perform a risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04–10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the Surveillance Requirement for performing sediment cleaning of diesel fuel oil storage tanks every 10 years from the Technical Specifications and places it under licensee control. Diesel fuel oil storage tank cleaning is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. This change will have no effect on diesel generator fuel oil quality, which is tested in accordance with other Technical Specifications requirements. Removing the diesel fuel oil storage tank sediment cleaning requirements from the Technical Specifications will have no effect on the ability to mitigate an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the requirement to clean sediment from the diesel fuel oil storage tank from the Technical Specifications and places it under licensee control. The margin of safety provided by the fuel oil storage tank sediment cleaning is unaffected by this relocation because the quality of diesel fuel oil is tested in accordance with other Technical Specifications requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Surveillance Frequency for monitoring [reactor coolant system] RCS temperature to ensure the minimum temperature for criticality is met. The Frequency is changed from a 30 minute Frequency when certain conditions are met to a periodic Frequency that it is controlled in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The initial Frequency for this Surveillance will be 12 hours. This will ensure that T
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Surveillance Frequency for monitoring RCS temperature to ensure the minimum temperature for criticality is met. The current, condition based Frequency represents a distraction to the control room operator during the critical period of plant startup. RCS temperature is closely monitored by the operator during the approach to criticality, and temperature is recorded on charts and computer logs. Allowing the operator to monitor temperature as needed by the situation and logging RCS temperature at a periodic Frequency that it is controlled in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program is sufficient to ensure that the LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] is met while eliminating a diversion of the operator's attention.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates Required Action B.1 of Specification 3.4.16, “RCS Specific Activity,” which requires verifying that Dose Equivalent I–131 specific activity is within limits. Determination of Dose Equivalent I–131 is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Determination of Dose Equivalent I–131 has no effect on the mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates a Required Action. The activities performed under the Required Action will still be performed to determine if the LCO is met or the plant will exit the Applicability of the Specification. In either case, the presence of the Required Action does not provide any significant margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change exempts containment isolation valves (CIVs) located inside and outside of containment that are locked, sealed, or otherwise secured in position from the periodic verification of valve position required by Surveillance Requirements 3.6.3.3 and 3.6.2.4. The exempted valves are verified to be in the correct position upon being locked, sealed, or secured. Because the valves are in the condition assumed in the accident analysis, the proposed change will not affect the initiators or mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces the periodic verification of valve position with verification of valve position followed by locking, sealing, or otherwise securing the valve in position. Periodic verification is also effective in detecting valve mispositioning. However, verification followed by securing the valve in position is effective in preventing valve mispositioning. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the requirements in Technical Specification SR 3.6.3.5, and the associated Bases, to delete the requirement to verify the isolation time of “each power operated” containment isolation valve (CIV) and only require verification of closure time for each “automatic power operated isolation valve.” The closure times for CIVs that do not receive an automatic closure signal are not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The CIVs are used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. Power operated CIVs that do not receive an automatic closure signal are not assumed to close in a specified time. The proposed change does not change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the CIVs provide plant protection or introduce any new or different operational conditions. Periodic verification that the closure times for CIVs that receive an automatic closure signal are within the limits established by the accident analysis will continue to be performed under SR 3.6.3.5. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. There are also no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides clarification that only CIVs that receive an automatic isolation signal are within the scope of the SR 3.6.3.5. The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the CIVs provide plant protection. Periodic verification that closure times for CIVs that receive an automatic isolation signal are within the limits established by the accident analysis will continue to be performed. The proposed change does not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This change revises the Required Actions for LCO 3.4.5, “RCS Loops—Mode 3,” Conditions C.2 and D.1, from “De-energize all control rod drive mechanisms,” to “Place the Rod Control System in a condition incapable of rod withdrawal.” It also revises LCO 3.4.9, “Pressurizer,” Required Action A.1, from requiring Reactor Trip Breakers to be open after reaching MODE 3 to “Place the Rod Control System in a condition incapable of rod withdrawal,” and to require full insertion of all rods. Inadvertent rod withdrawal can be an initiator for design basis accidents or events during certain plant conditions, and therefore must be prevented under those conditions. The proposed Required Actions for LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 satisfy the same intent as the current Required Actions, which is to prevent inadvertent rod withdrawal when an applicable Condition is not met, and is consistent with the assumptions of the accident analysis. As a result, the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated, as in both the current and proposed requirements, rod withdrawal is prohibited.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides less specific, but equivalent, direction on the manner in which inadvertent control rod withdrawal is to be prevented when the Conditions of LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are not met. Rod withdrawal will continue to be prevented when the applicable Conditions of LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are met. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides the operational flexibility of allowing alternate, but equivalent, methods of preventing rod withdrawal when the applicable Conditions of LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are met. The proposed change does not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the time allowed to reduce the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoint when Specification 3.2.1, “Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor,” or Specification 3.2.2, “Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor,” are not within their limits. Both specifications require a power reduction followed by a reduction in the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoint. Because reactor power has been reduced, the reactor core power distribution limits are within the assumptions of the accident analysis. Reducing the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoints ensures that reactor power is not inadvertently increased. Reducing the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoints is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of any accident previously evaluated with the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoints not reduced are no different under the proposed Completion Time than under the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides additional time before requiring the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoint be reduced when the reactor core power distribution limits are not met. The manual reduction in reactor power required by the specifications provides the necessary margin of safety for this condition. Reducing the Power Range Neutron Flux—High trip setpoints carries an increased risk of a reactor trip. Delaying the trip setpoint reduction until the power reduction has been completed and the condition is verified will minimize overall plant risk.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes surveillance Frequencies associated with inoperable alarms (rod position deviation monitor, rod insertion limit monitor, AFD [Axial Flux Difference] monitor and QPTR [Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio] alarm) from the Technical Specifications and places the actions in plant administrative procedures. The subject plant alarms are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The subject plant alarms are not used to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as the control room indications of these parameters are sufficient to alert the operator of an abnormal condition without the alarms. The alarms are not credited in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes surveillance Frequencies associated with inoperable alarms (rod position deviation monitor, rod insertion limit monitor, AFD monitor and QPTR alarm) from the Technical Specifications and places the actions in plant administrative procedures. The alarms are not being removed from the plant. The actions to be taken when the alarms are not available are proposed to be controlled under licensee administrative procedures. As a result, plant operation is unaffected by this change and there is no effect on a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the Completion Time to take the Required Actions when measured core reactivity is not within the specified limit of the predicted values. The Completion Time to respond to a difference between predicted and measured core reactivity is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident during the proposed Completion Time are no different from the consequences of an accident during the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides additional time to investigate and to implement appropriate operating restrictions when measured core reactivity is not within the specified limit of the predicted values. The additional time will not have a significant effect on plant safety due to the conservatisms used in designing the reactor core and performing the safety analyses and the low probability of an accident or transient which would approach the core design limits during the additional time. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides a Condition and Required Actions for more than one inoperable digital rod position indicator (DRPI) per rod group. The DRPIs are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The DRPIs are one indication used by operators to verify control rod insertion following an accident, however other indications are available. Therefore, allowing a finite period to time to correct more than one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a plant shutdown will not result in a significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides time to correct the condition of more than one DRPI inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory measures are required to verify that the rods monitored by the inoperable DRPIs are not moved to ensure that there is no effect on core reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown with inoperable rod position indications introduces plant risk and should not be initiated unless the rod position indication cannot be repaired in a reasonable period of time. As a result, the safety benefit provided by the proposed Condition offsets the small decrease in safety resulting from continued operation with more than one inoperable DRPI.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the requirements in Technical Specification 3.7.5, “Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,” to clarify the operability of an AFW train when it is aligned for manual steam generator level control. The AFW System is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The AFW System is used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change does not affect the design of the AFW System, and no physical changes are made to the plant. The proposed change does not significantly change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW System provides plant protection. The AFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Responses: No.
The proposed change provides the operational flexibility of allowing an AFW train(s) to be considered operable when it is not in the normal standby alignment and is temporarily incapable of automatic initiation, such as during alignment and operation for manual steam generator level control, provided it is capable of being manually realigned to the AFW heat removal mode of operation. The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW System provides plant protection. The AFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. The proposed change does not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the requirements in Technical Specification 3.4.11, “Pressurizer PORVs,” to clarify that separate Condition entry is allowed for each block valve. Additionally, the Actions are modified to no longer require that the PORVs be placed in manual operation when both block valves are inoperable and cannot be restored to operable status within the specified Completion Time. This preserves the overpressure protection capabilities of the PORVs. The pressurizer block valves are used to isolate their respective PORV in the event it is experiencing excessive leakage, and are not an initiator of any design basis accident or event. Therefore the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The PORV and block valves are used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change does not affect the design of the PORV and block valves, and no physical changes are made to the plant. The proposed change does not change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the PORV and block valves provide plant protection. The PORVs will continue to provide overpressure protection, and the block valves will continue to provide isolation capability in the event a PORV is experiencing excessive leakage. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide clarification that separate Condition entry is allowed for each block valve. Additionally, the Actions are modified to no longer require that the PORVs be placed in manual operation when both block valves are inoperable and cannot be restored to operable status within the specified Completion Time. This preserves the overpressure protection capabilities of the PORVs. The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in which the PORV and block valves provide plant protection. The PORVs will continue to provide overpressure protection, and the block valves will continue to provide isolation capability in the event a PORV is experiencing excessive leakage. The proposed change does not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the definition of Shutdown Margin to eliminate the requirement to assume the highest worth control rod is fully withdrawn when calculating Shutdown Margin if it can be verified by two independent means that all control rods are inserted. The method for calculating shutdown margin is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. If it can be verified by two independent means that all control rods are inserted, the calculated Shutdown Margin without the conservatism of assuming the highest worth control rod is withdrawn is accurate and consistent with the assumptions in the accident analysis. As a result, the mitigation of any accident previously evaluated is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the definition of Shutdown Margin to eliminate the requirement to assume the highest worth control rod is fully withdrawn when calculating Shutdown Margin if it can be verified by two independent means that all control rods are inserted. The additional margin of safety provided by the assumption that the highest worth control rod is fully withdrawn is unnecessary if it can be independently verified that all controls rods are inserted.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the list of Remote Shutdown System instrumentation and controls from the Technical Specifications and places them in the Bases. The Technical Specifications continue to require that the instrumentation and controls be operable. The location of the list of Remote Shutdown System instrumentation and controls is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change will have no effect on the mitigation of any accident previously evaluated because the instrumentation and controls continue to be required to be operable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the list of Remote Shutdown System instrumentation and controls from the Technical Specifications and places it in the Bases. The review performed by the NRC when the list of Remote Shutdown System instrumentation and controls is revised will no longer be needed unless the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 are not met such that prior NRC review is required. The Technical Specification requirement that the Remote Shutdown System be operable, the definition of operability, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, and the Technical Specifications Bases Control Program are sufficient to ensure that revision of the list without prior NRC review and approval does not introduce a significant safety risk.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the Applicability of Specification 3.9.1, “Boron Concentration,” to clarify that the boron concentration limits are only applicable to the refueling canal and the refueling cavity when those volumes are attached to the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). The boron concentration of water volumes not connected to the RCS are not an initiator of an accident previously evaluated. The ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated is not affected by the boron concentration of water volumes not connected to the RCS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the Applicability of Specification 3.9.1, “Boron Concentration,” to clarify that the boron concentration limits are only applicable to the refueling canal and the refueling cavity when those volumes are attached to the RCS. Technical Specification SR 3.0.4 requires that Surveillances be met prior to entering the Applicability of a Specification. As a result, the boron concentration of the refueling cavity or the refueling canal must be verified to satisfy the LCO prior to connecting those volumes to the RCS. The margin of safety provided by the refueling boron concentration is not affected by this change as the RCS boron concentration will continue to satisfy the LCO.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes add explanatory text to the programmatic description of the Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP) in Specification 5.5.15 to clarify in the requirements that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The Bases for LCO 3.0.6 is revised to provide clarification of the “appropriate LCO for loss of function,” and that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The changes are editorial and administrative in nature, and therefore do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. No physical or operational changes are made to the plant. The proposed change does not change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are editorial and administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner in which the plant operates. The loss of function of any specific component will continue to be addressed in its specific TS LCO and plant configuration will be governed by the required actions of those LCOs. The proposed changes are clarifications that do not degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, and therefore do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to TS 5.5.15 are clarifications and are editorial and administrative in nature. No changes are made the LCOs for plant equipment, the time required for the TS Required Actions to be completed, or the out of service time for the components involved. The proposed changes do not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes insert a discussion paragraph into Specification 1.4, and several new examples are added to facilitate the use and application of SR Notes that utilize the terms “met” and “perform.” The changes also modify SRs in multiple Specifications to appropriately use “met” and “perform” exceptions. The changes are administrative in nature because they provide clarification and correction of existing expectations, and therefore the proposed change does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. No physical or
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner in which the plant operates. The proposed changes provide clarification and correction of existing expectations that do not degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, and therefore do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner in which the plant operates. The proposed changes provide clarification and correction of existing expectations that do not degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, or alter their operation. The proposed changes do not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 5.5.4, “Radioactive Effluent Controls Program,” paragraph e, to describe the original intent of the dose projections. The cumulative and projection of doses due to liquid releases are not an assumption in any accident previously evaluated and have no effect on the mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 5.5.4, “Radioactive Effluent Controls Program,” paragraph e, to describe the original intent of the dose projections. The cumulative and projection of doses due to liquid releases are administrative tools to assure compliance with regulatory limits. The proposed change revises the requirement to clarify the intent, thereby improving the administrative control over this process. As a result, any effect on the margin of safety should be minimal.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would allow containment penetrations to be unisolated under administrative controls during core alterations or movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment. The status of containment penetration flow paths (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Allowing penetration flow paths to be open is not an initiator for any accident. The proposed change to allow open penetration flow paths will not affect plant safety functions or plant operating practices such that a new or different accident could be created. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
TS 3.9.4 provides measures to ensure that the dose consequences of a postulated FHA inside containment are minimized. The proposed change to LCO 3.9.4 will allow penetration flow path(s) to be open during refueling operations under administrative control. These administrative controls will can and will be achieved in the event of an FHA inside containment, and will minimize dose consequences. The proposed change is bounded by the existing FHA analysis. The proposed change does not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Required Actions of Specification 3.1.4, “Rod Group Alignment Limits,” and Specification 3.2.4, “Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio,” to require measurement of both the steady state and transient portions of the Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, FQ(Z). This change will ensure that the hot channel factors are within their limits when the rod alignment limits or quadrant power tilt ratio are not within their limits. The verification of hot channel factors is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The verification that both the steady state and transient portion of FQ(Z) are within their limits will ensure this initial assumption of the accident analysis is met should a previously evaluated accident occur.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Required Actions in the Specifications for Rod Group Alignment Limits and Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio to require measurement of both the steady state and transient portions of the Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, F
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 3.7.5, “Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,” to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore an inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump in Mode 3 immediately following a refueling outage, if Mode 2 has not been entered. An inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The ability of the plant to mitigate an accident is no different while in the extended Completion Time than during the existing Completion Time.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises Specification 3.7.5, “Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,” to allow a 7-day Completion Time to restore an inoperable turbine-driven AFW pump in Mode 3 immediately following a refueling outage if Mode 2 has not been entered. In Mode 3 immediately following a refueling outage, core decay heat is low and the need for AFW is also diminished. The two operable motor driven AFW pumps are available and there are alternate means of decay heat removal if needed. As a result, the risk presented by the extended Completion Time is minimal.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Technical Specifications (TS) Administrative Controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The proposed changes affect the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the steel containment liner plate for the purpose of the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.
The frequency of visual examinations of the containment and the mode of operation during which those examinations are performed does not affect the initiation of any accident previously evaluated. The use of NRC approved methods and frequencies for performing the inspections will ensure the containment continues to perform the mitigating function assumed for accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS Administrative Controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The proposed change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the steel containment liner plate for the purpose of the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.
The proposed changes do not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the Technical Specifications (TS) Administrative Controls programs for consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. The proposed change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed for the steel containment liner plate for the purpose of the Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program. The safety function of the containment as a fission product barrier will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
Response: No.
The proposed change adds an LCO Note to LCO 3.9.6, “RHR and Coolant Circulation—Low Water Level,” to allow securing the operating train of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) for up to 15 minutes to support switching operating trains. The allowance is restricted to conditions in which core outlet temperature is maintained at least 10 degrees F below the saturation temperature, when there are no draining operations, and when operations that could reduce the reactor coolant system (RCS) boron concentration are prohibited. Securing an RHR train to facilitate the changing of the operating train is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The restrictions on the use of the allowance ensure that an RHR train will not be needed during the 15 minute period to mitigate any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds an LCO Note to LCO 3.9.6, “RHR and Coolant Circulation—Low Water Level,” to allow securing the operating train of RHR to support switching operating trains. The allowance is restricted to conditions in which core outlet temperature is maintained at least 10 degrees F below the saturation temperature, when there are no draining operations, and when operations that could reduce the reactor coolant system (RCS) boron concentration are prohibited. With these restrictions, combined with the short time frame allowed to swap operating RHR trains and the ability to start an operating RHR train if needed, the occurrence of an event that would require immediate operation of an RHR train is extremely remote.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides an alternative method for verifying rod position of one rod. The proposed change meets the intent of the current specification in that it ensures verification of position of the rod once every 8 hours. The proposed change provides only an alternative method of monitoring rod position and does not change the assumptions or results of any previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides only an alternative method of determining the position of one rod. No new accident initiators are introduced by the proposed alternative manner of performing rod position verification. The proposed change does not affect the reactor protection system. Hence, no new failure modes are created that would cause a new or different kind of accidents from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The basis of TS 3.1.7 states that the operability of the rod position indicators is required to determine control rod positions and thereby ensure compliance with the control rod alignment and insertion limits. The proposed change does not alter the requirement to determine rod position but provides an alternative method for determining the position of the affected rod. As a result, the initial conditions of the accident analysis are preserved and the consequences of previously analyzed accidents are unaffected.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, Dominion concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 12, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplemental letters dated June 9, 2014, August 6, 2014, and October 9, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 12, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
• Initiate main steam line isolation
• Closing the pressurizer power-operated relief valves block valves
• Securing all reactor coolant pumps
• Closing feedwater isolation valves
• Securing the startup feedwater pump
• Isolating reactor coolant system letdown
• Securing the centrifugal charging pumps
In addition, the licensee credits the automatic trip of the main turbine upon the initiation of a manual reactor trip for meeting the alternate shutdown capability.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the SE dated February 2, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of four amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The NRC proposes to determine that each amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
Comments must be filed by April 2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 4, 2015. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–5411; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0030 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–0030, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] has evaluated the proposed change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has determined that the proposed change does
Criteria
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes to the analysis do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions or conditions of the facility previously approved by the NRC, or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The revisions to the subject WCAP [WCAP–16143[–P]] do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The changes also do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated; do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite; and do not significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The use of WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 1, for generation of [Reactor Pressure Vessel] RPV P–T limits, will continue to ensure that RPV integrity is maintained under all conditions. The revisions contained in WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 1, and the changes proposed to TS [Technical Specifications] Table 1.1–1 do not change the conclusions of WCAP–16143[–P], Revision 0, previously approved by the NRC; nor do they change the way the RPV is analyzed or performs its safety function. Subsequently, these changes do not result in the creation of any new accident initiators or precursors; do not result in changes to any existing accident scenarios; and do not introduce any operational changes or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change any safety limits or reduce the margin of safety to any safety limits. The stress analysis and fracture mechanics evaluation, documented in the revision to WCAP–16143[–P], determined that for the RPV boltup condition, the RPV 54-stud case (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The derivation of the cycle specific Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Technical Specifications (TS), and their use to determine cycle specific thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology discussed in NEDE–24011–P–A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474].
The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to boiling transition.
The MCPR safety limit is reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved methodologies. The analyses for PBAPS, Unit 2 Cycle 21, with the addition of operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain, have concluded that a two recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of ≥1.15, based on the application of Global Nuclear Fuel's NRC-approved MCPR safety limit methodology, will ensure that this acceptance criterion is met. For single recirculation loop operation, a MCPR safety limit of ≥1.15 also ensures that this acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR operating limits are presented and controlled in accordance with the PBAPS Unit 2 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The requested TS changes do not involve any additional plant modifications or operational changes that could affect system reliability or performance or that could affect the probability of operator error beyond those associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503]. The requested changes do not affect any postulated accident precursors, do not affect any accident mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, calculated to ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC-approved methodology discussed in NEDE–24011–P–A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. The proposed changes do not involve any new modes of operation, any changes to setpoints, or any plant modifications beyond those associated with the MELLLA+ LAR [ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503]. The proposed revised MCPR safety limits have been shown to be acceptable for Cycle 21 operation with the MELLLA+ operating domain. The core operating limits will continue to be developed using NRC-approved methods. The proposed MCPR safety limits or methods for establishing the core operating limits do
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC as a result of the proposed change to the SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using methodology discussed in NEDE–24011–P–A, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,” Revision 20 [ADAMS Accession No. ML13352A474]. The SLMCPRs ensure that during normal operation and during anticipated operational transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition if the limits are not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding integrity.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety previously approved by the NRC.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requests approval to perform the fuel assembly structural analyses based on a pipe break that considers the application of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). Performing the fuel assembly structural analyses based on a pipe break that considers the application of LBB will not impact any accident previously evaluated.
No physical changes are being made to the plant as a result of this change. DCPP will continue to satisfy the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46(b) with this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the plant. The best-estimate large break loss-of-coolant [accident] (BELOCA) analyses are not impacted by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The revised fuel structural integrity analysis incorporates the reduced LBB loads and therefore will not decrease the margin of safety to the 10 CFR 50.46 limits. The BELOCA analyses are not impacted by this change, and the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46(b) continue to be met. The proposed change does not involve any changes to the fuel, reactor vessel, or containment fission product barriers. Therefore there will be no impact on the accident analyses that are contained in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed license amendment request is for a change to the Milestone 8 implementation schedule for the SNC CSP, as cited by the existing FOLs [facility operating licenses] applicable to FNP, HNP and VEGP Units 1 and 2.
The CSP is designed to provide high assurance that the systems within the scope of § 73.54 are protected from cyber attacks. The CSP itself does not require any plant modifications, but the plan describes appropriate configuration management requirements to assure plant modifications involving digital computer systems are reviewed to provide adequate protection against cyber attacks, up to and including the design basis threat as defined in § 73.54.
The proposed change is a schedule change for CSP implementation only; it will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility to add citation of the license amendment establishing the new Milestone 8 completion date. This change is administrative in nature and does not alter
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility to add citation of the license amendment establishing the new Milestone 8 completion date for CSP implementation. This change is administrative in nature and does not alter plant configuration, install new plant equipment, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, tested, or inspected.
Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed SNC CSP Milestone 8 implementation date change does not alter plant configuration, install new plant equipment, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, tested, or inspected. Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change will modify the existing FOL for each SNC-operated facility to add citation of the license amendment establishing the new Milestone 8 completion date. This change is administrative in nature and does not involve a reduction in margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555–0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on March 4, 2015, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the proposed Regulatory Guide 1.27, “Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 3. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. 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), Peter Wen (Telephone 301–415–2832 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
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 (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on March 4, 2015, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is propriety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and discuss the Electric Power Research Institute's Channel Distortion Program (CDP). 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), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301–415–7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
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 (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on March 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
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.
Dated: February 24, 2015.
March 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, April 6, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
10 a.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor, Safeguards (Public Meeting), (Contact: Edwin Hackett, 301–415–7360).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 9, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1).
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1).
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed—Ex. 1).
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301–415–0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or email
Week of March 2, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative).
a. OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (FORT CALHOUN STATION, UNIT 1), PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING BY SIERRA CLUB (APR. 23, 2014).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301–415–0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or email
Thursday, March 19, 2015, 2 p.m. (Open Portion); 2:15 p.m. (Closed Portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Meeting OPEN to the Public from 2 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. Closed portion will commence at 2:15 p.m. (approx.)
(Closed to the Public 2:15 p.m.):
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for extension of OMB approval, with modifications.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval (with modifications), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of its collection of information for Annual Reporting (OMB control number 1212–0057, expires June 30, 2017). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments must be submitted by April 2, 2015.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
A copy of the request (including the collection of information) will be posted at
Grace Kraemer, Attorney, or Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026; 202–326–4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4024.)
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) contains three separate sets of provisions—in title I (Labor provisions), title II (Internal Revenue Code provisions), and title IV PBGC provisions)—requiring administrators of employee benefit pension and welfare plans (collectively referred to as employee benefit plans) to file returns or reports annually with the federal government.
PBGC, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) work together to produce the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report for Employee Benefit Plan and Form 5500–SF Short Form Annual Return/Report for Small Employee Benefit Plan (Form 5500 Series), through which the regulated public can satisfy the combined reporting/filing requirements applicable to employee benefit plans.
PBGC is requesting that OMB approve several modifications to the 2015 Schedule MB (Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plan and Certain Money Purchase Plan Actuarial Information) and instructions and the Schedule SB (Single-Employer Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Information) instructions. These modifications affect multiemployer and single-employer defined benefit plans covered by title IV of ERISA.
Based on a recommendation made by practitioners, the Schedule MB is modified to require plan administrators of all multiemployer plans to report on line 4 the funded percentage for monitoring the plan's status. Currently, only plan administrators of multiemployer plans in critical or endangered status are required to report this information on line 4. (Plan administrators of all multiemployer plans are currently required to report information that can be used to calculate this funded percentage on line 1 of the Schedule MB.)
PBGC is also modifying the Schedule MB instructions to add RP–2000 and RP–2000 (with Blue Collar Adjustment) to the list of mortality tables for non-disabled lives that plans may report as codes on line 6c. (Plans that use these mortality tables currently report under the code for category “Other”.) Because many multiemployer plans use RP–2000 and RP–2000 (with Blue Collar Adjustment) mortality tables, assigning specific codes for these mortality tables would allow the Agencies to identify plans using these mortality tables.
The Schedule MB and instructions are also modified to add a new question in
PBGC is modifying the Schedule SB instructions to simplify the alternative age/service scatters that cash balance plans with 1,000 or more active participants have an option to report on an attachment to line 26.
On December 16, 2014, the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, Division O of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113–235 (MPRA) was signed into law. As a result of the statutory changes, PBGC is modifying the Schedule MB and instructions to extend the reporting requirements in line 4 for multiemployer plans in critical status to plans in critical and declining status, and to require that additional information be reported by plans that have been partitioned or had benefits suspended. Specifically, plan administrators of multiemployer plans in critical and declining status would be required to provide the following information:
• Enter in line 4b a new code for critical and declining status and attach a copy of the actuarial certification of such status and also attach an illustration showing the details (including year-by-year cash flow projections demonstrating the solvency of the plan over the relevant period) providing support for the actuarial certification.
• Report in line 4d whether any plan benefits have been reduced and if so, enter the reduction in liability resulting from the reduction in benefits in line 4e. For a plan that has been partitioned or had benefits suspended, a full description of the transaction must be attached.
• Provide information in line 4f about the plan year in which the plan is projected to emerge from critical and declining status or, if the rehabilitation plan is based on forestalling possible insolvency, the plan year in which insolvency is expected.
The collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212–0057 through June 30, 2017. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years, with modifications. 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.
PBGC estimates that it will receive approximately 24,000 Form 5500 and Form 5500–SF filings per year under this collection of information. PBGC further estimates that the total annual burden of this collection of information will be 1,200 hours and $1,407,000.
PBGC is soliciting public commentsto—
• 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 methodologies and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; Consideration of amicus participation; and Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the shares of the AlphaMark Actively
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
AlphaMark Advisors, LLC will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. Quasar Distributors, LLC (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC (“USBFS”) will act as the administrator, accounting agent, and transfer agent to the Fund. U.S. Bank National Association will act as the custodian to the Fund.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
The Fund is a non-diversified, actively-managed ETF that intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Fund's primary investment objective is to seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund will pursue its objectives by investing primarily,
The Fund defines “equity securities” to include common and preferred stock,
The Adviser seeks to invest in companies with a proven history of consistent growth, sustainable earnings momentum and the ability to produce a reliable stream of cash flow during all economic cycles. The Adviser uses a “bottom-up” internal stock screening process designed to identify companies that produce reliable cash flow streams and are priced at a level that provides for growth opportunity. An assessment of secular trends in the markets and the economy will exert some influence on the economic sector weightings of the Fund's portfolio.
The Adviser's screening process narrows the small cap growth universe to approximately 150 stocks. These companies are then subjected to further fundamental analysis, including the following:
The Adviser expects that there will generally be between 25 and 40 stocks in the Fund's portfolio. The Fund is non-diversified and therefore may invest a larger percentage of its assets in the securities of a single company than diversified funds. The portion of the Fund's net assets invested at any given time in securities of issuers engaged in industries within a particular sector is affected by valuation considerations and other investment characteristics of that sector. As a result, the Fund's investment in various sectors may change significantly over time.
The Fund may invest in Small Cap ETFs to gain market exposure while the Fund builds a position in one or more specific stocks. Additionally, the Fund may invest a significant portion or all of its assets in Small Cap ETFs during periods when the Adviser believes that the stocks identified by the Adviser's analysis are likely to underperform the broader small cap market. The Adviser will sell a security from the Fund's portfolio under one or more of the following circumstances:
• A material change in the company's structure or management;
• A material change in the industry or economic factors affecting that industry;
• A position has grown to an unacceptable weight;
• Earnings momentum has decreased from previous estimates; or
• The security's price has become overvalued by 20% or more based on the Adviser's proprietary cash flow models.
The Fund's investment in foreign equity securities will be in the form of ADRs and may include ADRs representing companies in emerging markets. With respect to its investments as part of its principal investment strategies in exchange-listed securities, the Fund will invest in such securities that trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”).
The Fund will invest in sponsored ADRs that are listed on ISG member exchanges and that the Adviser deems as liquid at time of purchase. In certain limited circumstances, the Fund may invest in ADRs that the Adviser deems illiquid at the time of purchase or for which pricing information is not readily available.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities or other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund may not invest more than 25% of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries. This restriction does not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other registered investment companies.
While the Fund under normal circumstances will invest at least 80% of its assets in U.S. exchange-listed equity securities, the Fund may invest the remaining assets in equity securities traded over-the-counter,
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares only in Creation Units at the net asset value (“NAV”)
The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit will consist of either (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit and the Cash Component (as defined below), computed as described below or (ii) the cash value of all or a portion of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”) and the “Cash Component,” computed as described below. The Fund may, under certain circumstances, effect a portion of creations and redemptions for cash, rather than in-kind securities, in accordance with the Exemptive Order. The Fund expects that the consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit will primarily consist of the in-kind deposit of the Deposit Securities.
When accepting purchases of Creation Units for cash, the Fund may incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Deposit Securities that would otherwise be provided by an in-kind purchaser. Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component will constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The “Cash Component” will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. If the Cash Component is a positive number (
To be eligible to place orders with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party,”
USBFS, through the NSCC, will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange's Regular Market Session (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security and/or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit, subject to any relevant adjustments, will be applicable in order to effect purchases of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next announced composition of the Deposit Securities and/or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, is made available.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through USBFS and only on a business day.
With respect to the Fund, USBFS, through the NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each business day, the list of the names and share quantities of the Fund's portfolio securities (“Fund Securities”) and/or, if relevant, the required cash value thereof that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities.
Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will be paid either in kind or in cash or a combination thereof, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in kind redemptions of the Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities as announced by USBFS on the business day of the request for redemption received in proper form plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee and any applicable additional variable charge as set forth in the Registration Statement. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential will be required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Trust's discretion, an Authorized Participant may receive the corresponding cash value of the securities in lieu of one or more Fund Securities.
The creation/redemption order cut off time for the Fund is expected to be 4:00 p.m. Eastern time for purchases of Shares. On days when the Exchange closes earlier than normal and in the case of custom orders, the Fund may require orders for Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day.
The NAV per Share for the Fund will be computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in determining the value of any security or asset, the Fund may use a valuation provided by a pricing vendor employed by the Trust and approved by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Trust Board”). The pricing vendor may base such valuations upon dealer quotes, by analyzing the listed market, by utilizing matrix pricing, by analyzing market correlations and pricing and/or employing sensitivity analysis.
The Adviser may use various pricing services, or discontinue the use of any pricing service, as approved by the Trust Board from time to time. A price obtained from a pricing service based on such pricing service's valuation matrix may be considered a market valuation. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar will be converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.
In the event that current market valuations are not readily available or such valuations do not reflect current market value, the Trust's procedures require the Trust's Valuation Committee to determine a security's fair value if a market price is not readily available in accordance with the 1940 Act.
The Fund's Web site (
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service,
Premiums and discounts between the Intraday Indicative Value and the market price of the Fund's shares may occur. This should not be viewed as a “real time” update of the NAV per Share of the Fund, which is calculated only once a day.
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names, amounts and share quantities, as applicable, required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of Nasdaq via NSCC. The basket will represent one Creation Unit of the Fund.
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt or pause trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares; exchange-traded equities, including ADRs; exchange-listed investment companies; or other exchange-traded securities with other markets and other entities that are ISG members, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-traded equities, including ADRs, exchange-listed investment companies, or other exchange-traded securities from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares; exchange-traded equities, including ADRs; exchange-listed investment companies; or other exchange-traded securities from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund, in the aggregate, will be invested in unlisted common stocks or common stocks not listed on an exchange that is a member of the ISG or a party to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, nonpublic information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) the dissemination of information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value through major index service providers such as NASDAQ OMX proprietary index data services or other major market proprietary index services; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (6) trading information; and (7) the dissemination of the Disclosed Portfolio through the Fund's Web site.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on Nasdaq during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The exchange-traded equities; exchange-listed investment companies; or other exchange-traded securities in which the Fund may invest will be limited to U.S. exchanges that are members of the ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Fund will pursue its objectives by investing primarily,
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities or other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund may not invest 25% or more of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries.
Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund, in the aggregate, will be invested in unlisted common stocks or common stocks not listed on an exchange that is a member of the ISG or a party to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. The Adviser is not a broker-dealer, and is not affiliated with any broker-dealer. In the event (a) the Adviser becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer or registers as a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the Fund that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. 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, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will also be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services and via the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares. Similarly, quotation and last sale information for any underlying exchange-traded products will also be available via the quote and trade services of their respective primary
The Web site for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted or paused under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded fund that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the shares of the First Trust Strategic Floating Rate ETF (the “Fund”) of the First Trust Strategic Floating Rate ETF (the “Fund”) of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund IV (the “Trust”) under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
First Trust Advisors L.P. will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. First Trust Portfolios L.P. (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY”) will act as the administrator, accounting agent, custodian and transfer agent to the Fund.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek current income. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal market
At least 65% of the Fund's net assets will be invested in Floating Rate Debt Instruments that are, at the time of purchase, investment grade. To be considered “investment grade,” under normal market conditions, rated Floating Rate Debt Instruments will carry, at the time of purchase, a rating in the highest four rating categories of at least one nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (“NRSRO”) (
The Fund will limit its investments in asset-backed securities (excluding agency mortgage-backed securities) and non-agency mortgage-backed securities (in the aggregate) to 20% of its net assets.
The Fund will hold debt securities (including, in the aggregate, Floating Rate Debt Instruments and the fixed-rate debt securities described below) of at least 13 non-affiliated issuers.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest primarily in the Floating Rate Debt Instruments described above to meet its investment objective. In addition, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in the following types of fixed-rate debt securities: corporate
Further, to pursue its investment objective, the Fund may invest up to 20% of the value of its net assets in exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury securities, exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury futures contracts and exchange-listed U.S. Treasury futures contracts.
The Fund will not invest 25% or more of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry. This restriction does not apply to (a) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities or (b) securities of other investment companies.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser.
The Fund will not invest in non-U.S. equity securities.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at net asset value (“NAV”)
Creations and redemptions must be made by or through an Authorized Participant that has executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor and BNY with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the transfer agent no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the New York Stock Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time) (the “Closing Time”) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt not later than the Closing Time of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the transfer agent and only on a business day.
The Fund's custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business day prior to commencement of trading in the Shares.
The Fund's NAV will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time) on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business. NAV will be calculated for the Fund by taking the market price of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share. All valuations will be subject to review by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (“Trust Board”) or its delegate.
The Fund's investments will be valued daily at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any investment, at fair value, in each case in accordance with valuation procedures (which may be revised from time to time) adopted by the Trust Board (the “Valuation Procedures”) and in accordance with the 1940 Act. A market valuation generally means a valuation (i) obtained from an exchange, an independent pricing service (“Pricing Service”), or a major market maker (or dealer) or (ii) based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of value supplied by an exchange, a Pricing Service, or a major market maker (or dealer). The information summarized below is based on the Valuation Procedures as currently in effect; however, as noted above, the Valuation Procedures are amended from time to time and, therefore, such information is subject to change.
Certain securities, including Floating Rate Debt Instruments, in which the Fund may invest will not be listed on any securities exchange or board of trade. Such securities will typically be bought and sold by institutional investors in individually negotiated private transactions that function in many respects like an over-the-counter secondary market, although typically no formal market makers will exist. Certain securities, particularly debt securities, will have few or no trades, or trade infrequently, and information regarding a specific security may not be widely available or may be incomplete. Accordingly, determinations of the fair value of debt securities may be based on infrequent and dated information. Because there is less reliable, objective data available, elements of judgment may play a greater role in valuation of debt securities than for other types of securities. Typically, Floating Rate Debt Instruments and other debt securities in which the Fund may invest (other than those described below) will be valued using information provided by a Pricing Service. Debt securities having a remaining maturity of 60 days or less when purchased will be valued at cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts, provided the Adviser's pricing committee (the “Pricing Committee”) has determined that the use of amortized cost is an appropriate reflection of fair value given market and issuer-specific conditions existing at the time of the determination. Overnight repurchase agreements will be valued at cost and term repurchase agreements (
Asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities will generally be valued by using a Pricing Service. If a Pricing Service does not cover a particular asset-backed or mortgage-backed security, or discontinues covering a particular asset-backed or mortgage-backed security, the security will be priced using broker quotes generally provided by brokers that make or participate in markets in the security. To derive values, Pricing Services and broker-dealers may use matrix pricing and valuation models, as well as recent market transactions for the same or similar assets. As it deems appropriate, the Pricing Committee may determine that a Pricing Service price does not represent an accurate value of an asset-backed or mortgage-backed security, based on broker quotes it receives, a recent trade in the security by the Fund, information from a portfolio manager, or other market information. In the event that the Pricing Committee determines that the Pricing Service price is unreliable or inaccurate based on such other information, broker quotes may be used. Additionally, if the Pricing Committee determines that the price of an asset-backed or mortgage-backed security obtained from a Pricing Service and available broker quotes is unreliable or inaccurate due to market conditions or other reasons, or if a Pricing Service price or broker quote is unavailable, the security will be valued using fair value pricing, as described below.
Equity securities listed on any exchange other than the Exchange will be valued at the last sale price on the exchange on which they are principally traded on the business day as of which such value is being determined. Equity securities listed on the Exchange will be valued at the official closing price on the business day as of which such value is being determined. If there has been no sale on such day, or no official closing price in the case of securities traded on the Exchange, the securities will be valued using fair value pricing, as described below. Equity securities traded on more than one securities exchange will be valued at the last sale price or official closing price, as applicable, on the business day as of which such value is being determined at the close of the exchange representing the principal market for such securities.
Exchange-traded options and futures contracts will be valued at the closing price in the market where such contracts are principally traded.
Certain securities, including Floating Rate Debt Instruments, in which the Fund will invest will not be able to be priced by pre-established pricing methods. Such securities may be valued by the Trust Board or its delegate at fair value. The use of fair value pricing by the Fund will be governed by the Valuation Procedures and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 1940 Act. Valuing the Fund's securities using fair value pricing will result in using prices for those securities that may differ from current market valuations or official closing prices on the applicable exchange.
The Fund's Web site (
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's Disclosed Portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG,
All of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded equity securities will be invested in securities that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. At least 90% of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded derivative instruments will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Adviser is not a broker-dealer, although it is affiliated with the Distributor, a broker-dealer, and is required to implement a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain
All of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded equity securities will be invested in securities that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. At least 90% of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded derivative instruments will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek current income. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets in a portfolio of Floating Rate Debt Instruments. In addition, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in certain fixed-rate debt securities. The Fund may invest up to 20% of the value of its net assets in exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury securities, exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury futures contracts and exchange-listed U.S. Treasury futures contracts. The Fund's investments in derivative instruments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and the 1940 Act and will not be used to seek to achieve a multiple or inverse multiple of an index. At least 65% of the Fund's net assets will be invested in Floating Rate Debt Instruments that are, at the time of purchase, investment grade. The Fund will limit its investments in asset-backed securities (excluding agency mortgage-backed securities) and non-agency mortgage-backed securities (in the aggregate) to 20% of its net assets. In addition, the Fund will limit its investments in junior loans to 20% of its net assets. The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. 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, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the CTA plans for the Shares. Quotation and last sale information for the other ETFs in which the Fund will invest will be available via the quote and trade services of their respective primary exchanges, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the CTA plans, as applicable. Quotation and last sale information for exchange-traded options will be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. Intraday executable price quotations on Floating Rate Debt Instruments and other assets not traded on an exchange will be available from major broker-dealer firms or market data vendors, as well as from automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services. Additionally, FINRA's TRACE will be a source of price information for corporate bonds, privately-issued securities, mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities to the extent transactions in such securities are reported to TRACE. For exchange-traded assets, intraday pricing information will be available directly from the applicable listing exchange.
The Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Fund's investments will be valued daily at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any investment, at fair value, in each case in accordance with the Valuation Procedures and the 1940 Act.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and in the exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Furthermore, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded fund that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Agent155 Media Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of QSound Labs, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2007.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of STEN Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 28, 2008.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Wind Energy America, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2010.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 27, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Printing & Packaging, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Silvan Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Ziyang Ceramics Corp. because it has not filed
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 27, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 02/23/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14233 5 and for economic injury is 14234 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Comments must be received no later than May 4, 2015.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number 2130–0548.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493–6170, or via email to Ms. Toone at
Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., dba AGC Automotive Americas Co. (AGC) has determined that certain glazing that it manufactured as replacement equipment for model year 2003–2008 Toyota Matrix vehicles, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
For further information on this decision contact Luis Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366–5930.
Notice of receipt of AGC's petition was published, with a 30-Day public comment period, on August 14, 2014 in the
In the associated Defect and Noncompliance Report that AGC submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, AGC indicated that, as of May 23, 2014, approximately 941 of the affected 1,435 backlites have already been removed from the stream of commerce, leaving 494 of the backlites subject to notification and recall.
1. AGC testing demonstrates that the noncompliant fragments have no adverse impact on the characteristics of the glass performing as tempered glass.
2. The design of the 2003–2008 Toyota Matrix leaves it unlikely to cause any safety risks to any vehicle occupant if the ARG backlite breaks.
3. AGC's destructive testing confirmed all noncompliant fragments do not impact the safety of the vehicle or its occupants.
AGC stated that while it recognizes that its tests were static and that the actual results in a crash might be somewhat different. For example, AGC stated its belief that in a rear or partial rear collision, if the glass breaks, most of that glass will fall and remain in the general area of the breakage since the remainder of the vehicle will be propelled forward in the later phases of the crash. This makes it even less likely that any glass will enter or be propelled forward enough to reach the passenger compartment of a vehicle. ARG expects that the subject backlites will react no differently.
Refer to AGC's petition for more detailed descriptions of the data and analyses that it provided in support of its reasoning.
AGC has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production of the subject glazing will fully comply with FMVSS No. 205.
In summation, AGC believes that the described noncompliance of the subject glazing is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt AGC from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
In the subject petition AGC states that it was alerted to a possible noncompliance by a customer concerning replacement backlites that it manufactured for 2003–2008 Toyota Matrix vehicles. In response, AGC conducted fracture testing in accordance with paragraph 5.7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996) and other testing. The fracture testing produced fragments weighting over the maximum allowed 4.25 g.
AGC stated its belief that the backlites “broke like tempered safety glass and exhibited all the characteristics of safety glazing material required in ANSI Z26.1.” The fact that there were fragments that weigh over the required 4.25 g and some fragments weighing over 10 g contradicts AGC's statement. A variation in the size of the fragmented material points to tempering that is not completely consistent with the intent of Test No. 7, “verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize risk of injury.” As stated in ANSI Z26.1 this minimization of risk is afforded by fragments weighing 4.25 g or less.
AGC also explains that the failures are constrained to the winged side edges of the backlites and that 90% of the glass meets the 4.25 g requirement. In addition, AGC claims that since “virtually all” of the black ceramic painted portion of the winged side edges is covered by the door frame and on the exterior of the car this portion of the backlite curves out towards the sides of the vehicle, and that the chances of passengers being injured by broken glass during a crash are small.
NHTSA also reviewed Toyota's comment that it submitted to the docket in response to the publication of the notice of petition. In summary, Toyota states that it does not believe that the noncompliance poses an unreasonable risk to safety due to the small number of vehicles with the noncompliant glazing installed and because 90% of each backlite complies with the fracture test requirements.
The agency does not agree with Toyota's reasoning. The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to “reduce injuries” without regard to the number of vehicles involved. However, AGC has shown that the noncompliance is limited to the winged black ceramic area of the backlite. In the vehicle's interior this area sits on top of the frame and is not exposed to passengers, and in the outside it faces away from the vehicle. Therefore, NHTSA concludes that in this specific case, due to the location of the noncompliant winged section of the backlite in conjunction with the shape of the subject vehicle, there is a low probability that fragments would be propelled to the inside of the vehicle in the event of a glazing fracture.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject noncompliant glazing that AGC no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant glazing under their control after AGC notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of five individuals and 14 entities 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 five individuals and 14 entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on February 24, 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
On February 24, 2015, the Director of OFAC designated the following five individuals and 14 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
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 one individual 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 Acting Director of OFAC of the individual and entity identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on February 17, 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
On February 17, 2015, the Acting Director of OFAC designated the following individual and entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
GASTELUM SERRANO, Francisco Javier; DOB 02 Dec 1964; POB Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; citizen Mexico; C.U.R.P. GASF641202HSLSRR09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
ANDAMIOS DALMINE DE MEXICO, S.A., J.J. Rousseau #14, Colonia Anzures, Distrito Federal C.P. 11590, Mexico; Calzada Aeropuerto #7258, Colonia Bachigualato, Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; Tuberosa #215, Colonia San Carlos, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Avenida Guerrero #3298 Norte, Colonia Del Norte, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico; Avenida 20 de Noviembre #12621, Colonia 20 de Noviembre, Tijuana, Baja California Norte, Mexico; Bugambilia #6313, Colonia Bugambilias, Puebla, Puebla, Mexico; Boulevard Luis Donaldo, Colosio Kilometer 10 Lote 44, Colonia Alfredo V. Bonfil, Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico; Calle 20 de Noviembre #8, Colonia Tezontepec, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico; Avenida La Paz #3308, Colonia Santa Rosa, Los Cabos, Baja California Sur, Mexico; Carretera Internacional al Norte Kilometer 15, Bodega 309, El Venadillo, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico; Poniente 134 #769, Colonia Industrial Vallejo, Distrito Federal, Mexico; Constituyentes de 1975, #4770, Colonia Puesta del Sol, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico; Roberto Barrios #2, Colonia Casa Blanca, Queretaro, Queretaro, Mexico; Cardenal #106, Colonia Los Sauces, Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico; RFC ADM821230NBO (Mexico) [SDNTK].
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of Amendment to System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently entitled “Consolidated Data Information System-VA” (97VA105) as set forth in the
Comments on the amendment of this system of records must be received no later than April 2, 2015. If no public comment is received, the amended system will become effective April 2, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted through
Stephania Griffin, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (704) 245–2492.
The system number is changed from 97VA105 to 97VA10P1 to reflect the current organizational alignment.
VA Appendix 5 is being amended to change VA Information Resource Center (VIReC), Hines VA Medical Center, 5th Ave. & Roosevelt Ave., Hines, IL 60141 to VA/CMS Data for Research Project VA Information Resource Center (151V), Hines VA Hospital (578), 5000 South 5th Avenue Building 18, Hines, IL 60141–3030. Also, the address of the Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health (ADUSH) for Policy and Planning, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420 is being changed to 810 Vermont Avenue NW.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and guidelines issued by OMB, 65 FR 77677 (Dec. 12, 2000).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, approved this document on February 10, 2015, for publication.
Consolidated Data Information System-VA
1. VA Medicare and Medicaid Analysis Center, field unit of the Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health (ADUSH) for Policy and Planning, 100 Grandview Rd., Suite 114, Braintree, MA 02184.
2. VA/CMS Data for Research Project VA Information Resource Center (151V) Hines VA Hospital (578) 5000 South 5th Avenue Building 18 Hines, IL 60141–3030.
3. Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health (ADUSH) for Policy and Planning, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
4. Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, TX 78772.
5. VA facilities.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of amendment to system of records—Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System Commenter Information (VAFDMS—Commenter Info)—(140VA02REG).
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently titled, “Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System (VAFDMS)—(140VA00REG)” as set forth in the
This amended system of record will be effective March 3, 2015.
William F. Russo, Privacy Officer, or Janet Coleman, Chief, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–4902.
A Notice of Establishment of New System of Records was published in the
The Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System (VAFDMS) serves as a central, electronic repository for VA rulemaking and non-rulemaking dockets including
VAFDMS permits members of the public to search posted public comments received by name of the individual submitting the comment on the regulations.gov Web site. All the contents of posted comments are searchable. Unless the individual submits the comment anonymously, a name search will result in the comment being displayed for view. If the comment is submitted electronically using VAFDMS, the viewed comment will not include the name of the submitter or any other identifying information about the individual except the information that the submitter has opted to include as part of his or her general comment. If a comment is submitted by an individual on his or her own behalf, in writing, that has been scanned and uploaded into VAFDMS, unless the individual submits the comment anonymously, the submitter's name will be on the comment, but other personally identifying information will be redacted before it is scanned and posted. Comments submitted on behalf of organizations in writing that have to be scanned and uploaded into VAFDMS, may not be redacted.
VA is adding to the authority listed for the system so as to better guide individuals if they are researching the authority.
VA is renaming the system of records to reflect the categories of individuals on whom information is maintained, and to update the originating office name that changed from 00REG to 02REG. Thus “Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System (VAFDMS)—(140VA00REG)” is renamed as, “Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System Commenter Information (VAFDMS—Commenter Info)—(140VA02REG)”.
VA is providing greater detail as to where records are stored.
VA is updating the mailbox address for the office for notification and record access procedures from 00REG to 02REG.
VA is correcting the Record Source Categories to correctly list both individuals and public or private organizations. Formerly only “individuals” was listed.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act), as amended, and guidelines issued by OMB published at 65 FR 77677 on December 12, 2000, these proposed minor changes do not need to be reported to Congressional Committees or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget before implementation.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, approved this document on February 12, 2015 for publication.
Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Docket Management System Commenter Information (VAFDMS—Commenter Info)
Primary location: Electronic records are kept at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711–0001. Secondary location: Paper records are kept at Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
Individuals who voluntarily provide personal contact information when submitting a public comment and/or supporting materials in response to a Department of Veterans Affairs rulemaking document or notice.
Full name, postal address, email address, phone and fax numbers of the individual submitting comments, the name of the individual or organization that the individual represents, and the comments, as well as other supporting documentation, furnished by the individual. Comments may include personal information about the commenter.
44 U.S.C. 3501, Note; Sec. 206(d), Pub. L. 107–347; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, and 553.
To permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to identify individuals, who have submitted comments in response to VA rulemaking documents or notices, so that communications or other actions, as appropriate and necessary, can be effected, such as to seek clarification of the comment, to directly respond to a comment, and for other activities associated with the rulemaking or notice process.
1. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44 U.S.C.
3. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
4. Disclosure of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities with whom VA has a contract or agreement or where there is a subcontract to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
5. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in the system, except the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of the law whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order. VA may also disclose on its own initiative the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal, or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
6. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
7. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information, and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
8. VA may disclose information contained in this System of Records, as necessary, to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that comments are available for public review if submitted in response to VA's solicitation of public comments as part of the Agency's notice and rulemaking activities under the APA. However, VA will not release individually-identifiable personal information, such as an individual's address or home telephone number, under this routine-use, except where VA determines that publication without redaction was intended by the submitter.
(a)
Records are maintained on electronic storage media and paper. See System Location.
(b)
Records are retrieved by various data elements and key word searches, among which are by: Name, Agency, Docket Type, Docket Sub-Type, Agency Docket ID, Docket Title, Docket Category, Document Type, CFR Part, Date Comment Received, and
(c)
Electronic records are maintained in a secure, password protected, electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include: multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. Paper records are maintained in a controlled facility, where physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and/or administrative procedures. Access to records is limited to those officials who require the records to perform their official duties consistent with the purpose for which the information was collected. All personnel whose official duties require access to the information are trained in the proper safeguarding and use of the information.
(d)
Records will be maintained and disposed of, in accordance with records disposition authority, approved by the Archivist of the United States.
William F. Russo, Privacy Officer, Office of Regulation Policy and
Individuals seeking to determine whether this System of Records contains information about them should address written inquiries to the Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420. Requests should contain the full name, address and telephone number of the individual making the inquiry.
Individuals seeking to access or contest the contents of records, about themselves, contained in this System of Records should address a written request, including full name, address and telephone number to the Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420.
(See Record Access Procedure above.)
Individuals; public or private organizations.
There are no exemptions being claimed for this system.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment to system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently entitled “Health Administration Center Civilian Health and Medical Program Records-VA” (54VA16) as set forth in the
Written comments concerning the proposed new system of records may be submitted through
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245–2492.
VA is renaming the system of records from Health Administration Center Civilian Health and Medical Program Records-VA to Veterans and Beneficiaries Purchased Care Community Health Care Claims, Correspondence, Eligibility, Inquiry and Payment Files-VA.
The system number is changed from 54VA16 to 54VA10NB3 to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The System Location, Safeguards, Notification Procedure, and Record Access Procedure have been amended to reflect a name change from the Health Administration Center to the VA Chief Business Office Purchased Care.
Categories of Individuals Covered by the System has been amended to include family members and caregivers of Veterans who are authorized and receive community non-VA medical care health care benefits and/or stipends, and to reflect that records are maintained on all health care providers who provide care under the programs administered by CBOPC. 38 U.S.C. 1720G, 1787, 1812, 1821 and Public Law 111–163 section 101 are being added to section 1 and 4. A new section 5 has been added to include caregivers of Veterans providing personal care services and in receipt of a stipend under 38 U.S.C. 1720G and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
The Category of Records in the System is amended to reflect that information regarding family members and caregivers will be included, including information regarding eligibility or entitlement to other federal medical programs; and those who have applied for benefits in these programs, claims (billing) for medical care and services; information related to claims processing; documents pertaining to stipend calculation and payment; and documents pertaining to appeals.
The Authority for Maintenance of the System is amended to include 1720G, 1787, 1812, 1821, and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
The Purpose is being amended to include processing claims for medical care and services, and processing stipends.
Routine use 1 is being amended to add interactive voice recognition and portal. Routine use 28 is added to allow the disclosure of any relevant information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the Social Security Administration, Veterans Benefit Administration, or any other federal or state agency.
The Retrievability section is being amended to include caregivers. The Retention and Disposal section is amended to reflect the Record Control Schedule (RCS) 10–1 item XXXVIII Civilian Health and Medical care (CHMC) Records, NARA job number N1–015–3–1Item 1–8b, (Master file) item 3, destroy 6 years after all individuals in the record become ineligible for program benefits.
The System Manager and Address and Record Access Procedure are being amended to change the official maintaining the System from the Director, Health Administration Center to the Deputy Chief Business Officer Purchased Care.
The Privacy Act permits VA to disclose information about individuals without their consent for a routine use when the information will be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the information. In all of the routine use disclosures described above, the recipient of the information will use the information in connection with a matter relating to one of VA's programs, or to provide a benefit to VA, or disclosure is required by law.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the
“Veterans and Beneficiaries Purchased Care Community Health Care Claims, Correspondence, Eligibility, Inquiry and Payment Files—VA”
Records are maintained at the Chief Business Office Purchased Care (CBOPC), 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209.
Categories of individuals covered by the system include the following:
1. Family members of Veterans who seek health care under 38 U.S.C. 1720G, 1781, 1787, 1802, 1803, 1812, 1813, 1821, Public Law 103–446, section 107 and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
2. Veterans seeking health care services in a foreign country under 38 U.S.C. 1724.
3. Veterans receiving community fee-for-service benefits at VA expense under Title 38 U.S.C. 1703, 1725 and 1728.
4. Health care providers treating individuals who receive care under 38 U.S.C. 1703, 1720G, 1724, 1725, 1728, 1781, 1787, 1803, 1812, 1813, 1821, Public Law 103–446 section 107 and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
5. Caregivers of Veterans providing personal care services and in receipt of a stipend under 38 U.S.C. 1720G and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
Records maintained in the system include program applications, eligibility information concerning the Veteran, family members, caregivers: Other health insurance information to include information regarding eligibility or entitlement to other federal medical programs: Correspondence concerning individuals who have applied for benefits in these programs; claims (billing) for medical care and services; documents pertaining to claims for medical services; information related to claims processing; documents pertaining to stipend calculation and payment; documents pertaining to appeals; and third party liability information and recovery actions taken by VA and/or TRICARE. The record may include the name, address and other identifying information concerning health care providers, services provided, amounts claimed and paid for health care services, amounts calculated and paid for stipends, medical records, and treatment and payment dates.
Additional information may include Veterans, who have applied for benefits in these programs; claims (billing) for medical care and services; documents pertaining to claims for medical services; information related to claims processing; documents pertaining to stipend calculation and payment; documents pertaining to appeals; and third party liability information and recovery actions. family member, and caregiver identifying information (
Title 38, United States Code, sections 501(a), 501(b), 1703, 1720G, 1724, 1725, 1728, 1781, 1787, 1802, 1803, 1812, 1813, 1821, Public Law 103–446 section 107 and Public Law 111–163 section 101.
Records may be used for purposes of establishing and monitoring eligibility to receive VA benefits, processing claims for medical care and services, and processing stipends.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. Eligibility and claim information from this system of records may be disclosed verbally or in writing. For example, disclosure may be made via correspondence, call service center, interactive voice recognition, portal or interactive Web page, in response to an inquiry made by the claimant, claimant's guardian, claimant's next of kin, health care provider, trading partner, other federal agency or contractor. Purposes of these disclosures are to assist the provider or claimant in obtaining reimbursement for claimed medical services, to facilitate billing processes, to verify beneficiary eligibility and to provide payment information regarding claimed services. Eligibility or entitlement information disclosed may include the name, authorization number (social security number), effective dates of eligibility, reasons for any period of ineligibility, and other health insurance information of the named individual. Claim or stipend information disclosed may include payment information such as payment identification number, date of payment, date of service, amount billed, amount paid, name of payee, or reasons for non-payment.
2. Statistical and other data to Federal, State, and local government agencies and national health organizations to assist in the development of programs that will be beneficial to health care recipients, to protect their rights under the law, and to ensure that they are receiving all health benefits to which they are entitled.
3. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their family members or caregivers which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans, their family members or caregivers to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute,
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a Federal agency upon its request for use in the issuance of a security clearance, the investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting Agency's decision on the matter.
5. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
6. Disclosure may be made to National Archives and Records Administration and to General Services Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C.
7. Any relevant information in this system of records may be disclosed to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, and to courts, boards, or commissions; such disclosures may be made only to the extent necessary to aid the VA in preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, State, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
8. Any information in this system of records may be disclosed to the United States Department of Justice or United States Attorneys in order to prosecute or defend litigation involving or pertaining to the United States, or in which the United States has an interest.
9. Any information in this system of records may be disclosed to a Federal agency or party to an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, in order for VA to respond to and comply with the issuance of an order by that Federal agency requiring production of the information.
10. Any information in this system of records may be disclosed to a State or municipal grand jury, a State or municipal court or a party in litigation, or to a State or municipal administrative agency functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity or a party to a proceeding being conducted by such agency, provided that any disclosure of claimant information made under this routine use must comply with the provisions of 38 CFR 1.511.
11. Any information concerning the claimant's indebtedness to the United States by virtue of a person's participation in a benefits program administered by VA, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer matching programs, may be disclosed to any third party, except consumer reporting agencies, in connection with any proceeding for the collection of any amount owed to the United States. Purposes of these disclosures may be to assist VA in collection of costs of services provided individuals not entitled to such services and to initiate legal actions for prosecuting individuals who willfully or fraudulently obtain Title 38 benefits without entitlement. This disclosure is consistent with 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(6).
12. Any relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to TRICARE, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS) to the extent necessary to determine eligibility for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) or TRICARE benefits, to develop and process CHAMPVA or TRICARE claims, and to develop cost-recovery actions for claims involving individuals not eligible for the services or claims involving potential third party liability.
13. The name and address of a Veteran, family member or caregiver, and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency for the purpose of locating the individual or obtaining a consumer report to determine the ability of the individual to repay an indebtedness to the United States by virtue of the individual's participation in a benefits program administered by VA, provided that the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 5701(g)(2) have been met.
14. The name and address of a Veteran, family member or caregiver and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer matching programs, and any information concerning the individual's indebtedness to the United States by virtue of the individual's participation in a benefits program administered by VA, may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency for purposes of assisting in the collection of such indebtedness, provided that the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 5701(g)(4) have been met.
15. In response to an inquiry about a named individual from a member of the general public, disclosure of information may be made from this system of records to report the amount of VA monetary benefits being received by the individual. This disclosure is consistent with 38 U.S.C. 5701(c)(1).
16. The name and address of a Veteran, family member or caregiver may be disclosed to another Federal agency or to a contractor of that agency, at the written request of the head of that agency or designee of the head of that agency, for the purpose of conducting government research necessary to accomplish a statutory purpose of that agency.
17. Any information in this system of records relevant to a claim of a Veteran, family member or caregiver such as the name, address, the basis and nature of a claim, amount of benefit payment information, medical information and military service and active duty separation information may be disclosed at the request of the claimant to accredited service organizations, VA approved claim agents and attorneys acting under a declaration of representation, so that these individuals can aid claimants in the preparation, presentation and prosecution of claims under the laws administered by VA. The name and address of a claimant will not, however, be disclosed to these individuals under this routine use if the claimant has not requested the assistance of the accredited service organization, claims agent or an attorney.
18. Any information in this system, including medical information, the basis and nature of claim, the amount of benefits and personal information may be disclosed to a VA Federal fiduciary or a guardian ad litem in relation to his or her representation of a claimant only to the extent necessary to fulfill the duties of the VA Federal fiduciary or the guardian ad litem.
19. The individual's name, address, social security number and the amount (excluding interest) of any indebtedness which is waived under 38 U.S.C. 3102, compromised under 4 CFR part 103, otherwise forgiven, or for which the applicable statute of limitations for enforcing collection has expired, may be disclosed to the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, as a report of income under 26 U.S.C. 61(a)(12).
20. The name of a Veteran, family member or caregiver, or other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, and any other information concerning the individual's indebtedness by virtue of a person's participation in a benefit program administered by VA, may be disclosed to the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, for the collection of Title 38, U.S.C. benefit overpayments, overdue indebtedness, and/or costs of services provided to an individual not entitled to such services, by the withholding of all or a portion of the person's Federal income tax refund.
21. The name, date of birth and social security number of a Veteran, family member or caregiver, and other identifying information as is reasonably necessary may be disclosed to Social Security Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, for the purpose of validating social security numbers and Medicare information.
22. The name and address of any health care provider in this system of records who has received payment for claimed services on behalf of a Veteran, family member or caregiver may be disclosed in response to an inquiry from a member of the general public who requests assistance in locating medical providers who accept VA payment for health care services.
23. Relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
24. Relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to an accrediting Quality Review and Peer Review Organization in connection with the review of claims or other review activities associated with CBOPC accreditation to professionally accepted claims processing standards.
25. Identifying information, including social security number, of Veterans, spouse(s) of veterans, and dependents of Veterans, family members and caregivers, may be disclosed to other Federal agencies for purposes of conducting computer matches, to obtain information to determine or verify eligibility of Veterans who are receiving VA medical care under relevant sections of Title 38, U.S.C.
26. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
27. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
28. Any relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the Social Security Administration, Veterans Benefit Administration, or any other federal or state agency.
Records are stored electronically, in paper folders, magnetic discs, and magnetic tape. Paper documents may be scanned/digitized and stored for viewing electronically.
Paper records are retrieved by name or VA claims file number or social security number of the Veteran, family member or caregiver. Computer records are retrieved by name or social security number of the Veteran family member, caregiver, or VA claims file number of the Veteran.
Working spaces and record storage areas at CBOPC are secured during all business and non-business hours. All entrance doors require an electronic pass card for entry. The CBOPC Logistics Department issues electronic pass cards. CBOPC staff control visitor entry by door release and escort. The building is equipped with an intrusion alarm system monitored by CBOPC security staff during business hours and by a security service vendor during non-business hours. Electronic/Digital records are stored in an electronic controlled storage filing area. Paper records in work areas are stored in locked file cabinets or locked rooms. Access to record storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis. Access to the computer room is limited by appropriate locking devices and restricted to authorized VA employees and vendor personnel. Automated Data Processing (ADP) peripheral devices are generally placed in secure areas or are otherwise protected. Authorized VA employees may access information in the computer system by a series of individually unique passwords/codes.
Record Control Schedule (RCS) 10–1 item XXXVIII Civilian Health and Medical care (CHMC) Records. NARA job number N1–015–3–1Item 1–8b. (Master file) item 3, Destroy 6 years after all individuals in the record become ineligible for program benefits.
Official responsible for policies and procedures: Chief Business Officer (10NB), Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Official Maintaining the System: Deputy Chief Business Officer Purchased Care, Department of Veterans Affairs, P.O. Box 469060, Denver, CO 80246–9060.
Any individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request to Chief Business Office Purchased Care, P.O. Box 469060, Denver, Colorado 80246–9060, or apply in person to the VHA Chief Business Office Purchased Care, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209. All inquiries (Veteran and beneficiary) should include the Veteran's full name and social security and VA claims file numbers, and the spouse's family member or caregiver's name, social security number and return address.
An individual who seeks access to records maintained under his or her name in this system may write or visit the Deputy Chief Business Officer, VHA CBO Purchased Care.
(
The Veteran sponsor, family member, caregiver, military service departments, private medical facilities and health care professionals, electronic trading partners, contractors, DoD, TRICARE,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment of system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently entitled “Customer Relationship Management System (CRMS)–VA” (155VA16) as set forth in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than April 2, 2015. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments concerning the proposed amended system of records may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273–9026; or email to
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245–2492.
The System Number is changed from 155VA16 to 155VA10NB to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The System Location and the System Manager and Address sections are being amended to reflect a name change from Health Revenue Center to the Health Resource Center (HRC).
The Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to include information concerning secure messaging and web chat.
The Categories of Records in the System is being amended to include health care appointment request and general administrative pharmacy inquires.
Safeguards, number one, is being amended to state that all entrance doors to the HRC Topeka, KS and Waco, TX locations require an electronic pass card to gain entry. Number four is being amended to replace the Statement of Commitment and Understanding with the Rules of Behavior.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
Customer Relationship Management System (CRMS)—VA
Records and magnetic media are maintained at the Health Resource Center (HRC), Topeka, Kansas facility or at another OI&T approved location. Magnetic media are also stored at an OI&T approved location for contingency back-up purposes.
The records include information concerning telephone, secure messaging and web chat inquiries from Veterans, Veteran's family members, members of the general public, VA customers, and VA employees.
The records may include information related to:
1. Veteran health benefits eligibility and health care appointment request;
2. Veteran medical claims processing and payments;
3. Co-payments charged for medical care and prescriptions;
4. General administrative pharmacy inquiries;
5. General human resources management;
6. Other information related to Veterans, Veteran's family members, members of the general public, VA customers, and VA employees.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 501(a), 1705, 1710, 1722, 1722(a), 1781 and Title 5, United States Code, section 552(a).
The records and information may be used for historical reference, quality assurance, training, and statistical reporting.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. The record of an individual who is covered by this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under authority of Tile, Chapter 29, of the Unites States Code (44 U.S.C.).
3. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DOJ's request for the information, after either VA or DOJ determines that such information is relevant to DOJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
4. Disclosure of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement or where there is a subcontract to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
5. VA may disclose, on its own initiative, any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose on its own initiative the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
6. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
7. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
8. Disclosure may be made to those officers and employees of the agency that maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.
9. To disclose the information listed in 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4) to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
10. To disclose information to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.
11. To disclose information from this system to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
12. To disclose to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
Records are stored on electronic media in a VA OI&T approved location.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
1. All entrance doors to the HRC Topeka, KS and Waco, TX locations require an electronic pass card to gain entry. Hours of entry to the facility are controlled based on position held and special needs. Visitors to the HRC are required to sign-in at a specified location and are escorted the entire time they are in the building or they are issued a temporary visitors badge. At the end of the visit, visitors are required to turn in their badge. The building is equipped with an intrusion alarm system which is activated when any of the doors are forced open or held ajar for a specified length of time. During business hours, the security system is monitored by the VA police and HRC staff. After business hours, the security system is monitored by the VA telephone operator(s) and VA police. The VA police conduct visual security checks of the outside perimeter of the building.
2. Access to the building is generally restricted to HRC staff and VA police, specified custodial personnel, engineering personnel, and canteen service personnel.
3. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized VA OI&T personnel and requires entry of a personal identification number (PIN) with the pass card swipe. PIN's must be changed periodically. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted. Information stored in the computer may be accessed by authorized VA employees at remote locations including the Health Eligibility Center in Atlanta, GA; Health
4. All HRC employees receive information security and privacy awareness training and sign the Rules of Behavior; training is provided to all employees on an annual basis. The HRC Information Security Officer performs an annual information security audit and periodic reviews to ensure security of the system.
5. For contingency purposes, database backups on magnetic media are stored off-site at an approve VA OI&T location.
Electronic Service Records are purged when they are no longer needed for current operation. Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, and published in the VHA Records Control Schedule 10–1.
Official responsible for policies and procedures: Chief Business Officer (10NB), VA Central Office, 1722 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20420. Official maintaining the system: Director, Health Resource Center, 3401 SW 21st Street Bldg. 9, Topeka, Kansas 66604.
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the VA facility location at which they are or were employed or made or have contact. Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, dates of employment, date(s) of contact, and return address.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
Information in this system of records is provided by Veterans, Veteran's family members, members of the general public, VA customers, and VA employees.
(a) provide integrated all-source analysis of intelligence related to foreign cyber threats or related to cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests;
(b) support the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, U.S. Cyber Command, and other relevant United States Government entities by providing access to intelligence necessary to carry out their respective missions;
(c) oversee the development and implementation of intelligence sharing capabilities (including systems, programs, policies, and standards) to enhance shared situational awareness of intelligence related to foreign cyber threats or related to cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests among the organizations referenced in subsection (b) of this section;
(d) ensure that indicators of malicious cyber activity and, as appropriate, related threat reporting contained in intelligence channels are downgraded to the lowest classification possible for distribution to both United States Government and U.S. private sector entities through the mechanism described in section 4 of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity); and
(e) facilitate and support interagency efforts to develop and implement coordinated plans to counter foreign cyber threats to U.S. national interests using all instruments of national power, including diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement activities.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the National Security Agency shall provide a status report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on the establishment of the CTIIC. This report shall further refine the CTIIC's mission, roles, and responsibilities, consistent with this memorandum, ensuring that those roles and responsibilities are appropriately aligned with other Presidential policies as well as existing policy coordination mechanisms.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) 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.
(d) The DNI is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the