Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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 rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive inspections of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing to detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to skin panels, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-to-fitting fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the airplane.
This AD is effective April 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 770–494–5445; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474–5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The commenter supported the NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014).
We reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing, and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available; see
We estimate that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for on-condition actions for cracking of the skin-panel-to-fitting fastener holes specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 24, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes; certificated in any category; having any outer wing serial number 4542 and subsequent, or any manufacturing end product (MEP) replacement outer wing except 14Y series.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-to-fitting fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do an ECSS inspection of the left and right outer wing upper and lower rainbow fitting-to-skin-panel attachments to detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair
(1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight hours on any wing.
(2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
At the time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection of the wing faying structure for damage and cracks, and do an automated bolt hole eddy current inspection on all open fastener holes in the mating structure, stiffeners, webs and angles for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(i) If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the damage, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(ii) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(2) Replace the left and right upper and lower rainbow fittings of the outer wing with new fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013.
AD 2012–06–09, Amendment 39–16990 (77 FR 21404, April 10, 2012), is related to the rainbow fitting replacement. AD 2012–06–09 references the Lockheed Martin Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Series Aircraft Service Manual Publication (SMP), Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), SMP 515–C–SSID, Change 1, dated September 10, 2010; which contains inspections for the entire Model 382B–H airframe, not just the outer wing. Since installing new rainbow fittings, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, resets the accumulated service life on certain parts to zero, certain compliance times specified in Table 3 of this SSID would be affected by the installation of new outer wing fittings.
AD 2011–15–02, Amendment 39–16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15, 2011), has requirements for fuel system limitations and critical design configuration control limitations, which might include configuration or parts limitations on areas affected by accomplishment of this AD.
At the later of the times specified in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight hours on any wing.
(2) Within 60 days or 100 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Although Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(2) Where Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, specifies to contact Lockheed for repair instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
After replacement of the left and right upper and lower rainbow fittings of the outer wing with new fittings, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any subsequent rainbow fitting replacements must be done using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
For any wing on which the left or right upper and lower rainbow fittings of the outer wing have been replaced with new fittings as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight hours after accomplishing the replacement, do the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD and repeat thereafter at the times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by a Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) that has been authorized by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474–5606; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382–57–95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770–494–5444; fax 770–494–5445; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding an airworthiness directive (AD) 2014–06–03 for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking of the main landing gear spigot housing. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 24, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:
Several cases of stress corrosion cracking of DTD 5094 standard Main Landing Gear (MLG) cylinders have been reported on Jetstream Series 3200 and 3100 aeroplanes.
Prompted by these findings, The United Kingdom (UK) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued AD 003–01–86 to require visual and non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections of the MLG assembly cylinder attachment spigot housing in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32–A–JA851226. In 2012 an additional occurrence of Jetstream 3100 MLG failure after landing was reported, the subsequent investigation revealed stress corrosion cracking of the yoke pintle housing as a root cause of the MLG failure. Consequently EASA issued EASA AD 2013–0208 to require inspection of the MLG in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32–A–JA851226 Revision 5 or later approved revisions to detect any crack, however, SB 32–A–JA851226 did not apply to aeroplanes equipped with MLG cylinders manufactured from L161 material, since that is not susceptible to stress corrosion, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32–JM7862 to address degradation of the surface protection by placing a special washer over the forward face of the MLG spigot housing, which rotates with the spigot housing. EASA issued AD 2013–0206 to require modification of the left (LH) and right hand (RH) MLG in accordance with this SB.
In 2014 a further event was reported, where the LH MLG of a Jetstream 3100 aeroplane collapsed during landing, this resulted in the aeroplane departing from the runway. The accident is still under investigation by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch. Preliminary results of the investigation determined that cracking, which caused the MLG collapse, was initiated from a corrosion pit at the top outer edge of the forward spigot housing and extended along the top of the spigot housing. The spigot housing material was DTD 5094. The affected LH MLG had been modified in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32–JM7862 Revision 1. Further investigation discovered that the instructions provided in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32–JM7862 Revision 1 did not effectively prevent stress corrosion cracking because, under certain circumstances, it allows the rotation of the special washer and consequent damage of the end face of the spigot housing.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural failure of the MLG, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane during take-off or landing runs.
To address this potential unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32–JM7862 Revision 2 to clarify the orientation of the spigot bearing cap, later revised to SB 32–JM7862 Revision 3 to ensure the spigot bearing cap is correctly positioned. Additionally, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32–A–JA140940 to provide inspection instructions to detect migration of the special washer and any potential corrosion resulting from that unwanted migration for MLG installations modified earlier in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32–JM7862 up to Revision 2.
For the reasons described above, this AD partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013–0206, which is superseded, and requires a one-time inspection of pre-SB 32–JM7862 Revision 3 MLG installations and, depending on findings, applicable corrective action(s).
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 78726, December 31, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 78726, December 31, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 78726, December 31, 2014).
We reviewed British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin No. 32–JM7862, Revision 3,
We estimate that this AD will affect 44 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $170 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $14,960, or $340 per product.
We accept modification of the MLG, if done before the effective date of this AD, using earlier versions of the service information. However, the earlier versions of the service information require additional inspections with possible corrective actions.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions that may be required if using an earlier version of the service information would take about 1 work-hour to inspect for special washer migration and corrosion damage and require parts costing $100 for replacement of the special washer and application of witness paint, if necessary, for a cost of $185 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 24, 2015.
This AD supersedes AD 2014–06–03, Amendment 39–17806 (79 FR 17395; March 28, 2014).
This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) spigot housing. We are issuing this AD to prevent corrosion cracking of the MLG spigot housing. This condition, if not corrected, could cause structural failure of the MLG resulting in loss of control of the airplane during take-off or landing.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(11) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, as applicable.
(1) At the next scheduled MLG removal, modify the installation of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) MLG at the forward spigot following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin No. 32–JM7862, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2014.
The next scheduled MLG removal may be for non-destructive testing or overhaul, as applicable.
(2) If done before April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), we will accept modification of the LH or RG MLG following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin SB 32–JM7862, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014; or British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–JM7862, Revision 1, dated May 7, 2013, for compliance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(3) For airplanes that, before April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), have been modified following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–JM7862, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2014, visually inspect the LH and RH MLG to detect migration of a special washer following the instructions in Part 1 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014, at the
(i) For MLG configuration equipped with DTD5094 cylinder: Within the next 200 flight cycles after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 2 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) For MLG configuration equipped with L161 cylinder: Within the next 600 flight cycles after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(4) If evidence of migration of the special washer was detected during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, do the corrective actions on the LH or RH MLG, as applicable, following Part 2 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014.
(5) If no evidence of migration of the special washer was detected during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, apply a witness paint over the special washer tab and onto the MLG spigot housing (LH and RH MLG) following Part 1 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014.
(6) For airplanes that, before April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), have been modified following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–JM7862, Revision 1, dated May 7, 2013, do all of the actions on the MLG cylinder (LH and/or RH, as applicable) following the instructions in Part 2 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014, at the compliance time listed in paragraph (f)(6)(i) or (f)(6)(ii), as applicable.
(i) For MLG configuration equipped with DTD5094 cylinder: Within the next 200 flight cycles after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 2 months after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(ii) For MLG configuration equipped with L161 cylinder: Within the next 600 flight cycles after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(7) If any wear, corrosion, or damage is detected during the inspection required in either paragraph (f)(3) or (f)(6), as applicable, of this AD, before further flight, do all of the corrective actions (including application of the a witness paint) following the instructions in Part 2 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014.
(8) Between 30 and 45 days after doing the action required in either paragraph (f)(3) or (f)(6) of this AD or between the next 20 to 30 flight cycles after doing the action required in either paragraph (f)(3) or (f)(6) of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the witness paint applied as required in either paragraph (f)(5) or (f)(7) of this AD following the instructions in Part 3 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014.
(9) If any damaged paint is detected during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(8) of this AD, before further flight, contact British Aerospace Regional Aircraft to obtain FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for this AD and incorporate those instructions. You may find the contact information for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(10) As of April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a LH or RH MLG on any of the applicable airplanes unless it has passed all of the inspections required by this AD.
(11) For all airplanes: The compliance times for paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(ii), and (f)(8) of this AD are presented in flight cycles (landings). If the total flight cycles have not been kept, multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service (TIS) by 0.75 to calculate the cycles. You may use the following as an example for this AD:
(i) 200 hours TIS × .75 = 150 cycles; or
(ii) 600 hours TIS × .75 = 450 cycles.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI found in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, AD No. 2014–0239, dated November 3, 2014; and British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin SB 32–JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013; British Aerospace Jetstream and British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–JM7862, Revision 1, dated May 7, 2013, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin No. 32–JM7862, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2014.
(ii) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32–A–JA140940, Original Issue, dated October 3, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
(4) You may view this service information the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8–TC320 airplanes. This AD results from
This AD is effective April 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 24, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: +61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8–TC320 airplane. The NPRM was published in the
A recent review of the engine mount installation on the GA8–TC 320 aircraft has highlighted the omission of engine mount fire seal washers during the assembly process.
The current engine mount configuration does not meet the certification basis for the aircraft, specifically regulation 23.865 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America, where engine mounts located in designated fire zones are required to be suitably shielded so that they are capable of withstanding the effects of a fire.
The Gippsland Aeronautics GA8–TC 320 aircraft require the installation of an approved steel washer at each of the engine mount locations to address a potential risk of reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 419, January 6, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 419, January 6, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 419, January 6, 2015).
We reviewed GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014. The GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014 describes procedures for inspecting the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify proper installation, re-installing if necessary, and installing steel washers on the forward side of each side of the engine isolator mounts. This service information is reasonably available; see
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $5,655, or $435 per product.
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 24, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd GA8–TC320 airplanes, all serial numbers affected, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing required engine mount fire seal washers, which could reduce the engine retention capability in the event of a fire. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the omission of steel washers at each isolator mount location, which, if not corrected, could result in reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.
Unless already done, comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 300 hours time-in-service after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12 months after April 24, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify that the mounts have been installed properly following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.
(2) Before reinstalling the engine isolator mounts following the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a part number J–2218–61 steel washer on the forward side of each of the four engine isolator mounts, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.
(3) If during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any of the engine isolator mounts are found to not comply with the specifications found in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014, before further flight, re-install the isolators to the correct orientation, or if damage is found, replace with airworthy parts.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD No. AD/GA8/8, dated November 24, 2014. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2014–115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For GippsAero service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace at the Coaldale VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC), Coaldale, NV, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This action also corrects the Title of this rulemaking by classifying this action as an amendment of versus establishment of Class E airspace, as reflected in the NRPM. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Effective 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4563.
On December 12, 2014 the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Coaldale VORTAC navigation aid, Coaldale, NV. By this action, aircraft are contained while in IFR conditions under control of Oakland ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS. The Title heading for this document is changed from Establishment of Class E Airspace to Amendment of Class E Airspace, Coaldale, NV, with minor edits, as Class E airspace already exists for the Coaldale VORTAC, Coaldale, NV.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at the Coaldale VORTAC, Coaldale, NV.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 39°39′28″ N., long. 117°59′55″ W.; to lat. 37°55′11″ N., long. 117°53′37″ W.; to lat. 38°13′30″ N., long. 117°16′30″ W.; to lat. 38°05′00″ N., long. 117°16′00″ W.; to lat. 37°53′00″ N., long. 117°05′41″ W.; to lat. 37°33′00″ N., long. 117°05′41″ W.; to lat. 37°26′30″ N., long. 117°04′33″ W.; to lat. 37°22′00″ N., long. 117°00′30″ W.; to lat. 37°12′00″ N., long. 117°20′00″ W.; to lat. 37°12′02″ N., long. 117°53′49″ W.; to lat. 37°12′00″ N., long. 118°35′00″ W.; to lat. 36°08′00″ N., long. 118°35′00″ W.; to lat. 36°08′00″ N., long. 118°52′00″ W.; to lat. 37°47′57″ N., long. 120°22′00″ W.; to lat. 38°53′30″ N., long. 119°49′00″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 20, 2015.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590–0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS–420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 8260–5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B when required by an entry on 8260–15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 20, 2015.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590–0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS–420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P–NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops—M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590–0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS–420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 8260–5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B when required by an entry on 8260–15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops—M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590–0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS–420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P–NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are clarifying our regulations to require you to inform us about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to your disability claim, subject to two exceptions for certain privileged communications. This requirement includes the duty to submit all evidence that relates to your disability claim received from any source in its entirety, unless you previously submitted the same evidence to us or we instruct you otherwise. We are also requiring your representative to help you obtain the information or evidence that we require you to submit under our regulations. These modifications to our regulations will better describe your duty to submit all evidence that relates to your disability claim and enable us to have more complete case records on which to make more accurate disability determinations and decisions.
This rule is effective April 20, 2015.
Janet Truhe, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 966–7203. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
We provided 60 days for the public to comment on the NPRM. We received 85
We provide summaries of the significant comments that were relevant to this rulemaking and our responses to those comments below. Some commenters supported the proposed changes. We appreciate those comments, but we have not summarized or responded to them because they do not require a response.
Our current regulations, however, describe a claimant's duty to submit evidence in several ways and suggest that claimants must furnish medical and non-medical evidence that is “material” to the disability determination. The issue of what is “material” involves legal judgment. As we explained in the NPRM, by requiring claimants to submit all evidence that “relates” to their disability claims, we are removing the need to make that type of judgment.
In addition, we expect claimants to exercise their reasonable, good faith judgment about what evidence “relates” to their disability claims keeping in mind, however, that the meaning of “relates” is broad and includes anything that has a logical or causal connection whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the claim. It is also important to note that we consider all of a claimant's impairments for which we have evidence, not just the ones alleged,
However, we would expect our adjudicators to exercise their reasonable, good faith judgment when requesting information or evidence from claimants. For example, we would not require a claimant to disclose treatment for a health matter such as an abortion, if the claimant alleged disability based on a genetic disorder.
In addition, as we previously stated, our current regulations suggest that claimants and their representatives must make legal judgments about what is “material” to the disability claim. Our final rule removes the need to make that type of legal judgment.
Aside from responding fully to our specific requests, claimants also submit other evidence to us. Claimants do not have to memorialize statements made to others or disclose the names of all people with personal knowledge of their claims, unless they would like us to consider that information. Final §§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) require only that claimants submit all evidence “received” from another source in its entirety.
For claimants who need assistance in responding to our requests for information and evidence, we currently provide that assistance. For example, when a claimant submits a disability application, we ask the claimant to provide the name of someone we can contact who knows about the claimant's medical condition and can help the claimant with his or her disability claim. We also provide special procedures for obtaining evidence from homeless claimants
The duty to inform us about or submit all evidence that relates to the disability claim is ongoing, and we have modified proposed (now final) §§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) to clarify that claimants must disclose any additional evidence related to their disability claims about which they become aware. Therefore, after we have made a request for a particular type of information or evidence, claimants must supplement their previous response, if they become aware of additional related evidence. Claimants must also disclose the existence of evidence that they were unaware of at the time of our initial request, but become aware of later on. This ongoing duty applies at each level of the administrative review process, including the Appeals Council level if relates to the period which is the subject of the most recent hearing decision.
In addition, it is fair to require the disclosure of related but potentially unfavorable evidence, because claimants (or their representatives) can explain to us why they believe we should give such evidence little or no weight. Claimants and their representatives routinely make arguments for and against certain evidence in other types of cases, and they can also make these arguments in disability cases. Moreover, we do not base our determinations or decisions on only one piece of evidence when we adjudicate a claim. Rather, our adjudicators must base their determinations and decisions on the preponderance of the evidence.
In addition, we are always striving to find better methods of obtaining medical and other evidence we need to decide disability claims. For example, use of health information technology (HIT) enables us to access and organize a person's complete medical records upon receipt of a claim. We continue to expand our use of HIT and explore ways of improving the medical and non-medical evidence collection process.
In addition, while we acknowledge that state bar rules generally require client confidentiality and zealous representation, we do not believe state bar rules prevent an attorney from complying with our Federal rule, which requires a representative to help a claimant satisfy his or her disclosure
Furthermore, we are unaware of any other forum that permits attorneys to withhold unfavorable evidence, if it relates to an issue in the case. Under this final rule, we expect all representatives (attorney or non-attorney) to inform the claimants they represent that we do not permit the withholding of any evidence related to the disability claim, even if it is unfavorable. Accordingly, in the situation described by several commenters where the claimant directs the representative to withhold unfavorable evidence, that communication is privileged, but the evidence would still have to be produced.
In addition, representatives may still protect from disclosure their consultation with any medical source about the claimant's medical condition. As we stated previously, if a representative takes notes during a discussion with a claimant's medical source, those notes are protected from disclosure as work product. Moreover, under the final rule, the representative does not have to request a written opinion from any medical source. Therefore, representatives can fully investigate the merits of any disability claim, and they do not have to disclose the results of their investigation, unless they obtain a medical record or a written opinion from a medical source.
Moreover, as we proposed in §§ 404.1512(a) and 416.912(a) and explained in the NPRM, by requiring claimants “to inform us about
For example, in the scenario described above about the receipt of duplicative medical records from a treating source, the representative is only required to submit the updated records; he or she would not have to submit any record duplicative of the one previously submitted. In addition, by “duplicative,” we mean an exact duplicate of a document in the record, and not simply the substance of what is in the record.
The other exception we provide in final §§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) is for when one of our adjudicators directs claimants or their representatives not to submit duplicative evidence; in that case, they would not have to submit that evidence under the final rule. We do not believe it is advisable to preclude the submission of all duplicative evidence, however, because this would impose a duty on claimants to review their files before submitting new evidence. For claimants who do not have representatives, this could be a significant burden in some cases. Not requiring claimants (or their representatives) to resubmit the same evidence
Second, as we previously stated, we modified proposed (now final) §§ 404.1512(c) and 416.912(c) to require the submission of evidence received from another source in its entirety, unless previously submitted by the claimant or otherwise instructed by us in a particular case. We believe these exceptions to the general requirement for submission of evidence in its entirety will reduce the receipt of duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary evidence.
Finally, we do not share the concerns of the commenters who said the submission of voluminous documents by claimants or their representatives would burden our adjudicators and delay the adjudication of disability claims. For example, when a claimant has had extensive medical treatment, it is already our practice to request complete medical records, unless we can decide the claim based on minimal objective medical evidence, as in the case of a compassionate allowance.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
We certify that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend subparts J, P, and R of part 404, subparts A and D of part 405, and subparts I, N, and O of part 416 as set forth below:
Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)–(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(b)
You should submit information or evidence as required by § 404.1512 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge with the request for hearing or within 10 days after filing the request, if possible. Each party shall make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence (
Secs. 202, 205(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(a)
(b)
(1) Evidence includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, medical signs and laboratory findings as defined in § 404.1528(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical sources, such as medical history, opinions, and statements about treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make about your impairment(s), your restrictions, your daily activities, your efforts to work, or any other statements you make to medical sources during the course of examination or treatment, or to us during interviews, on applications, in letters, and in testimony in our administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as described in § 404.1513(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or nongovernmental agency about whether or not you are disabled or blind (
(vi) At the initial level of the administrative review process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the initial determination alone (
(vii) At the reconsideration level of the administrative review process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the determination alone (
(viii) At the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels, findings, other than the ultimate determination about whether or not you are disabled, made by State agency medical or psychological consultants and other program physicians or psychologists, or other medical specialists, and opinions expressed by medical experts or psychological experts that we consult based on their review of the evidence in your case record (
(2)
(i) Oral or written communications between you and your representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's “analysis of your claim,” means information that is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits (
(iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) apply to communications between you and your non-attorney representative only if the communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client that are related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories, mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits. For example, if you tell your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations, your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form, regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of the report.
(c)
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work. In §§ 404.1560 through 404.1569a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors.
Secs. 205(a), 206, 702(a)(5), and 1127 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 406, 902(a)(5), and 1320a–6).
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to help obtain the information or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations, and forward the information or evidence to us for consideration as soon as practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant's medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant's age;
(iii) The claimant's education and training;
(iv) The claimant's work experience;
(v) The claimant's daily activities both before and after the date the claimant alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant's efforts to work; and
(vii) Any other factors showing how the claimant's impairment(s) affects his or her ability to work. In §§ 404.1560 through 404.1569a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors;
Secs. 201(j), 205(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (s), 221, 223(a)–(b), 702(a)(5), 1601, 1602, 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (s), 421, 423(a)–(b), 902(a)(5), 1381, 1381a, 1383, and 1383b).
(c) * * *
(2)
(a) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by §§ 404.1512 or 416.912 of this chapter or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge. You must submit any written evidence no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. * * *
Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).
(a)
(b)
(1) Evidence includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Objective medical evidence, that is, medical signs and laboratory findings as defined in § 416.928(b) and (c);
(ii) Other evidence from medical sources, such as medical history, opinions, and statements about treatment you have received;
(iii) Statements you or others make about your impairment(s), your restrictions, your daily activities, your efforts to work, or any other statements you make to medical sources during the course of examination or treatment, or to us during interviews, on applications, in letters, and in testimony in our administrative proceedings;
(iv) Information from other sources, as described in § 416.913(d);
(v) Decisions by any governmental or nongovernmental agency about whether or not you are disabled or blind (
(vi) At the initial level of the administrative review process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the initial determination alone (
(vii) At the reconsideration level of the administrative review process, when a State agency disability examiner makes the determination alone (
(viii) At the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels, findings, other than the ultimate determination about whether or not you are disabled, made by State agency medical or psychological consultants and other program physicians or psychologists, or other medical specialists, and opinions expressed by medical experts or psychological experts that we consult based on their review of the evidence in your case record (
(2)
(i) Oral or written communications between you and your representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's “analysis of your claim,” means information that is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in determining whether or not you are
(iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) apply to communications between you and your non-attorney representative only if the communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client that are related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories, mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining whether or not you are eligible for benefits. For example, if you tell your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations, your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form, regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of the report.
(c)
(1) Your medical source(s);
(2) Your age;
(3) Your education and training;
(4) Your work experience;
(5) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;
(6) Your efforts to work; and
(7) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work. In §§ 416.960 through 416.969a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors.
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(b)
You should submit information or evidence as required by § 416.912 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge with the request for hearing or within 10 days after filing the request, if possible. Each party shall make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence (
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1127, and 1631(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a–6, and 1383(d)).
(b) * * *
(1) Act with reasonable promptness to help obtain the information or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations, and forward the information or evidence to us for consideration as soon as practicable.
(2) * * *
(i) The claimant's medical source(s);
(ii) The claimant's age;
(iii) The claimant's education and training;
(iv) The claimant's work experience;
(v) The claimant's daily activities both before and after the date the claimant alleges that he or she became disabled;
(vi) The claimant's efforts to work; and
(vii) Any other factors showing how the claimant's impairment(s) affects his or her ability to work. In §§ 416.960 through 416.969a, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the termination of the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee. This document removes the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee from the Agency's list of standing advisory committees.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015.
Michael Ortwerth, Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–8220, FAX: 301–847–8640, or
The Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee was established on October 7, 1980 (see 45 FR 79025, November 28, 1980). The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, human immunodeficiency virus related illnesses, and other viral, fungal and mycobacterial infections. The Committee is no longer needed and was terminated on February 15, 2015.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment procedures and to proceed to an immediate effective date on this rule. Notice and public comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary and are not in the public interest as this final rule merely removes the name of the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee from the list of standing advisory committees in § 14.100 (21 CFR 14.100).
Therefore, the Agency is amending § 14.100(c) as set forth in the regulatory text of this document.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451–1461, 21 U.S.C. 41–50, 141–149, 321–394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107–109; Pub. L. 108–155; Pub. L. 113–54.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the color additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive to include use in soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum. This action is in response to a petition filed by Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wrigley).
This rule is effective April 21, 2015. See section X for further information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by April 20, 2015.
You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. FDA–2013–C–1008, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Submit written objections in the following ways:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Laura A. Dye, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1275.
In a document published in the
Currently, synthetic iron oxides and their hydrated forms are approved as color additives for the following direct uses in human food, drugs, and cosmetics: (1) In sausage casings intended for consumption in an amount not exceeding 0.10 percent by weight of the finished food (§ 73.200); (2) in ingested or topically-applied drugs with a limit for ingested drugs of 5 milligrams, calculated as elemental iron, per day for labeled or prescribed dosages (21 CFR 73.1200); and (3) in cosmetics generally, including cosmetics applied to the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with GMP (21 CFR 73.2250).
Synthetically prepared iron oxides and their hydrated forms include red iron oxide, yellow iron oxide, black iron oxide, and brown iron oxide, which is
Under section 721(b)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(b)(4)), a color additive cannot be listed for a particular use unless the data and information available to FDA establishes that the color additive is safe for that use. FDA's color additive regulations in 21 CFR 70.3(i) define “safe” to mean that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive. To establish with reasonable certainty that a color additive intended for use in food is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the estimated human dietary exposure to the additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. We compare an individual's estimated daily intake (EDI) of the additive from all sources to an acceptable daily intake (ADI) established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined by projections based on the amount of the additive proposed for use in particular foods and on data regarding the amount consumed from all sources of the additive. We typically use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a color additive as a measure of high chronic dietary exposure.
To support the safety of the proposed uses of synthetic iron oxide, Wrigley provided information about iron intake expected to result from the proposed new uses of synthetic iron oxide, as well as intake from other sources of iron. There are many dietary sources of iron, including from food ingredients, dietary supplements, and from food that contains naturally occurring iron. Specifically, Wrigley submitted detailed exposure estimates of iron that took into account the following: (1) The proposed uses of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive in soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum based on the maximum anticipated use levels; (2) the current use of synthetic iron oxide to color sausage casings; (3) background iron from conventional food based on the iron content declared on food labels; (4) iron from dietary supplements; and (5) oral exposure to iron oxides from their use as color additives in lipstick. These exposure estimates assumed that all of the iron that is present is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. Wrigley also provided exposure estimates to iron that took into account the bioavailability of iron from all current dietary sources, proposed uses, and lipstick. Wrigley compared these intake estimates to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for iron established by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. Based on this and other information, Wrigley concluded that the proposed use of synthetic iron oxide to color soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum is safe.
Using food consumption data from the 2003–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), Wrigley's estimated exposure to iron from the proposed uses in soft and hard candy, mints and chewing gum for the U.S. population (2 years of age and older) to be 16.3 mg/p/day (d) for the 90th percentile consumer. Wrigley also provided dietary exposure estimates to iron for children 2 to 5 years of age, children 2 to 13 years of age, and adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older. For these population groups, Wrigley estimated the exposure to iron from the proposed uses at the 90th percentile to be 12.2 mg/p/d, 15.6 mg/p/d, and 16.4 mg/p/d, respectively. Wrigley also estimated the cumulative exposure to iron from all food sources (current and proposed) for the U.S. population (2 years of age and older) to be 40.6 mg/p/d for the 90th percentile consumer. Wrigley also provided dietary exposure estimates to iron for children 2 to 5 years of age, children 2 to 13 years of age, and adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older. For these population groups, Wrigley estimated the exposure to iron at the 90th percentile to be 31.2 mg/p/d, 34.6 mg/p/d, and 41.5 mg/p/d, respectively. In addition, Wrigley estimated exposure to iron from all food sources (current and proposed) and lipstick for females 10 to 13 years old, and 14 years of age and older. The exposure at the 90th percentile for these two population groups was 33.8 mg/p/d and 40.2 mg/p/d, respectively. Wrigley noted that these exposure estimates are conservative and assume that all of the iron present is bioavailable. We have no further questions regarding Wrigley's exposure estimates for iron in food and cosmetics and conclude that the petitioner's exposure estimates are sufficiently conservative to account for the use of iron oxides in ingested drugs (Ref. 2). We also conclude that exposure from indirect uses of iron oxides, such as for colorants for food-contact polymers authorized in 21 CFR 178.3297, would not significantly contribute to the overall exposure to iron oxides.
To address the bioavailability of iron, Wrigley provided information showing approximately 18 percent of iron from conventional foods and dietary supplements is bioavailable, and that about 1 percent of iron from synthetic iron oxide is bioavailable. Based on this information, Wrigley provided exposure estimates that take into account the bioavailability of iron. Wrigley estimated the exposure to bioavailable iron from the proposed uses at the 90th percentile to be 0.16 mg/p/d, 0.12 mg/p/d, 0.16 mg/p/d, and 0.16 mg/p/d for the U.S. population (2 years of age and older), children 2 to 5 years of age, children 2 to 13 years of age, and adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, respectively. Wrigley estimated the cumulative exposure to bioavailable iron from all food sources (current and proposed) at the 90th percentile to be 6.02 mg/p/d, 4.68 mg/p/d, 4.99 mg/p/d, and 6.21 mg/p/d for the U.S. population (2 years of age and older), children 2 to 5 years of age, children 2 to 13 years of age, and adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, respectively. For females 10 to 13 years old, and 14 years of age and older, Wrigley estimated exposure to bioavailable iron from all food sources (current and proposed) and lipstick to be 5.07 mg/p/d and 6.12 mg/p/d, respectively (Ref. 2).
In 2000, the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes of the Food and Nutrition Board at the IOM conducted an extensive review of relevant published scientific literature to determine dietary reference intakes and ULs for iron. The IOM published a detailed report that included a UL for iron of 40 mg/d for children (2 to 5 years of age and 2 to 13 years of age), and a UL of 45 mg/d for adolescents and adults (14 years of age and older) (Ref. 3).
The IOM considers the UL as the highest daily intake level of a nutrient that poses no risk of adverse effects when the nutrient is consumed over
The exposure estimates to iron from all food sources, including the proposed use of synthetic iron oxide in soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum, at the 90th percentile for children 2 to 5 years of age and for children 2 to 13 years of age, without taking into account the bioavailability of the iron, is 31.2 mg/p/d and 34.6 mg/p/d, respectively. Both of these exposure estimates are below the UL for these age groups. The exposure estimate to iron from all food sources (current and proposed) and lipstick for females 10 to 13 years old at the 90th percentile of 33.8 mg/p/d is also below the UL established for this group. For adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, the exposure estimate for iron at the 90th percentile of 41.5 mg/p/d is below the UL of 45 mg/p/d for adolescents 14 to 18 years of age. Similarly, the exposure estimate to iron from all food sources and lipstick for females 14 years of age and older of 40.2 mg/p/d at the 90th percentile is below the UL of 45 mg/p/d for adolescents and adults (14 years of age and older). Because the EDI of iron from all current and proposed food sources at the 90th percentile for each population group, which was estimated using conservative assumptions, is below the corresponding IOM UL for that population group, even without taking into account the low bioavailability of the iron from the petitioned uses, we conclude that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from the proposed use of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive in soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum (Ref. 4).
As discussed in section I, the petitioner proposed to lower the specification limit for lead in synthetic iron oxide for human food use in 21 CFR 73.200 from 10 mg/kg to 5 mg/kg. To support the lower lead specification, the petitioner submitted data on lead levels from batch analyses of synthetic iron oxide. The data demonstrates that the proposed lead limit of 5 ppm is achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices in the production of the color additive (Ref. 5). Because the lower specification limit is achievable, and also because the lower specification limit is consistent with the safe use of the color additive, we are lowering the lead specification limit for lead in synthetic iron oxide for human food as proposed. The lower specification applies to both the petitioned new use of synthetic iron oxide to color candy, chewing gum, and mints, as well as to the already-approved use of synthetic iron oxide for human food use in the coloring of sausage casings.
Based on the data and information in the petition and other relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of synthetic iron oxide in soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum is safe. We further conclude that the additive will achieve its intended technical effect and is suitable for the petitioned use. Consequently, we are amending the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 73 as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in 21 CFR 71.20(b), we conclude that batch certification of synthetic iron oxide is not necessary for the protection of public health.
In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule as stated in the September 17, 2013, notice of filing for CAP 3C0298 (78 FR 57105). We stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(k), that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Our review of this petition was limited to section 721 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law on September 27, 2007, amended the FD&C Act to, among other things, add section 301(
This rule is effective as shown in the
It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, and Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.
(b) * * *
(1) Synthetic iron oxide for human food use shall conform to the following specifications:
Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (3 parts per million (ppm)).
Lead (as Pb), not more than 5 mg/kg (5 ppm).
Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 mg/kg (1 ppm).
(c) * * *
(1) Synthetic iron oxide may be safely used for human food use subject to the following restrictions:
(i) In sausage casings intended for human consumption in an amount not exceeding 0.10 percent by weight of the finished food.
(ii) In soft and hard candy, mints, and chewing gum at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, unless the use of the added color is authorized by such standards.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule; technical amendments.
This final rule makes technical and conforming amendments to the Drug Enforcement Administration regulations listing substances temporarily controlled under schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This final rule eliminates references to 7 substances that were previously subject to temporary control, but which have since been permanently controlled under schedule I, and redesignates 23 other substances that are currently temporarily controlled under schedule I. This action makes no substantive changes to the affected regulation.
This rule is effective March 20, 2015.
Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
The DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801–971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all controlled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308. 21 U.S.C. 812(a).
The CSA provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily control a substance under schedule I for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he/she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). If proceedings to permanently control a substance are initiated pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary control for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 (SDAPA) became effective on July 9, 2012.
On January 4, 2013, the DEA published a final rule permanently placing cannabimimetic agents and all 26 substances specified in SDAPA into schedule I (including the 6 substances noted above that were previously temporarily controlled).
The substance 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone) was not permanently controlled through SDAPA. However, DEA temporarily controlled methylone on October 21, 2011, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), and listed it in 21 CFR 1308.11(g)(7).
Because the above noted substances are permanently controlled in schedule I, the DEA is making technical and conforming amendments to the regulations by removing the above referenced 7 substances (JWH–018; JWH–073; JWH–200; CP–47,497 C8 homologue; mephedrone; MDPV; and methylone) from the list of temporarily controlled substances and redesignating the numerical order of the remaining controlled substances that are currently subject to temporary control.
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest under 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(B). This rule provides technical and conforming amendments to the DEA's regulations and imposes no new or substantive requirement on the public or DEA registrants. As such, the DEA has determined that notice and opportunity for public comment on this rule are unnecessary. In addition, because this is not a substantive rule and as the DEA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the above reasons, this final rule shall take effect upon the date of publication in the
The Administrator certifies that this is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563, as it makes only technical amendments to the current regulations. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rule does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not involve a collection of information within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not result in: An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge across the Cerritos Channel, mile 4.9 at Long Beach, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow Southern California Edison Company to temporarily disconnect electric service to the bridge while performing circuit switching. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 20, 2015 to 2 a.m. on March 23, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 10 p.m. on March 15, 2015, until March 20, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2015–0157], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510–437–3516, email
California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, mile 4.9, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 37 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and a maximum of 43 feet due to construction falsework over the channel at the bridge. The draw opens on signal; except that, from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels, as required by 33 CFR 117.147(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on March 15, 2015 to 2 a.m. on March 16, 2015; and from 10 p.m. on March 22, 2015 to 2 a.m. on March 23, 2015 to allow Southern California Edison Company to switch electrical power for the bridge to another source. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route around Terminal Island for routine and emergency navigation. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the South Park highway bridge across the Duwamish Waterway, mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to enable timely completion of drawbridge maintenance. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed to mariners needing a full channel, double bascule leaf drawbridge opening. Vessels that only require a single leaf, half channel drawbridge opening, will be given such an opening upon signal.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 20, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on March 28, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on March 17, 2015, until March 20, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2015–0171] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven M. Fischer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Administrator; telephone 206–220–7282, email:
The South Park highway bridge is a double bascule span drawbridge that requires under bridge maintenance. King County Road Services Division requested a deviation to the published drawbridge operation schedule to enable timely completion of the required bridge maintenance. The South Park highway bridge is located in the Duwamish Waterway, mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA, and provides 34.8 feet of vertical clearance at center span while in the closed position, 30 feet of vertical clearance at the extreme east and west ends of the navigable channel, and unlimited vertical clearance with half of the bascule bridge in the fully open position. Vertical clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation (MHW). Horizontal clearance is 128 feet. However, horizontal clearance may be restricted by construction barges.
The normal operation schedule for the bridge is in 33 CFR 117.1041, which specifies that the draws of each bridge across the Duwamish Waterway shall open on signal, except the draw of the South Park highway bridge, mile 3.8, which need not be opened for the passage of vessels from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The deviation period is effective from 12:01 a.m. on March 17, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on March 28, 2015, and allows the drawbridge to remain closed to mariners needing a full channel double bascule opening. For mariners that only require a single leaf, half channel, drawbridge opening, such an opening will be given upon signal. A drawtender will be present 24 hours a day, 7 days week. To request a single leaf opening, mariners may utilize any of the following methods: (1) Via VHF maritime radio; (2) telephone; (3) one prolonged blast followed quickly by one short blast and one prolonged blast.
Waterborne traffic on this stretch of the Duwamish waterway consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime, but are advised to use caution as the area surrounding the bridge has numerous construction craft and equipment occupying half of the navigational channel. The bridge will be able to open half of the bridge for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform users of the waterway of the change in operating schedule for the bridge through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Allegheny River within the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh Zone, which includes mile 1.0 to mile 72.0 on the Allegheny River. This safety zone is needed to protect persons, property, and vessels transiting the area from the hazards associated with ice accumulations on the waterways. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from March 20, 2015 through April 1, 2015, and enforceable through actual notice beginning on February 26, 2015, until April 1, 2015 or ice conditions within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone have improved, whichever occurs earlier.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2015–0126. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone (412) 221–0807, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not using the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Process. The Coast Guard, with recommendations from the Pittsburgh Ice Committee (comprised of Army Corps of Engineers—Pittsburgh District, National Weather Service, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, and Chairperson of the Waterways Navigation Committee), has established a safety zone on all waters of the Allegheny Rivers within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone. This safety zone will remain in effect February 26, 2015, until April 1, 2015 or ice conditions within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone have improved, whichever occurs earlier. This safety zone is the result of significant ice formation within the navigable channels of the Allegheny River, due to extended periods of sub-freezing temperatures. Waterway users will be informed of the decisions by the Pittsburgh Ice Committee during the
For the same reasons discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The COTP Pittsburgh Zone has recently experienced consecutive weeks of sub-freezing temperatures. Accumulations of ice have formed on the Allegheny River resulting in vessels not being able to transit the river.
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all waters of the Allegheny Rivers within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone, which includes mile 1.0 to mile 72.0 on the Allegheny River. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons, except persons and vessels specifically authorized by the COTP Pittsburgh. This rule is effective immediately and will be enforced February 26, 2015, until April 1, 2015 or ice conditions within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone have improved, whichever occurs earlier. As stated in the Basis and Purpose section above, on the recommendation from the Pittsburgh Ice Committee, entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons, except persons and vessels specifically authorized by the COTP Pittsburgh.
The COTP Pittsburgh will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) of details regarding enforcement and any changes to this safety zone during ice accumulation conditions.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
This rule is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This rule will be in effect during emergency conditions involving ice accumulation on the Allegheny River. While some impacts on routine navigation will be recognized by waterway users, the recommendation for this emergency safety measure came from the Pittsburgh Ice Committee which is comprised of Army Corps of Engineers—Pittsburgh District, National Weather Service, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, and Chairperson of the Waterways Navigation Committee. The Coast Guard will continue to make notifications to the marine community and local industry contacts that could be operating in the area during these conditions. Additionally, deviation from the rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the COTP or a designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit mile 1.0 to mile 72.0 on the Allegheny River, from February 26, 2015, until April 1, 2015 or ice conditions within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone have improved, whichever occurs earlier. This emergency safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its limited scope and short duration.
Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons, except persons and vessels specifically authorized by the COTP Pittsburgh. The Coast Guard will ensure that that the local marine community is aware of the safety zone through BNMs and other notification. Additionally, deviation from the rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the COTP or a designated representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes an emergency safety zone for waters of the Allegheny River within the COTP Pittsburgh Zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction an environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative. The COTP Pittsburgh or a representative may be contacted at (412) 221–0807.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Pittsburgh or their designated representative. Designated COTP representatives include United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
Tennessee has applied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program
This final authorization will become effective on May 19, 2015 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by April 20, 2015. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–RCRA–2014–0712, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may view and copy Tennessee's applications and associated publicly available materials from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following locations: EPA, Region 4, Resource Conservation and Restoration Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; telephone number: (404) 562–8512; and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Solid Waste Management, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 14th Floor, Nashville, Tennessee; telephone number: (615) 532–0825. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least a week in advance.
Carlos E. Merizalde, RCRA Corrective Action and Permitting Section, RCRA Cleanup and Brownfields Branch, Resource Conservation and Restoration Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; telephone number: (404) 562–8606; fax number: (404) 562–9964; email address:
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Tennessee, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
On March 9, 2010 and January 15, 2013, Tennessee submitted final complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 (also known as RCRA Clusters XV and XVI). Tennessee
Tennessee has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
The effect of this decision is that the changes described in Tennessee's authorization applications will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program, and will therefore be federally enforceable. Tennessee will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA retains its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
• Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Tennessee is being authorized by this action are already effective and enforceable requirements under State law, and are not changed by this action.
Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the
If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, EPA will withdraw that part of this direct final rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Tennessee initially received final authorization on January 22, 1985, effective February 5, 1985 (50 FR 2820), to implement a RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to Tennessee's program on the following dates: June 12, 1987, effective August 11, 1987 (52 FR 22443); June 1, 1992, effective July 31, 1992 (57 FR 23063); May 8, 1995, effective July 7, 1995 (60 FR 22524); August 24, 1995, effective October 23, 1995 (60 FR 43979); May 23, 1996, effective July 22, 1996 (61 FR 25796); January 30, 1998, effective March 31, 1998 (63 FR 4587); September 15, 1999, effective November 15, 1999 (64 FR 49998); October 26, 2000, effective December 26, 2000 (65 FR 64161); December 26, 2001, effective February 25, 2002 (66 FR 66342); April 11, 2003, effective June 10, 2003 (68 FR 17748); March 14, 2005, effective May 13, 2005 (70 FR 12416); May 11, 2006, effective July 10, 2006 (71 FR 27405); and October 5, 2012, effective December 4, 2012 (77 FR 60919).
On March 9, 2010 and January 15, 2013, Tennessee submitted final complete program revision applications seeking authorization of its changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Tennessee supplemented these applications on September 16, 2014. EPA now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Tennessee's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants Tennessee final authorization for the following program changes:
We consider Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 0400–12–01–.05(5)(d)2 and –.06(5)(d)2 to be more stringent than the Federal counterparts at 40 CFR 265.73(b) and 264.73(b) because the State requires owners and operators of interim status and permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to maintain information in the facility's operating record on site for no less than five (5) years. The Federal requirements at 40 CFR 265.73(b) and 264.73(b) require that owners and operators of the same types of facilities maintain such records for no less than three (3) years. These five-year document retention requirements are part of the Tennessee authorized program and are federally enforceable.
Tennessee will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any more permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Tennessee is not authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the authorization of Tennessee's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart RR, for the authorization of Tennessee's program changes at a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule; technical amendment.
General Services Administration published in the
Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy (MAE), U.S. General Services Administration, at 202–501–3822 or email at
GSA published a final rule in the
Government employees, Income taxes, Travel and transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5739, GSA is amending 41 CFR part 301–11 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the final rule with comment period published in the November 13, 2014
Christine Estella, (410) 786–0485, for issues related to the physician quality reporting system. Donta Henson, (410) 786–1947 for all other issues.
In FR Doc. 2014–26183 (79 FR 67547 through 68092) the final rule entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, Access to Identifiable Data for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Models & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2015” (hereinafter referred to as the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in section IV., Correction of Errors. These corrections are applicable as of January 1, 2015. We note that the Addenda B and C to the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period as corrected by this correction document are available on the CMS Web site at
On page 67559, due to errors made in ratesetting, many of the values contained in Table 4: Calculation of PE RVUs Under Methodology for Selected Codes, are incorrect.
On page 67562, in Table 8: Codes Affected by Removal of Film Inputs, we inadvertently included CPT codes 93320, 93321, and 93325.
On page 67591, we incorrectly stated that in section II. G. of the rule, we address the interim final values and establish CY 2015 inputs for the lower gastrointestinal procedures.
On page 67612, in Table 14: Codes Reviewed by the 2014 Multi-Specialty Refinement Panel, the work RVUs for CPT codes 43204, 43205, and 43233 are incorrect.
On page 67633, due to a typographical error we referred to CPT code 41391 rather than CPT code 43391.
On page 67636, due to a technical error, the final work RVU for code 43278 is incorrect.
On pages 67651 through 67663, in Table 25: CY 2015 Interim Final Work RVUS For New/Revised or Potentially Misvalued Codes, the RUC/HCPAC recommended work RVUs listed on page 67658 for CPT codes 76932 and 76948 are incorrect and entries for CPT codes 76940 and 76965 were inadvertently omitted from the table.
On page 67660, the RUC/HCPAC recommended work RVU listed for CPT code 92545 is incorrect.
On page 67668,
a. We inadvertently omitted G0279 from the list of codes in the title of (13).
b. Due to a typographical error, G0279 is referred to as G–2079.
c. We inadvertently omitted the phrase “, whether or not a 2–D mammography is furnished” from the sentence beginning, “In addition, we are creating . . .”
On page 67669, we inadvertently listed CPT code 93644 in the title of (18).
On page 67671, in Table 28: CY 2015 Interim Final Codes with Direct PE Input Recommendations Accepted without Refinement, we inadvertently listed CPT code 31620.
On page 67673, in Table 29: Invoices Received for New Direct PE Inputs we inadvertently listed entries associated with CPT code 31620.
On page 67674, in Table 30: Invoices Received For Existing Direct PE Inputs, certain PE direct inputs for CPT code 31627 were inadvertently omitted.
On pages 67678 through 67711, in Table 31: CY 2015 Interim Final Codes With Direct PE Input Recommendations Accepted with Refinements, due to technical errors, on page 67678, entries associated with CPT codes 77061 and 77062 were inadvertently listed; on page 67702, entries associated with CPT codes 93320, 93321, and 93325 were inadvertently omitted and an input code for CPT code 93880 was inadvertently omitted.
On page 67726, we incorrectly stated that practitioners do not have to use any “specific content exchange standard.”
On pages 67741 through 67742, we incorrectly stated the CY 2015 PFS conversion factors.
On page 67742, in Table 45: Calculation of the CY 2015 PFS CF, due to corrections being made in this document, the CY 2014 budget neutrality adjustment, the CY 2015 CFs, and the percentage changes from the CY 2014 CF stated in the table are incorrect.
On page 67743, due to technical errors, the budget neutrality factor, the anesthesia CF in effect from January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015, and the anesthesia CF in effect from April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 are incorrectly stated. The entries in Table 46: Calculation of the CY 2015 Anesthesia CF for budget neutrality adjustments, CFs and percentage change are inaccurate.
On pages 67803 and 67804, in Table 52: Individual Quality Cross-Cutting Measures for the PQRS to Be Available for Satisfactory Reporting Via Claims, Registry, and EHR Beginning in 2015, we inadvertently listed the incorrect National Quality Strategy (NQS) domain for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) Measure 131, Pain Assessment and Follow-Up.
On pages 67848 and 67849, in Table 55: Measures Being Removed from the Existing PQRS Measure Set Beginning in 2015, we inadvertently omitted adding an “X” to the claims reporting option for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) Measure 0091/051: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Spirometry Evaluation, Measure 0102/052: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Inhaled Bronchodilator Therapy, and Measure 0050/109: Osteoarthritis (OA) Function and Pain Assessment.
On page 67854, in Table 56: Existing Individual Quality Measures and Those Included in Measures Groups for the PQRS for Which Measure Reporting Updates Will Be Effective Beginning in 2015, we inadvertently added an “X” to the Group Practice Reporting Option
On page 67877, in Table 56: Existing Individual Quality Measures and Those Included in Measures Groups for the PQRS for Which Measure Reporting Updates Will Be Effective Beginning in 2015, we inadvertently added an “X” to the claims reporting option and omitted adding an “X” to the registry reporting option for Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) Measure 0409/205: HIV/AIDS: Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis.
On page 67988, in Table 93: CY 2015 PFS Final Rule with Comment Period Estimated Impact Table: Impacts of Work, Practice Expense, and Malpractice RVUs, due to ratesetting errors, the values are inaccurate.
On page 67991 through 67992, in Table 94: Impact of the Final Rule with Comment Period on CY 2014 Payment for Selected Procedures, due to ratesetting errors, the stated payment rates are inaccurate.
On page 67999, the January 1–March 31, 2015 CF, the CY 2015 national payment amount in the nonfacility setting for CPT code 99203, and the beneficiary coinsurance amount are incorrect.
Due to the errors identified and summarized in section II.A and B of this correction document, we are correcting errors in the work, PE or MP RVUs (or combinations of these RVUs) in Addendum B: CY 2015 Relative Value Units (RVUs) And Related Information Used In Determining Final Medicare Payments and Addendum C: CY 2015 Interim Final Relative Value Units (RVUs). We note that corrections to the RVUs for codes with identified errors affect additional codes due to the budget neutrality and relativity of the PFS. These errors are corrected in the revised Addenda B and C available on the CMS Web site at
In addition to the errors identified in section II.A. of this correction document, the following errors occur in the addenda.
Due to a technical error in the creation of the direct PE database, nonfacility PE RVUs were created and displayed in Addendum B (and Addendum C, if applicable) for the following CPT codes: 21811, 21812, 21813, 22858, 33418, 33951, 33952, 33953, 33954, 33955, 33956, 33957, 33958, 33959, 33962, 33963, 33964, 33965, 33966, 33969, 33984, 33985, 33986, 33987, 33988, 33989, 37218, 43180, 44380, 44382, 66179, and 66184. These errors are corrected in the revised Direct PE Input Database available on the CMS Web site at
Due to technical errors in the creation of the direct PE database, some or all of the PE inputs were inadvertently omitted for CPT codes 22510, 22511, 22512, 22513, 22514, 22515, 31620, 33951, 33952, 33953, 33954, 33955, 33956, 33957, 33958, 33959, 33962, 33963, 33964, 33969, 33984, 33985, 33986, 33988, 33989, 58541, 58542, 58543, 58544, 58570, 58571, 58572, 64486, 64487, 64488, 64489, 70496, 70498, 76700, 76705, 77080, 88348, 93260, 93261, and 93644. These errors are corrected in the revised Direct PE Input Database available on the CMS Web site at
Due to technical errors in the creation of the direct PE database, the incorrect inputs were used for creating PE RVUs for CPT codes 20982, 31620, 31627, 32998, 33262, 32998, 41530, 50592, 64600, 64605, 64610, 64633, 64634, 64635, 64636, 93925, 93880, and 93990. These errors are corrected in the revised Direct PE Input Database available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, we incorrectly displayed in Addenda B and C PE RVUs in a nonfacility setting for CPT codes 33270, 33271, 33272, and 33273. The PE RVUs for these codes in a non-facility setting have been removed in the corrected Addenda B and C available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, HCPCS codes 33330, 33474, 61610, and 61870 were inadvertently left out of Addendum B. These codes are reflected in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, the average risk factor, and not the specialty risk factor that we indicated that we were using in the preamble, was applied when calculating the MP RVUs for CPT codes 33620 and 33622. As a result, the MP RVUs listed in Addendum B are incorrect for these codes. We have corrected these errors in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, the incorrect work RVUs were applied in calculating the MP RVUs for CPT codes 33418 and 33419. As a result, the MP RVUs listed in Addenda B and C are incorrect for these codes. We have corrected these errors in the corrected Addenda B and C available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, the incorrect CY 2015 work RVUs are included in Addendum B (and Addendum C, if applicable) for the following codes: 43191, 43192, 43193, 43194, 43195, 43196, 43197, 43198, 43200, 43201, 43202, 43204, 43205, 43211, 43212, 43214, 43215, 43229, 43232, 43233, 43235, 43236, 43238, 43239, 43242, 43247, 43253, 43254, 43257, 43266, 43270, 43274, 43276, 43278, 58541, 58542, 58543, 58544, 58570, 58571, 58572, 58573, 71275, 76930, 76932, 76948, 92545, 93315, 93317, 93318, and 95973. The correct CY 2015 work RVUS for these codes are reflected in the corrected Addenda B and C available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error in the creation of the direct PE database, PE RVUs for the facility setting were created and are displayed in Addendum B for HCPCS code 77372 and Addenda B and C for HCPCS code G0277. These technical errors are corrected in Addenda B and C available on the CMS Web site at
Due to technical errors in the creation of the direct PE database, direct PE inputs were inadvertently included for CPT code 99183 and are reflected in the PE RVUs shown in Addenda B and C. This error is corrected in the Direct PE Input Database available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, in Addendum B, work and MP RVUs for CPT codes 99487 and 99489 were inadvertently included. The work and MP RVUs for these codes have been removed in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error in the creation of the direct PE database, PE RVUs were not created for CPT code 99490 in the facility setting. The correct PE RVU for this code is reflected in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at
Due to a technical error, HCPCS codes G9407 through G9472 are inadvertently included in Addendum B. These codes
On page 68002 of the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period, we made a technical error in § 410.26(b)(5). In this paragraph, we inadvertently omitted language to limit the applicability of the exception that allows general, rather than direct, supervision of transitional care management services furnished incident to a practitioner's professional services to the non-face-to-face aspects of the service.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
In our view, this correction document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This correction document corrects technical errors in the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period and the corresponding addenda posted on the CMS Web site. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were adopted subjected to notice and comment procedures in the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period. As a result, the corrections made through this correction document are intended to ensure that the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.
Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period accurately reflects our final policies as soon as possible following the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary, because we are not altering the payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply correcting the
In FR Doc. 2014–26183 of November 13, 2014 (79 FR 67547), make the following corrections:
1. On page 67559, in Table 4: Calculation of PE RVUs Under Methodology for Selected Codes, the table is corrected to read as follows:
2. On page 67562, in Table 8: Codes Affected by Removal of Film Inputs, the following listed entries are removed.
3. On page 67591, third column, first full paragraph, line 10, the sentence “In section II.G. of this CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period, we address interim final values and establish CY 2015 inputs for the lower gastrointestinal procedures, many of which are also listed in Appendix G.” is corrected to read “In section II.G. of this CY 2015 PFS final rule with comment period, we note that we are delaying the adoption of the new code set for lower gastrointestinal procedures until CY 2016; many of these codes are also listed in Appendix G.”
4. On page 67612, in Table 14: Codes reviewed by the 2014 Multi-Specialty Refinement Panel, the entries for CPT codes 43204, 43205 and 43233 are corrected to read as follows:
5. On page 67633, third column, first full paragraph, line 14, the phrase “CPT code 41391,” is corrected to read “CPT code 43391,”.
6. On page 67636, third column, first partial paragraph, lines 24 through 25, the sentence “The final work RVU for CPT code 43278 is 8.” is corrected to read “The final work RVU for CPT code 43278 is 8.02.”
7. On pages 67651 through 67663, in Table 25: CY 2015 Interim Final Work RVUS For New/Revised or Potentially Misvalued Codes, the listed entries on page 67658 are corrected to read:
8. On page 67660, in Table 25: CY 2015 Interim Final Work RVUS For New/Revised or Potentially Misvalued Codes, the listed entry is corrected to read:
9. On page 67668,
a. First column, line 1, the title “(13) Breast Tomosynthesis (CPT codes 77061, 77062, and 77063)” is corrected to read “(13) Breast Tomosynthesis (CPT codes 77061, 77062, 77063 and G2079)”.
b. Second column, line 19, the phrase “a new code, G–2079” is corrected to read “a new code, G0279”.
c. Second column, line 27, is corrected by adding “whether or not a 2-D mammography is furnished” after the phrase “diagnostic breast tomosynthesis”.
10. On page 67669, second column, lines 8 through 11, we are correcting the title “(18) Interventional Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) (CPT Codes 93312, 93313, 93314, 93315, 93316, 93317, 93318, 93355, and 93644)” to read “(18) Interventional Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) (CPT Codes 93312, 93313, 93314, 93315, 93316, 93317, 93318, and 93355).”
11. On page 67671, in Table 28: CY 2015 Interim Final Codes with Direct PE Input Recommendations Accepted without Refinements, the following listed entry is removed:
12. On page 67673, in Table 29: Invoices Received for New Direct PE Inputs, the following listed entries for CPT code 31620 are removed:
13. On page 67674, Table 30: Invoices Received for Existing Direct PE Inputs, the list entries for CPT code 31627 are corrected by adding the following:
14. On pages 67678 through 67711, in Table 31: CY 2015 Interim Final Codes With Direct PE Input Recommendations Accepted with Refinements, we are correcting the table by
a. On page 67687, deleting the following listed entries:
b. On page 67702, correcting the bottom half of the table to read:
15. On page 67726, first column, second full paragraph, lines 6 through 8, the phrase “with a clarification that practitioners do not have to use any specific content exchange standard in CY 2015.” is corrected to read “with a clarification that practitioners do not have to use any specific exchange or transfer standard in CY 2015.”
16. On page 67741, first column, first paragraph, we are correcting the entire paragraph to read:
The CY 2015 PFS CF for January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015 is $35.7547. The CY 2015 PFS CF for April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 is $28.1872. The CY 2015 national average anesthesia CF for January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015 is $22.4968. The CY 2015 national average anesthesia CF for April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 is $17.7454.
17. On page 67742, third column, first partial paragraph,
a. Line 3, the phrase “by 0.06 percent” is corrected to read “by 0.19 percent”.
b. Third column, first full paragraph, line 8, the figure “$35.8013.” is corrected to read “$35.7547.”
c. Third column, second full paragraph, line 6, the figure “$28.2239.” is corrected to read “$28.1872.”
d. Third column, second full paragraph, line 9, the phrase “21.2 percent” is corrected to read “21.3 percent”.
18. On page 67742, in Table 45: Calculation of the CY 2015 PFS CF, the table is corrected to read as follows:
19. On page 67743,
a. First column, first full paragraph, line 5, the sentence “After applying the 0.9994 budget” is corrected to read “After applying the 0.9981 budget”.
b. Second column, line 2, the figure “$22.5550.” is corrected to read “$22.4968.”
c. Third column, line 12, the figure “$17.7913.” is corrected to read “$17.7454.”
d. Table 46: Calculation of the CY 2015 Anesthesia CF is corrected to read as follows:
20. On page 67803, last row, in Table 52: Individual Quality Cross-Cutting Measures for the PQRS to Be Available for Satisfactory Reporting Via Claims, Registry, and EHR Beginning in 2015, the listed entry is corrected to read as follows:
21. On page 67848, the last two rows, and the first row on page 67849, in Table 55: Measures Being Removed from the Existing PQRS Measure Set Beginning in 2015, the listed are corrected to read as follows:
22. On page 67854, the second row, in Table 56: Existing Individual Quality Measures and Those Included in Measures Groups for the PQRS for Which Measure Reporting Updates Will Be Effective Beginning in 2015, the listed entry is corrected to read as follows:
23. On page 67877, second row, in Table 56: Existing Individual Quality Measures and Those Included in Measures Groups for the PQRS for Which Measure Reporting Updates Will Be Effective Beginning in 2015, the listed entry is corrected to read as follows:
24. On page 67988, in Table 93: CY 2015 PFS Final Rule with Comment Period Estimated Impact Table: Impacts of Work, Practice Expense, and Malpractice RVUs, the table is corrected to read as follows:
25. On page 67991 through 67992, in Table 94: Impact of Final Rule with Comment Period on CY 2015 Payment for Selected Procedures the table is corrected to read as follows:
27. On page 67999, third column, first full paragraph,
a. Line 18, the figure “35.8013,” is corrected to read “35.7547,”.
b. Line 21, the figure “$109.19,” is corrected to read “$108.18,”.
c. Line 23, the phrase “this service would be $21.84.” is corrected to read “this service would be $21.74.”
Health facilities, Health professions, Kidney diseases, Laboratories, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, X-rays.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 410:
Secs. 1102, 1834, 1871, 1881, and 1893 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395m, 1395hh, and 1395ddd.
(b) * * *
(5) In general, services and supplies must be furnished under the direct supervision of the physician (or other practitioner). Chronic care management services and transitional care management services (other than the required face-to-face visit) can be furnished under general supervision of the physician (or other practitioner) when they are provided by clinical staff incident to the services of a physician (or other practitioner). The physician (or other practitioner) supervising the auxiliary personnel need not be the same physician (or other practitioner) upon whose professional service the incident to service is based.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is implementing 2015 specifications and management measures for Atlantic mackerel, 2015–2017 specifications for
Effective April 20, 2015.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Carly Bari, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9224.
Specifications, as referred to in this rule, are the combined suite of commercial and recreational catch levels established for one or more fishing years. The specifications process also allows for the modification of a select number of management measures, such as closure thresholds, gear restrictions, and possession limits. The Council's process for establishing specifications relies on provisions within the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations, as well as requirements established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Specifically, section 302(g)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each Regional Fishery Management Council shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch (ABC), preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets. The ABC is a level of catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the stock's defined overfishing level (OFL).
The Council's SSC met on May 7 and 8, 2014, to recommend ABCs for the 2015 Atlantic mackerel specifications, and the 2015–2017 butterfish,
The Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP regulations require the specification of annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) for mackerel and butterfish (both squid species are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less than 1 year). In addition, the regulations require the specification of domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), along with joint venture processing for (JVP) commercial and recreational annual catch totals (ACT) for mackerel, the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species. Details concerning the Council's development of these measures were presented in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
In addition to the specifications, this action simplifies the management measure for the directed buttefish fishery and changes the regulations in regard to possession limits.
The proposed rule for this action included the details of how the Council derived its recommended mackerel specifications, and NMFS is not including these details in this final rule. This action establishes the mackerel stock-wide ABC of 40,165 mt and the U.S. ABC of 25,039 mt, based on the formula U.S. ABC = Stock-wide ABC−C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian waters (15,126 mt) for the 2014 fishing year. The ACL is set equal to U.S. ABC at 25,039 mt, the commercial ACT is set at 21,138 mt, the DAH and DAP are both set at 20,872 mt, and the recreational ACT is set at 1,397 mt.
The recreational fishery allocation for mackerel is 1,552 mt (6.2 percent of the U.S. ABC). The recreational ACT of 1,397 mt (90 percent of 1,552 mt) accounts for uncertainty in recreational catch and discard estimates. The Recreational ACT is equal to the Recreational Harvest Limit (RHL), which is the effective cap on recreational catch.
The commercial fishery allocation for mackerel is 23,487 mt (93.8 percent of the U.S. ABC, the portion of the ACL that was not allocated to the recreational fishery). The commercial ACT of 21,138 mt (90 percent of 23,487 mt) compensates for management uncertainty in estimated Canadian landings, uncertainty in discard estimates, and possible misreporting of mackerel catch. The commercial ACT is further reduced by a discard rate of 1.26 percent to arrive at the DAH of 20,872 mt. The DAH is the effective cap on commercial catch.
Additionally, this action maintains JVP at zero (the most recent allocation was 5,000 mt of JVP in 2004). In the past, JVP was set greater than zero because it believed U.S. processors lacked the ability to process the total amount of mackerel that U.S. harvesters could land. However, for the past 10 years, the Council has recommended zero JVP because U.S. shoreside processing capacity for mackerel has expanded. The Council concluded that processing capacity was no longer a limiting factor relative to domestic production of mackerel.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that the specification of TALFF, if any, shall be the portion of the optimum yield (OY) of a fishery that will not be harvested by U.S. vessels. TALFF would allow foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and sell their product on the world market, in direct competition with U.S. industry efforts to expand exports. While a surplus existed between ABC and the mackerel fleet's harvesting capacity for many years, that surplus has disappeared due to downward adjustments of the specifications in recent years. Based on analysis of the global mackerel market and possible increases in U.S. production levels, the Council concluded that specifying a DAH/DAP that would result in zero TALFF would yield positive social and economic benefits to both U.S. harvesters and processors, and to the Nation. For these reasons, consistent with the Council's recommendation, the DAH is set at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF, in order to support the U.S. mackerel industry. NMFS concurs that it is reasonable to assume that in 2015 the commercial fishery has the ability to harvest 20,872 mt of mackerel.
In order to limit river herring and shad catch, Amendment 14 to the FMP (February 24, 2014; 79 FR 10029) allows the Council to set a river herring and shad cap through annual specifications. For 2015 the cap is set at 89 mt initially, but if mackerel landings surpass 10,000 mt before closure, then the cap will increase to 155 mt. The 89-mt cap represents the median annual river herring and shad catch by all vessels landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip from 2005–2012. These were years when the fishery caught about 13,000 mt of mackerel. The 155-mt cap is based on the median river herring and shad catch by all vessels landing over 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip from 2005–2012, adjusted to the 2015 proposed DAH (20,872 mt). The purpose of the two-tier system is to encourage the fishery to avoid river herring and shad regardless of the rate of mackerel catches. If mackerel catch is low, the 89-mt cap would encourage fishermen to avoid catching river herring and shad. If mackerel catch increases, the 155-mt cap should still allow mackerel fishing to occur as long as river herring and shad catch rates remain below the recent median. Once the mackerel fishery catches 95 percent of the river herring and shad cap, we will close the directed mackerel fishery and implement a 20,000-lb (9.08-mt) incidental catch trip limit for the remainder of the year.
This action establishes the
This action establishes the longfin squid ABC of 23,400 mt for the 2015–2017 fishing years, subject to annual review. The ABC is reduced by the status quo discard rate of 4.08 percent, which results in an IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,445 mt for the 2015–2017 fishing years. The FMP does not authorize the specification of JVP and TALFF for the longfin squid fishery because of the domestic industry's capacity to harvest and process the OY for this fishery.
As was done in all fishing years since 2007, the 2015–2017 longfin DAH is allocated into trimesters, according to percentages specified in the FMP, as follows:
This action establishes the butterfish ABC at 33,278 mt for 2015 (increased dramatically from 9,100 mt in 2014) to account for the increased stock size and estimated expected fishing mortality in 2014. The butterfish ABC is set at 31,412 mt in 2016, and 30,933 mt in 2017 to account for fishing mortality in 2015 and 2016, respectively, with a 60-percent probability of not overfishing as required by the Council risk policy. The butterfish ACL is equal to the ABC, and establishing a 10-percent buffer between ACL and ACT for management uncertainty, results in an ACT of 29,950 mt in 2015, 28,271 mt in 2016, and 27,830 mt in 2017.
The butterfish cap is set at 3,884 mt for the 2015–2017 fishing years, which is the same level as 2014. This cap has not constrained the longfin fishery and reserves most of the available butterfish quota for the directed butterfish fishery. The DAH is set at 22,530 mt in 2015, 21,042 mt in 2016, and 20,652 in 2017, accounting for the butterfish cap and discards in non-longfin fisheries). Butterfish TALFF is only specified to address bycatch by foreign fleets targeting mackerel TALFF. Because there is no mackerel TALFF, butterfish TALFF would also be set at zero.
The 2015 butterfish mortality cap is allocated by Trimester, as follows:
This action simplifies butterfish directed fishery closure mechanism to account for the dramatic increase in butterfish availability and increased DAH. Instead of the three-phased butterfish management season, this rule will allow vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits (as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i)) to land unlimited amounts of butterfish if using mesh greater than or equal to 3 inches (76 mm) until projected landings reach within 1,411 mt of a given year's DAH. Once landings are within 1,411 mt of the DAH, NMFS will implement a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip limit. Vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) are currently prohibited from landing more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip, and there are no changes for those vessels. The Council identified 1,411 mt as the amount that would allow some landings under a 5,000-lb (2.27-mt) trip limit without reaching the DAH. In the unlikely event that projected landings reach the annual DAH, then the trip limit will be reduced to 600 lb (0.27 mt) to prevent an overage of the ACT.
This final rule also contains a minor adjustment to an existing regulation. The vessel monitoring system (VMS) power-down exemption for vessels that will be at the dock for more than 30 consecutive days, at § 648.10(c)(2)(i)(B), currently lists specific eligible permits. The regulatory text is simplified to clarify that the exemption is available to all permits that are required to have VMS.
NMFS received seven comments in response to the proposed rule for this action. Two were from industry groups, including Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) (a New Jersey fishing industry advocacy group), and The Town Dock (a Rhode Island fishing company and seafood dealer). One comment was from the Herring Alliance, an environmental group, and the remaining four comments were from individuals. Two of the four comments from individuals were unrelated to the
The proposed rule presented a table for the 2015–2017 butterfish specifications (Table 5 in the proposed rule). This table incorrectly listed the DAH subtracting the 1,411-mt buffer for 2017. The correct butterfish DAH (minus the 1,411-mt buffer) for 2017 is presented in Table 5 in this final rule, and will be presented to industry in the small entity compliance guide sent to butterfish permit holders after the publication of this final rule. Additionally, a minor wording change was made to § 648.26(d) for consistency.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
The Council prepared an EA for the 2015–2017 specifications and management measures, and the AA concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available upon request (see
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has prepared a FRFA, included in the preamble of this final rule, in support of the 2015–2017 specifications and management measures. The FRFA describes the economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities.
The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summaries in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments. A copy of the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA are available upon request (see
This action establishes 2015 specifications for mackerel, and 2015–2017 specifications for butterfish,
None of the public comments raised issues related to the IRFA or the economic impact of the rule on affected entities.
Based on permit data for 2013, the numbers of potential fishing vessels in the 2015 fisheries are as follows: 384 separate vessels hold Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid,
There are no new reporting or record keeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, there are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
The mackerel commercial DAH (20,872 mt) represents a reduction from status quo (2014 DAH = 33,821 mt). Despite the reduction, the DAH is above recent U.S. landings; mackerel landings for 2010–2013 averaged 5,873 mt. Thus, the reduction does not pose a constraint to vessels relative to the landings in recent years. Even though the 2015 quota is lower than the 2014 quota, it will still allow more than a tripling of catch compared to any year 2011–2013. This action establishes a Recreational ACT/RHL of 1,552 mt. Because recreational harvest from 2010–2013 averaged 850 mt, it does not appear that the allocation for the recreational fishery will constrain recreational harvest. Overall, this action is not expected to result in any reductions in revenues for vessels that participate in either the commercial or recreational mackerel fisheries.
The river herring and shad catch cap in the mackerel fishery has the potential to prevent the fishery from achieving its full mackerel quota if the river herring and shad encounter rates are high, but it is very unlikely that the fishery would close before exceeding the levels of landings experienced since 2010, when landings have been less than 11,000 mt. Based on the operation of the cap in 2014 (the first year of the cap), as long as the fishery can maintain relatively low river herring and shad catch rates, this alternative is unlikely to constrain the mackerel fishery. Examination of river herring and shad catch rates in 2011–2013 suggest that the only year that the cap would have been binding would have been 2012. In 2012, relevant trips landed 5,074 mt of mackerel, but the fishery would have closed at approximately 4,439 mt if the 2015 cap had been in place. Given the river herring and shad encounter rate in 2012, approximately 608 mt of mackerel landings would have been forgone. Using the 2013 price of mackerel, 608 mt mackerel would have amounted to $265,105 of potentially forgone ex-vessel revenues. However, based on the operation of the cap in 2014, actual river herring and shad catch rates may be lower under the cap and, therefore, the cap may not be binding.
The
The longfin squid IOY (22,445 mt) renews the status quo levels for three more years. Because longfin squid landings from 2010–2013 averaged 10,093 mt, the 2015–2017 IOY provides an opportunity to increase landings, though if recent trends of low landings continue, there may be no increase in landings despite the increase in the allocation. No reductions in revenues for the longfin squid fishery are expected as a result of this action.
The butterfish DAHs established in this action (21,119 mt in 2015, 19,631 mt in 2016, and 19,241 mt in 2017) represents a 660-percent increase over the 2014 DAH (3,200 mt). Due to market conditions, there has not been a directed butterfish fishery in recent years; therefore, recent landings have been low. The increase in the DAH has the potential to increase revenue for permitted vessels, having a positive economic impact.
This action also simplifies the closure mechanism for the butterfish fishery. This allows permitted vessels to take butterfish when they are available or when dealers may process them, and should have a positive economic impact on the fishery.
The 2015–2017 butterfish discard cap of 3,884 mt renews the status quo for three more years. The longfin squid fishery will close during Trimester I, II, or III if the butterfish discards reach the trimester allocation. If the longfin squid fishery is closed in response to butterfish catch before the entire longfin squid quota is harvested, then a loss in revenue is possible. The potential for longfin squid revenue loss is dependent upon the size of the butterfish discard cap. This cap level was in effect for the 2013 and 2014 fishing years, and did not restrict the fishery in either year. For that reason, additional revenue losses are not expected as a result of this proposed action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The vessel owner signs out of the VMS program for a minimum period of 30 consecutive days by obtaining a valid letter of exemption pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the vessel does not engage in any fisheries or move from the dock/mooring until the VMS unit is turned back on, and the vessel complies with all conditions and requirements of said letter;
(c)
(d)
(2) A vessel issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) may not fish for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, provided that butterfish harvest has not reached the DAH limit and the reduced possession limit has not been implemented, as described in § 648.24(c)(1). When butterfish harvest is projected to reach the DAH limit (as described in § 648.24(c)(1)), these vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day.
(3) A vessels issued a longfin squid/butterfish incidental catch permit, regardless of mesh size used, may not fish for, possess, or land more than 600 lb (0.27 mt) of butterfish per trip at any time, and may only land butterfish once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24-hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; withdrawal by petitioner.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–73–16, filed with the Commission by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the petitioner) on January 25, 2013. The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its regulations to limit the scope of third-party review of licensee decisions denying or revoking an employee's unescorted access at licensee facilities. The petitioner sought to ensure that such decisions could not be overturned by any third party. By letter dated January 22, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its PRM.
The petition was withdrawn on January 22, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0024 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:
•
•
•
Jessica Kratchman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–5112, email:
On January 25, 2013, the petitioner filed PRM–73–16 with the Commission requesting that it amend its regulations to limit the scope of third-party review of licensee decisions denying or revoking an employee's unescorted access at their facility (ADAMS Accession No. ML13035A186). The NRC published a notice of receipt and request for public comment on PRM–73–16 in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Dyersburg, TN as the Dyersburg VORTAC has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Dyersburg Regional Airport, formerly Dyersburg Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of airport.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2014–0968; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0968; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–17) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–0968; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dyersburg Regional Airport, Dyersburg, TN. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7.1-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Dyersburg VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action would also recognize the airport's name change from Dyersburg Municipal Airport, to Dyersburg Regional Airport and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Dyersburg Regional Airport, Dyersburg, TN.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Dyersburg Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace at Clarksburg, WV, as the Clarksburg VOR/DME has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at North Central West Virginia Airport, formerly Benedum Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the airport's name and the geographic coordinates.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2014–1003; Airspace Docket No. 14–AEA–9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–1003; Airspace Docket No. 14–AEA–9) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–1003; Airspace Docket No. 14–AEA–9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at North Central West Virginia Airport, formerly known as Benedum Airport. A segment of the airspace would be amended from a 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles southwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be amended to within an 8.9-mile radius of the airport. Decommissioning of the Clarksburg VOR/DME and cancellation of the VOR approaches has made this action necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. The airport name would be changed from Benedum Airport to North Central West Virginia Airport in the Class D and E airspace areas listed above.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at North Central West Virginia Airport, Clarksburg, WV.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 3,700 feet within a 4.1-mile radius of North Central West Virginia Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the 220° bearing from North Central West Virginia Airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles southwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.9-mile radius of North Central West Virginia Airport.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the
Submit comments by April 15, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014–0033, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7923.
On December 30, 2014, the Commission published an NPR in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would add a new subpart to the Department of the Interior's (Department) regulations implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), to improve ICWA implementation by State courts and child welfare agencies. These regulations complement recently published
Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collections contained in this rule are separate from comments on the substance of the rule. Submit comments on the information collection requirements in this rule to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
See the
Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS 3642, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 273–4680;
Since ICWA was enacted by Congress in 1978, it has improved child welfare practices regarding Indian children. Commentators have asserted, however, that it has not reached its full potential due largely to ineffective or inconsistent implementation in some case. This proposed rule would establish a new subpart to regulations implementing ICWA at 25 CFR 23 to address Indian child welfare proceedings in State courts. This proposed rule is published in response to comments received during several listening sessions, written comments submitted throughout 2014, and recommendations that regulations are needed to fully implement ICWA.
This proposed rule would incorporate many of the changes made to the recently revised guidelines into regulations, establishing the Department's interpretation of ICWA as a binding interpretation to ensure consistency in implementation of ICWA across all States. This consistency is necessary to ensure that the goals of ICWA are carried out with each Indian child custody proceeding, regardless of the child welfare worker, judge, and State involved. The proposed rule would establish the following procedures to ensure compliance with ICWA: Determining whether ICWA applies to any child custody proceeding, providing notice to the parents or Indian custodian and Indian tribe(s), requesting and responding to requests to transfer proceedings to tribal court, adjudication of involuntary placements, adoptions, and terminations of parental rights, undertaking voluntary proceedings, identifying and applying placement preferences, and post-proceeding actions.
The Department requests comment on this proposed rule.
Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 to address the Federal, State, and private agency policies and practices that resulted in the “wholesale separation of Indian children from their families.” H. Rep. 95–1386 (July 24, 1978), at 9. Congress found “that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions . . . .” 25 U.S.C. 1901(4). Congress determined that cultural ignorance and biases within the child welfare system were significant causes of this problem and that state administrative and judicial bodies “have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.” 25 U.S.C. 1901(5); H. Rep. 95–1386, at 10. Congress enacted ICWA to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes or institutions which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.” H. Rep. 95–1386, at 8. The ICWA thus articulates a strong “federal policy that, where possible, an Indian child should remain in the Indian community.”
Following ICWA's enactment, in July 1979, the Department issued regulations addressing notice procedures for involuntary child custody proceedings involving Indian children, as well as governing the provision of funding for and administration of Indian child and family service programs as authorized by ICWA.
In 2014, the Department invited comments to determine whether to update its guidelines and if so, what changes should be made. The Department held several listening sessions, including sessions with representatives of federally recognized Indian tribes, State court representatives (
The Department has examined its authority to interpret and implement ICWA, including through a rulemaking, and has concluded that it possesses authority to implement the statute through rulemaking. ICWA instructs that “[w]ithin [180] days after November 8, 1978, the Secretary shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 25 U.S.C. 1952. This is a broad grant of authority to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to issue rules in order to ensure that the statute is fully and properly implemented. In addition to this express authority in ICWA, the Secretary is charged with “the management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations,” 25 U.S.C. 2, and may “prescribe such regulations as [s]he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs.” 25 U.S.C. 9. Finally, the United States has long been understood to have a special relationship with Indian nations, which includes the duty and power to protect them. Congress referred to this inherent authority in the opening language of ICWA, which explains that the “United States has a direct interest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children.” 25 U.S.C. 1901(3). These regulations, which are intended to improve the implementation of ICWA, uphold this Federal interest.
The Department has concluded that these regulations are now necessary to effectively carry out the provisions of ICWA. In issuing the guidelines in 1979, the Department found that primary responsibility for interpreting many of ICWA's provisions rests with the State courts that decide Indian child custody cases.
This proposed rule addresses ICWA implementation by State courts and child welfare agencies, including updating definitions, and replacing current notice provisions at 25 CFR 23.11 with a proposed new subpart I to 25 CFR part 23. The proposed new subpart also addresses other aspects of ICWA compliance by State courts and child welfare agencies including, but
We welcome comments on all aspects of this rule. We are particularly interested in the use of “should” versus “must.” The proposed rule makes several of the provisions issued in the recently published
The Department will host both public meetings and tribal consultation sessions on this proposed rule.
All are invited to the public meetings. Dates and locations for the public meetings are as follows:
Tribal consultation sessions are for representatives of currently federally recognized tribes only, to discuss the rule on a government-to-government basis with the Department. These sessions may be closed to the public. The dates and locations for the tribal consultations are as follows:
The Department is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to ICWA, 25 U.S.C. 1901
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule's requirements will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The Department has determined that this rule complies with the fundamental Federalism principles and policymaking criteria established in EO 13132. Congress determined that the issue of Indian child welfare is sufficiently national in scope and significance to justify a statute that applies uniformly across States. This rule invokes the United States' special relationship with Indian tribes and children by establishing a regulatory baseline for implementation to further the goals of ICWA. Such goals include protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes that reflect the unique values of Indian culture. States are required to comply with ICWA even in the absence of this rule, and that requirement has existed since ICWA's passage in 1978. In the spirit of EO 13132, the Department specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State officials, including suggestions for how the rule could be made more flexible for State implementation.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated the potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and Indian trust assets. The Department hosted several listening sessions on the ICWA guidelines and notified each federally recognized tribal leader of the sessions. Several federally recognized Indian tribes submitted written comments and many suggested developing regulations. The Department considered each tribe's comments and concerns and have addressed them, where possible, in the proposed rule. The Department will be continuing to consult with tribes during the public comment period on this rule. The dates and locations of consultation sessions are listed in section IV, above.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment because it is of an administrative, technical, and procedural nature.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the “COMMENTS” section. To better help revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, include the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where lists or tables would be useful, etc.
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
The Department cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Child welfare, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, proposes to amend part 23 in Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 1901–1952.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Revise the following definitions to read as follows:
(1) Engaging the Indian child, the Indian child's parents, the Indian child's extended family members, and the Indian child's custodian(s);
(2) Taking steps necessary to keep siblings together;
(3) Identifying appropriate services and helping the parents to overcome barriers, including actively assisting the parents in obtaining such services;
(4) Identifying, notifying, and inviting representatives of the Indian child's tribe to participate;
(5) Conducting or causing to be conducted a diligent search for the Indian child's extended family members for assistance and possible placement;
(6) Taking into account the Indian child's tribe's prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life, and requesting the assistance of representatives designated by the Indian child's tribe with substantial knowledge of the prevailing social and cultural standards;
(7) Offering and employing all available and culturally appropriate family preservation strategies;
(8) Completing a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the Indian child's family, with a focus on safe reunification as the most desirable goal;
(9) Notifying and consulting with extended family members of the Indian child to provide family structure and support for the Indian child, to assure cultural connections, and to serve as placement resources for the Indian child;
(10) Making arrangements to provide family interaction in the most natural setting that can ensure the Indian child's safety during any necessary removal;
(11) Identifying community resources including housing, financial, transportation, mental health, substance abuse, and peer support services and actively assisting the Indian child's parents or extended family in utilizing and accessing those resources;
(12) Monitoring progress and participation in services;
(13) Providing consideration of alternative ways of addressing the needs of the Indian child's parents and extended family, if services do not exist or if existing services are not available;
(14) Supporting regular visits and trial home visits of the Indian child during any period of removal, consistent with the need to ensure the safety of the child; and
(15) Providing post-reunification services and monitoring.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) For a parent or any person over the age of eighteen, physical presence in a place and intent to remain there;
(2) For an Indian child, the domicile of the Indian child's parents. In the case of an Indian child whose parents are not married to each other, the domicile of the Indian child's mother.
(1) The Indian tribe in which an Indian child is a member or eligible for membership; or
(2) In the case of an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in more than one tribe, the Indian tribe with which the Indian child has more significant contacts.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) Notice to the appropriate BIA Area Director pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section must be sent by registered mail with return receipt requested and must include the information required by § 23.111 of these regulations.
These regulations clarify the minimum Federal standards governing implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to ensure that ICWA is applied in all States consistent with the Act's express language, Congress' intent in enacting the statute, and the canon of construction that statutes enacted for the benefit of Indians are to be liberally construed to their benefit. In order to fully implement ICWA, these regulations apply in all proceedings and stages of a proceeding in which ICWA is or becomes applicable.
The following terms and their definitions apply to this subpart. All other terms have the meanings assigned in § 23.2.
(a) ICWA applies whenever an Indian child is the subject of a State child custody proceeding as defined by the Act. ICWA also applies to proceedings involving status offenses or juvenile delinquency proceedings if any part of
(b) There is no exception to application of ICWA based on the so-called “existing Indian family doctrine” and, the following non-exhaustive list of factors that have been used by courts in applying the existing Indian family doctrine may not be considered in determining whether ICWA is applicable:
(1) The extent to which the parent or Indian child
(i) Participates in or observes tribal customs,
(ii) Votes in tribal elections or otherwise participates in tribal community affairs,
(iii) Contributes to tribal or Indian charities, subscribes to tribal newsletters or other periodicals of special interest in Indians,
(iv) Participates in Indian religious, social, cultural, or political events, or maintains social contacts with other members of the tribe;
(2) The relationship between the Indian child and his/her Indian parents;
(3) The extent of current ties either parent has to the tribe;
(4) Whether the Indian parent ever had custody of the child;
(5) The level of involvement of the tribe in the State court proceedings; and/or
(6) Blood quantum.
(c) Agencies and State courts, in every child custody proceeding, must ask whether the child is or could be an Indian child and conduct an investigation into whether the child is an Indian child.
(d) If there is any reason to believe the child is an Indian child, the agency and State court must treat the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined that the child is not a member or is not eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.
(e) ICWA and these regulations or any associated Federal guidelines do not apply to:
(1) Tribal court proceedings;
(2) Placements based upon an act by the Indian child which, if committed by an adult, would be deemed a criminal offense; or
(3) An award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody of the Indian child to one of the parents.
(f) Voluntary placements that do not operate to prohibit the child's parent or Indian custodian from regaining custody of the child upon demand are not covered by ICWA. Such placements should be made pursuant to a written agreement, and the agreement should state explicitly the right of the parent or Indian custodian to regain custody of the child upon demand.
(g) Voluntary placements in which a parent consents to a foster care placement or seeks to permanently terminate his or her rights or to place the child in a preadoptive or adoptive placement are covered by ICWA.
To contact a tribe to provide notice or obtain information or verification under these regulations, you should direct the notice or inquiry as follows:
(a) Many tribes designate an agent for receipt of ICWA notices. The BIA publishes a list of tribes' designated tribal agents for service of ICWA notice in the
(b) For tribes without a designated tribal agent for service of ICWA notice, contact the tribe(s) to be directed to the appropriate individual or office.
(c) If you do not have accurate contact information for the tribe(s) or the tribe(s) contacted fail(s) to respond to written inquiries, you may seek assistance in contacting the Indian tribe(s) from the BIA Regional Office and/or Central Office in Washington, DC (see
(a) These regulations provide minimum Federal standards to ensure compliance with ICWA and are applicable in all child custody proceedings in which ICWA applies.
(b) In any child custody proceeding where applicable State or other Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian than the protection accorded under the Act, ICWA requires that the State court must apply the higher standard.
(a) The requirement to engage in “active efforts” begins from the moment the possibility arises that an agency case or investigation may result in the need for the Indian child to be placed outside the custody of either parent or Indian custodian in order to prevent removal.
(b) Active efforts to prevent removal of the child must be conducted while investigating whether the child is a member of the tribe, is eligible for membership in the tribe, or whether a biological parent of the child is or is not a member of a tribe.
(a) Agencies must ask whether there is reason to believe a child that is subject to a child custody proceeding is an Indian child. If there is reason to believe that the child is an Indian child, the agency must obtain verification, in writing, from all tribes in which it is believed that the child is a member or eligible for membership, as to whether the child is an Indian child.
(b) State courts must ask, as a threshold question at the start of any State court child custody proceeding, whether there is reason to believe the child who is the subject of the proceeding is an Indian child by asking each party to the case, including the guardian ad litem and the agency representative, to certify on the record whether they have discovered or know of any information that suggests or indicates the child is an Indian child.
(1) In requiring this certification, courts may wish to consider requiring the agency to provide:
(i) Genograms or ancestry charts for both parents, including all names known (maiden, married and former names or aliases); current and former addresses of the child's parents, maternal and paternal grandparents and great grandparents or Indian custodians; birthdates; places of birth and death; tribal affiliation including all known Indian ancestry for individuals listed on the charts, and/or other identifying information; and/or
(ii) The addresses for the domicile and residence of the child, his or her parents, or the Indian custodian and whether either parent or Indian custodian is domiciled on or a resident of an Indian reservation or in a predominantly Indian community.
(2) If there is reason to believe the child is an Indian child, the court must confirm that the agency used active efforts to work with all tribes of which the child may be a member to verify whether the child is in fact a member or eligible for membership in any tribe, under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) An agency or court has reason to believe that a child involved in a child custody proceeding is an Indian child if:
(1) Any party to the proceeding, Indian tribe, Indian organization or public or private agency informs the agency or court that the child is an Indian child;
(2) Any agency involved in child protection services or family support has discovered information suggesting that the child is an Indian child;
(3) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the agency or court
(4) The domicile or residence of the child, parents, or the Indian custodian is known by the agency or court to be, or is shown to be, on an Indian reservation or in a predominantly Indian community; or
(5) An employee of the agency or officer of the court involved in the proceeding has knowledge that the child may be an Indian child.
(d) In seeking verification of the child's status, in a voluntary placement proceeding where a consenting parent evidences a desire for anonymity, the agency or court must keep relevant documents confidential and under seal. A request for anonymity does not relieve the obligation to obtain verification from the tribe(s) or to provide notice.
(a) Only the Indian tribe(s) of which it is believed a biological parent or the child is a member or eligible for membership may make the determination whether the child is a member of the tribe(s), is eligible for membership in the tribe(s), or whether a biological parent of the child is a member of the tribe(s).
(b) The determination by a tribe of whether a child is a member, is eligible for membership, or whether a biological parent is or is not a member, is solely within the jurisdiction and authority of the tribe.
(c) No other entity or person may authoritatively make the determination of whether a child is a member of the tribe or is eligible for membership in the tribe.
(d) The State court may not substitute its own determination regarding a child's membership or eligibility for membership in a tribe or tribes.
(a) Agencies must notify all tribes, of which the child may be a member or eligible for membership, that the child is involved in a child custody proceeding. The notice should specify the other tribe or tribes of which the child may be a member or eligible for membership.
(b) If the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership in only one tribe, that tribe should be designated as the Indian child's tribe.
(c) If an Indian child is a member or eligible for membership in more than one tribe, ICWA requires that the Indian tribe with which the Indian child has the more significant contacts be designated as the Indian child's tribe.
(1) In determining significant contacts, the following may be considered:
(i) Preference of the parents for membership of the child;
(ii) Length of past domicile or residence on or near the reservation of each tribe;
(iii) Tribal membership of custodial parent or Indian custodian; and
(iv) Interest asserted by each tribe in response to the notice that the child is involved in a child custody proceeding;
(2) When an Indian child is already a member of a tribe, but is also eligible for membership in another tribe, deference should be given to the tribe in which the Indian child is a member, unless otherwise agreed to by the tribes. However, if the Indian child is not a member of any tribe, an opportunity should be provided to allow the tribes to determine which of them should be designated as the Indian child's tribe.
(i) If the tribes are able to reach an agreement, the agreed upon tribe should be designated as the Indian child's tribe.
(ii) If the tribes do not agree, the following factors should be considered in designating the Indian child's tribe:
(A) The preference of the parents or extended family members who are likely to become foster care or adoptive placements; and/or
(B) Tribal membership of custodial parent or Indian custodian; and/or
(C) If applicable, length of past domicile or residence on or near the reservation of each tribe; and/or
(D) Whether there has been a previous adjudication with respect to the child by a court of one of the tribes; and/or
(E) Self-identification by the child; and/or
(F) Availability of placements.
(3) Once an Indian tribe is designated as the child's Indian tribe, all tribes which received notice of the child custody proceeding must be notified in writing of the determination and a copy of that document must be filed with the court and sent to each party to the proceeding and to each person or governmental agency that received notice of the proceeding.
(4) A determination of the Indian child's tribe for purposes of ICWA and these regulations does not constitute a determination for any other purpose or situation.
(d) The tribe designated as the Indian child's tribe may authorize another tribe to act as a representative for the tribe in a child custody case.
Subject to § 23.113 (emergency procedures), the following limitations on a State court's jurisdiction apply:
(a) The court must dismiss any child custody proceeding as soon as the court determines that it lacks jurisdiction.
(b) The court must make a determination of the residence and domicile of the Indian child. If either the residence or domicile is on a reservation where the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, the State court must dismiss the State court proceedings, the agency must notify the tribe of the dismissal based on the tribe's exclusive jurisdiction, and the agency must transmit all available information regarding the Indian child custody proceeding to the tribal court.
(c) If the Indian child has been domiciled or previously resided on an Indian reservation, the State court must contact the tribal court to determine whether the child is a ward of the tribal court. If the child is a ward of a tribal court, the State court must dismiss the State court proceedings, the agency must notify the tribe of the dismissal, and the agency must transmit all available information regarding the Indian child custody proceeding to the tribal court.
(a) When an agency or court knows or has reason to believe that the subject of a voluntary or involuntary child custody proceeding is an Indian child, the agency or court must send notice of each such proceeding (including but not limited to a temporary custody proceeding, any removal or foster care placement, any adoptive placement, or any termination of parental or custodial rights) by registered mail with return receipt requested to:
(1) Each tribe where the child may be a member or eligible for membership;
(2) The child's parents; and
(3) If applicable, the Indian custodian.
(b) Notice may be sent via personal service or electronically in addition to the methods required by ICWA, but such alternative methods do not replace the requirement for notice to be sent by registered mail with return receipt requested.
(c) Notice must be in clear and understandable language and include the following:
(1) Name of the child, the child's birthdate and birthplace;
(2) Name of each Indian tribe(s) in which the child is a member or may be eligible for membership;
(3) A copy of the petition, complaint or other document by which the proceeding was initiated;
(4) Statements setting out:
(i) The name of the petitioner and name and address of petitioner's attorney;
(ii) The right of the parent or Indian custodian to intervene in the proceedings.
(iii) The Indian tribe's right to intervene at any time in a State court proceeding for the foster care placement of or termination of a parental right.
(iv) If the Indian parent(s) or, if applicable, Indian custodian(s) is unable to afford counsel based on a determination of indigency by the court, counsel will be appointed to represent the parent or Indian custodian where authorized by State law.
(v) The right to be granted, upon request, a specific amount of additional time (up to 20 additional days) to prepare for the proceedings due to circumstances of the particular case.
(vi) The right to petition the court for transfer of the proceeding to tribal court under 25 U.S.C. 1911, absent objection by either parent:
(vii) The mailing addresses and telephone numbers of the court and information related to all parties to the proceeding and individuals notified under this section.
(viii) The potential legal consequences of the proceedings on the future custodial and parental rights of the Indian parents or Indian custodians.
(d) If the identity or location of the Indian parents, Indian custodians or tribes in which the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership cannot be ascertained, but there is reason to believe the child is an Indian child, notice of the child custody proceeding must be sent to the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director (see
(e) The original or a copy of each notice sent under this section should be filed with the court together with any return receipts or other proof of service.
(f) If a parent or Indian custodian appears in court without an attorney, the court must inform him or her of the right to appointed counsel, the right to request that the proceeding be transferred to tribal court, the right to object to such transfer, the right to request additional time to prepare for the proceeding and the right (if the parent or Indian custodian is not already a party) to intervene in the proceedings.
(g) If the court or an agency has reason to believe that a parent or Indian custodian possesses limited English proficiency and is therefore not likely to understand the contents of the notice, the court or agency must, at no cost, provide a translated version of the notice or have the notice read and explained in a language that the parent or Indian custodian understands. To secure such translation or interpretation support, a court or agency should contact the Indian child's tribe or the local BIA agency for assistance in locating and obtaining the name of a qualified translator or interpreter.
(h) No substantive proceedings, rulings or decisions on the merits related to the involuntary placement of the child or termination of parental rights may occur until the notice and waiting periods in this section have elapsed.
(i) If the child is transferred interstate, regardless of whether the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) applies, both the originating State court and receiving State court must provide notice to the tribe(s) and seek to verify whether the child is an Indian child.
(a) No proceedings regarding decisions for the foster care or termination of parental rights may begin until the waiting periods to which the parents or Indian custodians and to which the Indian child's tribe are entitled have passed. Additional extensions of time may also be granted beyond the minimum required by ICWA.
(b) A tribe, parent or Indian custodian entitled to notice of the pendency of a child custody proceeding has a right, upon request, to be granted an additional 20 days from the date upon which notice was received in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a) to prepare for participation in the proceeding.
(c) The proceeding may not begin until all of the following dates have passed:
(1) 10 days after each parent or Indian custodian (or Secretary where the parent or Indian custodian is unknown to the petitioner) has received notice in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a);
(2) 10 days after the Indian child's tribe (or the Secretary if the Indian child's tribe is unknown to the party seeking placement) has received notice in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a);
(3) 30 days after the parent or Indian custodian has received notice in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a), if the parent or Indian custodian has requested an additional 20 days to prepare for the proceeding; and
(4) 30 days after the Indian child's tribe has received notice in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 1912(a), if the Indian child's tribe has requested an additional 20 days to prepare for the proceeding.
(d) The court should allow, if it possesses the capability, alternative methods of participation in State court proceedings by family members and tribes, such as participation by telephone, videoconferencing, or other methods.
(a) Any emergency removal or emergency placement of any Indian child under State law must be as short as possible. Each involved agency or court must:
(1) Diligently investigate and document whether the removal or placement is proper and continues to be necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child;
(2) Promptly hold a hearing to hear evidence and evaluate whether the removal or placement continues to be necessary whenever new information is received or assertions are made that the emergency situation has ended; and
(3) Immediately terminate the emergency removal or placement once the court possesses sufficient evidence to determine that the emergency has ended.
(b) If the agency that conducts an emergency removal of a child whom the agency knows or has reason to believe is an Indian child, the agency must:
(1) Treat the child as an Indian child until the court determines that the child is not an Indian child;
(2) Conduct active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family as early as possible, including, if possible, before removal of the child;
(3) Immediately take and document all practical steps to confirm whether the child is an Indian child and to verify the Indian child's tribe;
(4) Immediately notify the child's parents or Indian custodians and Indian tribe of the removal of the child;
(5) Take all practical steps to notify the child's parents or Indian custodians and Indian tribe about any proceeding, or hearings within a proceeding,
(6) Maintain records that detail the steps taken to provide any required notifications under § 23.111.
(d) A petition for a court order authorizing emergency removal or continued emergency physical custody must be accompanied by an affidavit containing the following information:
(1) The name, age and last known address of the Indian child;
(2) The name and address of the child's parents and Indian custodians, if any;
(3) If such persons are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate them, including notice to the appropriate BIA Regional Director (see
(4) Facts necessary to determine the residence and the domicile of the Indian child;
(5) If either the residence or domicile is believed to be on an Indian reservation, the name of the reservation;
(6) The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents and/or Indian custodians;
(7) A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that led the agency responsible for the emergency removal of the child to take that action;
(8) If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation where the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and are being made to transfer the child to the tribe's jurisdiction;
(9) A statement of the specific active efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the child may safely be returned to their custody; and
(10) A statement of the imminent physical damage or harm expected and any evidence that the removal or emergency custody continues to be necessary to prevent such imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(e) At any court hearing regarding the emergency removal or emergency placement of an Indian child, the court must determine whether the removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(f) Temporary emergency custody should not be continued for more than 30 days. Temporary emergency custody may be continued for more than 30 days only if:
(1) A hearing, noticed in accordance with these regulations, is held and results in a determination by the court, supported by clear and convincing evidence and the testimony of at least one qualified expert witness, that custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in imminent physical damage or harm to the child; or
(2) Extraordinary circumstances exist.
(g) The emergency removal or placement must terminate as soon as the imminent physical damage or harm to the child which resulted in the emergency removal or placement no longer exists, or, if applicable, as soon as the tribe exercises jurisdiction over the case, whichever is earlier.
(h) Once an agency or court has terminated the emergency removal or placement, it must expeditiously:
(1) Return the child to the parent or Indian custodian within one business day; or
(2) Transfer the child to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe if the child is a ward of a tribal court or a resident of or domiciled on a reservation; or
(3) Initiate a child custody proceeding subject to the provisions of ICWA and these regulations.
(i) The court should allow, if it possesses the capability, alternative methods of participation in State court proceedings by family members and tribes, such as participation by telephone, videoconferencing, or other methods.
(a) If, in the course of any Indian child custody proceeding, any party asserts or the court has reason to believe that the Indian child may have been improperly removed from the custody of his or her parent or Indian custodian, or that the Indian child has been improperly retained, such as after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court must immediately stay the proceeding until a determination can be made on the question of improper removal or retention, and such determination must be conducted expeditiously.
(b) If the court finds that the Indian child was improperly removed or retained, the court must terminate the proceeding and the child must be returned immediately to his or her parents or Indian custodian, unless returning the child to his parent or custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.
(a) Either parent, the Indian custodian, or the Indian child's tribe may request, orally on the record or in writing, that the State court transfer each distinct Indian child custody proceeding to the tribal court of the child's tribe.
(b) The right to request a transfer occurs with each proceeding.
(c) The right to request a transfer is available at any stage of an Indian child custody proceeding, including during any period of emergency removal.
(d) The court should allow, if possible, alternative methods of participation in State court proceedings by family members and tribes, such as participation by telephone, videoconferencing, or other methods.
(a) Upon receipt of a petition to transfer by a parent, Indian custodian or the Indian child's tribe, the State court must transfer the case unless any of the following criteria are met:
(1) Either parent objects to such transfer;
(2) The tribal court declines the transfer; or
(3) The court determines that good cause exists for denying the transfer.
(b) The court should expeditiously provide all records related to the proceeding to the tribal court.
(a) If the State court believes, or any party asserts, that good cause not to transfer exists, the reasons for such belief or assertion must be stated on the record or in writing and made available to the parties who are petitioning for transfer.
(b) Any party to the proceeding must have the opportunity to provide the court with views regarding whether good cause to deny transfer exists.
(c) In determining whether good cause exists, the court may not consider whether the case is at an advanced stage or whether transfer would result in a change in the placement of the child.
(d) In addition, in determining whether there is good cause to deny the transfer, the court may not consider:
(1) The Indian child's contacts with the tribe or reservation;
(2) Socio-economic conditions or any perceived inadequacy of tribal or BIA social services or judicial systems; or
(3) The tribal court's prospective placement for the Indian child.
(e) The burden of establishing good cause not to transfer is on the party opposing the transfer.
(a) Upon receipt of a transfer petition the State court must promptly notify the
(b) If the tribal court accepts the transfer, the State court should promptly provide the tribal court with all court records.
(a) The court must inform each party to a foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding under State law involving an Indian child of his or her right to timely examination of all reports or other documents filed with the court and all files upon which any decision with respect to such action may be based.
(b) Decisions of the court may be based only upon reports, documents or testimony presented on the record.
(a) Any party petitioning a State court for foster care placement or termination of parental rights to an Indian child must demonstrate to the court that prior to, and until the commencement of, the proceeding, active efforts have been made to avoid the need to remove the Indian child from his or her parents or Indian custodians and show that those efforts have been unsuccessful.
(b) Active efforts must be documented in detail and, to the extent possible, should involve and use the available resources of the extended family, the child's Indian tribe, Indian social service agencies and individual Indian care givers.
(a) The court may not issue an order effecting a foster care placement of an Indian child unless clear and convincing evidence is presented, including the testimony of one or more qualified expert witnesses, demonstrating that the child's continued custody with the child's parents or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious physical damage or harm to the child.
(b) The court may not order a termination of parental rights unless the court's order is supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by the testimony of one or more qualified expert witnesses, that continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious physical damage or harm to the child.
(c) Clear and convincing evidence must show a causal relationship between the existence of particular conditions in the home that are likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the particular child who is the subject of the proceeding.
(d) Evidence that only shows the existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, custodian age, crowded or inadequate housing, substance abuse, or nonconforming social behavior does not by itself constitute clear and convincing evidence that continued custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical-damage to the child.
(a) A qualified expert witness should have specific knowledge of the Indian tribe's culture and customs.
(b) Persons with the following characteristics, in descending order, are presumed to meet the requirements for a qualified expert witness:
(1) A member of the Indian child's tribe who is recognized by the tribal community as knowledgeable in tribal customs as they pertain to family organization and childrearing practices.
(2) A member of another tribe who is recognized to be a qualified expert witness by the Indian child's tribe based on their knowledge of the delivery of child and family services to Indians and the Indian child's tribe.
(3) A layperson who is recognized by the Indian child's tribe as having substantial experience in the delivery of child and family services to Indians, and knowledge of prevailing social and cultural standards and childrearing practices within the Indian child's tribe.
(4) A professional person having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her specialty who can demonstrate knowledge of the prevailing social and cultural standards and childrearing practices within the Indian child's tribe.
(c) The court or any party may request the assistance of the Indian child's tribe or the BIA agency serving the Indian child's tribe in locating persons qualified to serve as expert witnesses.
(a) Agencies and State courts must ask whether a child is an Indian child in any voluntary proceeding under § 23.107 of these regulations.
(b) Agencies and State courts must provide the Indian tribe with notice of the voluntary child custody proceedings, including applicable pleadings or executed consents, and their right to intervene under § 23.111 of this part.
(a) A voluntary termination of parental rights, foster care placement or adoption must be executed in writing and recorded before a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Prior to accepting the consent, the court must explain the consequences of the consent in detail, such as any conditions or timing limitations for withdrawal of consent and, if applicable, the point at which such consent is irrevocable.
(c) A certificate of the court must accompany a written consent and must certify that the terms and consequences of the consent were explained in detail in the language of the parent or Indian custodian, if English is not the primary language, and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian.
(d) Execution of consent need not be made in open court where confidentiality is requested or indicated.
(e) A consent given prior to or within 10 days after birth of the Indian child is not valid.
(a) The consent document must contain the name and birthdate of the Indian child, the name of the Indian child's tribe, identifying tribal enrollment number, if any, or other indication of the child's membership in the tribe, and the name and address of the consenting parent or Indian custodian. If there are any conditions to the consent, the consent document must clearly set out the conditions.
(b) A consent to foster care placement should contain, in addition to the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the name and address of the person or entity by or through whom the placement was arranged, if any, or the name and address of the prospective foster parents, if known at the time.
(a) Withdrawal of consent must be filed in the same court where the consent document was executed.
(b) When a parent or Indian custodian withdraws consent to foster care placement, the child must be returned to that parent or Indian custodian immediately.
(a) A consent to termination of parental rights or adoption may be withdrawn by the parent at any time prior to entry of a final decree of voluntary termination or adoption, whichever occurs later. To withdraw consent, the parent must file, in the court where the consent is filed, an instrument executed under oath asserting his or her intention to withdraw such consent.
(b) The clerk of the court in which the withdrawal of consent is filed must promptly notify the party by or through whom any preadoptive or adoptive placement has been arranged of such filing and the child must be returned to the parent or Indian custodian as soon as practicable.
(a) In any preadoptive, adoptive or foster care placement of an Indian child, ICWA's placement preferences apply; except that, if the Indian child's tribe has established by resolution a different order of preference than that specified in ICWA, the agency or court effecting the placement must follow the tribe's placement preferences.
(b) The agency seeking a preadoptive, adoptive or foster care placement of an Indian child must always follow the placement preferences. If the agency determines that any of the preferences cannot be met, the agency must demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that a diligent search has been conducted to seek out and identify placement options that would satisfy the placement preferences specified in §§ 23.129 and 23.130 of these regulations, and explain why the preferences could not be met. A search should include notification about the placement proceeding and an explanation of the actions that must be taken to propose an alternative placement to:
(1) The Indian child's parents or Indian custodians;
(2) All of the known, or reasonably identifiable, members of the Indian child's extended family members;
(3) The Indian child's tribe;
(4) In the case of a foster care or preadoptive placement:
(i) All foster homes licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child's tribe; and
(ii) All Indian foster homes located in the Indian child's State of domicile that are licensed or approved by any authorized non-Indian licensing authority.
(c) Where there is a request for anonymity, the court should consider whether additional confidentiality protections are warranted, but a request for anonymity does not relieve the agency or the court of the obligation to comply with the placement preferences.
(d) Departure from the placement preferences may occur only after the court has made a determination that good cause exists to place the Indian child with someone who is not listed in the placement preferences.
(e) Documentation of each preadoptive, adoptive or foster care placement of an Indian child under State law must be provided to the State for maintenance at the agency. Such documentation must include, at a minimum: The petition or complaint; all substantive orders entered in the proceeding; the complete record of, and basis for, the placement determination; and, if the placement deviates from the placement preferences, a detailed explanation of all efforts to comply with the placement preferences and the court order authorizing departure from the placement preferences.
(a) In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, preference must be given in descending order, as listed below, to placement of the child with:
(1) A member of the child's extended family;
(2) Other members of the Indian child's tribe; or
(3) Other Indian families, including families of unwed individuals.
(b) The court should, where appropriate, also consider the preference of the Indian child or parent.
In any foster care or preadoptive placement of an Indian child:
(a) The child must be placed in the least restrictive setting that:
(1) Most approximates a family;
(2) Allows his or her special needs to be met; and
(3) Is in reasonable proximity to his or her home, extended family, and/or siblings.
(b) Preference must be given, in descending order as listed below, to placement of the child with:
(1) A member of the Indian child's extended family;
(2) A foster home, licensed, approved or specified by the Indian child's tribe, whether on or off the reservation;
(3) An Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority; or
(4) An institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the child's needs.
(a) If any party asserts that good cause not to follow the placement preferences exists, the reasons for such belief or assertion must be stated on the record or in writing and made available to the parties to the proceeding and the Indian child's tribe.
(b) The party seeking departure from the preferences bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the existence of “good cause” to deviate from the placement preferences.
(c) A determination of good cause to depart from the placement preferences must be based on one or more of the following considerations:
(1) The request of the parents, if both parents attest that they have reviewed the placement options that comply with the order of preference.
(2) The request of the child, if the child is able to understand and comprehend the decision that is being made.
(3) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child, such as specialized treatment services that may be unavailable in the community where families who meet the criteria live, as established by testimony of a qualified expert witness; provided that extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child does not include ordinary bonding or attachment that may have occurred as a result of a placement or the fact that the child has, for an extended amount of time, been in another placement that does not comply with ICWA.
(4) The unavailability of a placement after a showing by the applicable agency in accordance with § 23.128(b) of this subpart, and a determination by the
(d) The court should consider only whether a placement in accordance with the preferences meets the physical, mental and emotional needs of the child; and may not depart from the preferences based on the socio-economic status of any placement relative to another placement.
(a) Within two years after a final decree of adoption of any Indian child by a State court, or within any longer period of time permitted by the law of the State, a parent who executed a consent to termination of paternal rights or adoption of that child may petition the court in which the final adoption decree was entered to vacate the decree and revoke the consent on the grounds that consent was obtained by fraud or duress, or that the proceeding failed to comply with ICWA.
(b) Upon the filing of such petition, the court must give notice to all parties to the adoption proceedings and the Indian child's tribe.
(c) The court must hold a hearing on the petition.
(d) Where the court finds that the parent's consent was obtained through fraud or duress, the court must vacate the decree of adoption, order the consent revoked and order that the child be returned to the parent.
(a) Any of the following may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate an action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights where it is alleged that ICWA has been violated:
(1) An Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights;
(2) A parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed; and
(3) The Indian child's tribe.
(b) Upon a showing that an action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights violated any provision of 25 U.S.C. 1911, 1912, or 1913, the court must determine whether it is appropriate to invalidate the action.
(c) There is no requirement that the particular party's rights under ICWA be violated to petition for invalidation; rather, any party may challenge the action based on violations in implementing ICWA during the course of the child custody proceeding.
(d) The court should allow, if it possesses the capability, alternative methods of participation in State court proceedings by family members and tribes, such as participation by telephone, videoconferencing, or other methods.
(a) Upon application by an Indian individual who has reached age 18 who was the subject of an adoptive placement, the court that entered the final decree must inform such individual of the tribal affiliations, if any, of the individual's biological parents and provide such other information necessary to protect any rights, which may include tribal membership, resulting from the individual's tribal relationship.
(b) Where State law prohibits revelation of the identity of the biological parent, assistance of the BIA should be sought to help an adoptee who is eligible for membership in a tribe to become a tribal member without breaching the Privacy Act or confidentiality of the record.
(c) In States where adoptions remain closed, the relevant agency should communicate directly with the tribe's enrollment office and provide the information necessary to facilitate the establishment of the adoptee's tribal membership.
(d) Agencies should work with the tribe to identify at least one tribal designee familiar with 25 U.S.C. 1917 to assist adult adoptees statewide with the process of reconnecting with their tribes and to provide information to State judges about this provision on an annual basis.
(a) Notice by the court, or an agency authorized by the court, must be given to the child's biological parents or prior Indian custodians and the Indian child's tribe whenever:
(1) A final decree of adoption of an Indian child has been vacated or set aside; or
(2) The adoptive parent has voluntarily consented to the termination of his or her parental rights to the child; or
(3) Whenever an Indian child is removed from a foster care home or institution to another foster care placement, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement.
(b) The notice must inform the recipient of the right to petition for return of custody of the child.
(c) A parent or Indian custodian may waive his or her right to such notice by executing a written waiver of notice filed with the court. The waiver may be revoked at any time by filing with the court a written notice of revocation. A revocation of the right to receive notice does not affect any proceeding which occurred before the filing of the notice of revocation.
(a) Any state entering a final adoption decree or order must furnish a copy of the decree or order to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chief, Division of Human Services, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4513 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, along with the following information:
(1) Birth name of the child, tribal affiliation and name of the child after adoption;
(2) Names and addresses of the biological parents;
(3) Names and addresses of the adoptive parents;
(4) Name and contact information for any agency having files or information relating to the adoption;
(5) Any affidavit signed by the biological parent or parents asking that their identity remain confidential; and
(6) Any information relating to tribal membership or eligibility for tribal membership of the adopted child.
(b) Confidentiality of such information must be maintained and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
(a) The State must establish a single location where all records of every voluntary or involuntary foster care, preadoptive placement and adoptive placement of Indian children by courts of that State will be available within seven days of a request by an Indian child's tribe or the Secretary.
(b) The records must contain, at a minimum, the petition or complaint, all substantive orders entered in the proceeding, and the complete record of the placement determination (including, but not limited to the findings in the court record and social worker's statement).
The collections of information contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Tennessee has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 (also known as RCRA Clusters XV and XVI). With this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to grant final authorization to Tennessee for these changes.
Send your written comments by April 20, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–RCRA–2014–0712, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Please see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the
Carlos E. Merizalde, RCRA Corrective Action and Permitting Section, RCRA Cleanup and Brownfields Branch, Resource Conservation and Restoration Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; telephone number: (404) 562–8606; fax number: (404) 562–9964; email address:
Along with this proposed rule, EPA is publishing a direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission asks whether it should adopt a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to effective competition. A franchising authority is permitted to regulate basic cable rates only if the cable system is not subject to effective competition. This proceeding will also implement section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, which directs the Commission to adopt a streamlined effective competition process for small cable operators.
Comments are due on or before April 9, 2015; reply comments are due on or before April 20, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before May 19, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 15–53, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 15–30, adopted and released on March 16, 2015. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at
This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and agency comments are due May 19, 2015.
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) 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 (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page:
The Commission is seeking OMB approval for the proposed information collection requirements.
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), we seek comment on how we should improve the effective competition process. Specifically, we ask whether we should adopt a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to effective competition. Pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), a franchising authority is permitted to regulate basic cable rates only if the cable system is not subject to effective competition.
2. In initiating this proceeding, we are also implementing part of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), enacted on December 4, 2014. Specifically, section 111 of STELAR directs the Commission to adopt a streamlined effective competition petition process for small cable operators. Through this proceeding, we intend to fulfill Congress' goal that we ease the burden of the existing effective competition process on small cable operators, especially those that serve rural areas, through a rulemaking that shall be completed by June 2, 2015. We seek comment on whether the adoption of a rebuttable presumption of effective competition would reflect the current multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) marketplace and reduce regulatory burdens on all cable operators—large and small—and on their competitors, while more efficiently allocating the Commission's resources and amending outdated regulations.
3. In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“1992 Cable Act”), Congress adopted certain requirements for regulation of cable service rates. Specifically, section 623 of the Act indicates a “preference for competition,” pursuant to which a franchising authority may regulate basic cable service rates and equipment only if the Commission finds that the cable system is not subject to effective competition. Section 623(l)(1) of the Act defines “effective competition” to mean that:
• Fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a cable system;
• the franchise area is (i) served by at least two unaffiliated [MVPDs] each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and (ii) the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by [MVPDs] other than the largest [MVPD] exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area;
• a[n MVPD] operated by the franchising authority for that franchise area offers video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in that franchise area;
• a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any [MVPD] using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means
4. In 1993, the Commission implemented the statute's effective competition provisions. The Commission adopted a presumption that cable systems are not subject to effective competition and it provided that a franchising authority that wanted to regulate a cable operator's basic rates must be certified by the Commission. To obtain such certification, a franchising authority files with the Commission FCC Form 328, in which it indicates its belief that the cable system at issue is not subject to effective competition in the franchise area. Unless the franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary, under the current rules, it may rely on the presumption of no effective competition. If a cable operator wishes to prevent the franchising authority from regulating its basic service rate, it may rebut the presumption and demonstrate that it is in fact subject to effective competition. In addition to foreclosing regulation of the cable operator's basic rates, a Commission finding that a cable operator is subject to effective competition also affects applicability of other Commission rules.
5. In 1993, when the Commission adopted its presumption that cable systems are not subject to effective competition, incumbent cable operators had approximately a 95 percent market share of MVPD subscribers. Only a single cable operator served the local franchise area in all but “a few scattered areas of the country”
6. Today's MVPD marketplace is markedly different, with cable operators facing dramatically increased competition. The Commission has determined that the number of subscribers to MVPD service has decreased from year-end 2012 to year-end 2013 (from 101.0 million to 100.9 million) and this decrease is entirely due to cable MVPD subscribership, which fell from approximately 55.8 percent of MVPD video subscribers (56.4 million) to approximately 53.9 percent of MVPD video subscribers (54.4 million). In contrast, DBS's market share increased slightly from approximately 33.8 percent of MVPD video subscribers (34.1 million) to approximately 33.9 percent of MVPD video subscribers (34.2 million), and the market share for telephone MVPDs increased significantly from approximately 9.8 percent of MVPD video subscribers (9.9 million) to approximately 11.2 percent of MVPD video subscribers (11.3 million). DIRECTV provides local broadcast channels to 197 markets representing over 99 percent of U.S. homes, and DISH Network provides local broadcast channels to all 210 markets. According to published data, nearly 26 percent of American households in 2013 subscribed to DBS service. Given the 15 percent threshold needed to constitute competing provider effective competition, on a national scale DBS alone has close to double the percentage of subscribers needed for competing provider effective competition. As of year-end 2013, the two DBS MVPDs, DIRECTV and DISH Network, are the second and third largest MVPDs in the United States, respectively.
7. The current state of competition in the MVPD marketplace is further evidenced by the outcomes of recent effective competition determinations. From the start of 2013 to the present, the Media Bureau granted in their entirety 224 petitions requesting findings of effective competition and granted four such petitions in part; the Commission did not deny any such requests in their entirety. In these decisions, the Commission determined that 1,433 communities (as identified by separate Community Unit Identification Numbers (“CUIDs”)) have effective competition,
8. As noted above, at the time of its adoption, the presumption of no effective competition was eminently supportable. We seek comment on whether market changes over the intervening two decades have greatly
9. As explained above, a finding of competing provider effective competition requires that (1) the franchise area is “served by at least two unaffiliated [MVPDs] each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area;” and (2) “the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by [MVPDs] other than the largest [MVPD] exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area.”
10. With regard to the first prong of the test, we invite comment on whether we should presume that the ubiquitous nationwide presence of DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH Network, satisfies the requirement that the franchise area be served by two unaffiliated MVPDs each of which offers comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area. The Commission has held in hundreds of competing provider effective competition decisions that the presence of DIRECTV and DISH Network satisfies the first prong of the test. In fact, the Commission has never determined that the presence of DIRECTV and DISH Network failed to satisfy the first prong of the competing provider test. Moreover, nearly all homes in the U.S. have access to at least three MVPDs. And many areas have access to at least four MVPDs. With respect to the second prong of the competing provider test, we invite comment on whether we should presume that MVPDs other than the largest MVPD have captured more than 15 percent of the households in the franchise area, given that on a nationwide basis competitors to incumbent cable operators have captured approximately 34 percent of U.S. households, or more than twice the percentage needed to satisfy the second prong of the competing provider test.
11. Based on the analysis above, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a presumption that all cable operators are subject to competing provider effective competition. Is such a presumption warranted even though there may be some franchise areas that are not yet subject to effective competition? Based on market developments, is effective competition the norm throughout the United States today even though there still may be pockets of areas that may not be subject to effective competition? Is the most efficient process to establish a nationwide presumption that effective competition does exist, and to address these pocket areas on a case-by-case basis using the procedures we seek comment on below? We also seek comment on any proposals that we should consider in the alternative. For example, are there any areas in which DBS reception is so limited that the Commission should not presume DBS subscribership in excess of 15 percent of households? If there are any areas in which the Commission should not presume the existence of competing provider effective competition, what approach should the Commission take to the effective competition presumption in these areas? Should we retain in certain defined geographic areas the current presumption that cable operators are not subject to effective competition? If commenters support adoption of different rules in certain areas, we ask them to support such differentiated treatment with specific evidence and clear definitions for the areas in which the different rules would apply.
12. We seek comment on whether reversing the presumption would appropriately implement section 111 of STELAR. In section 111, Congress directed the Commission “to establish a streamlined process for filing of an effective competition petition pursuant to this section for small cable operators,” and reversing the presumption would establish a streamlined process for all cable operators including small operators. Congress also stated that “[n]othing in this subsection shall be construed to have any effect on the duty of a small cable operator to prove the existence of effective competition under this section.” Would changing the presumption fulfill the Commission's responsibilities under section 111? Or, in light of the language in section 111 quoted above, would the Commission need to rely on other statutory authority to change the presumption and thus be required to take action beyond changing the presumption to implement section 111? Does section 111 alter or impose any additional duty on a small cable operator to prove the existence of effective competition? We note that, if this provision were read to restrict the Commission from changing the presumption for small operators, it could have the perverse effect of permitting the Commission, consistent with market realities, to reduce burdens on larger operators but not on smaller ones. We also note that section 111 does not by its own terms preclude the Commission from altering the burden of proof with respect to effective competition. Rather, it simply states that nothing in that particular statutory provision shall be construed as speaking to the issue with respect to small cable operators.
13. If we find that adopting a presumption of effective competition would not implement STELAR's effective competition provision, then how should we implement section 111? Specifically, we invite comment on what streamlined procedures, if any, we should adopt for small cable operators. We note that STELAR directs us to define a “small cable operator” in this
14. In this section, we invite comment on revised procedures and rule changes that would be necessary if we decide to implement a presumption of effective competition. At the outset, we note that many franchising authorities have certified to regulate basic service tier rates and equipment based on the existing presumption of no effective competition. We seek comment on the appropriate treatment of these certifications. If the presumption is ultimately reversed, should these certifications be administratively revoked on the effective date of the new presumption pursuant to sections 623(a)(1) and (2) because their reliance on the presumption of no effective competition would no longer be supportable? If such certifications are administratively revoked, the franchising authority would have to demonstrate that the cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to the procedures we seek comment on below before it could regulate rates in a community. In such instances, we seek comment on whether -section 76.913(a) of our rules, which otherwise directs the Commission to regulate rates upon revocation of a franchising authority's certification, would apply. In this regard, we note that section 76.913(a) states that “the Commission will regulate rates for cable services and associated equipment of a cable system not subject to effective competition,” and here the revocation would be based on a presumption of effective competition. Would a finding that section 76.913(a) does not apply in this context be consistent with section 623(a)(6) of the Act, which requires the Commission to “exercise the franchising authority's regulatory jurisdiction [over the rates for the provision of basic cable service]” if the Commission either (1) disapproves a franchising authority's certification filing under section 623(a)(4) or (2) grants a petition requesting revocation of the franchising authority's jurisdiction to regulate rates under section 623(a)(5)? We note that here we would be administratively revoking the franchising authority's jurisdiction under -sections 623(a)(1) and (2), rather than based on a determination described in section 623(a)(5). Would the one-time revocation of existing certifications following adoption of the order in this proceeding necessitate any revisions to section 76.913(a) or any other Commission rules?
15. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether certifications should be revoked 90 days after the effective date of the new presumption. During this 90-day period, a franchising authority with an existing certification would have the opportunity to file a new certification demonstrating that effective competition does not exist in a particular franchise area. If a franchising authority did not file such a new certification, then rate regulation would end in that community at the conclusion of the 90-day period. If a franchising authority did file a new certification, we seek comment on whether that franchising authority should retain the authority to regulate rates until the Commission completes its review of that certification. We also seek comment on whether such a transition process would be consistent with -section 76.913(a) of our rules and section 623(a)(6) of the Act and whether implementing it would require any revisions to section 76.913(a).
16. If we were to reverse the presumption, we seek comment on procedures by which a franchising authority may file a Form 328 demonstrating that effective competition does not exist in a particular franchise area. We seek comment on whether it would be most administratively efficient for franchising authorities, cable operators, and the Commission to incorporate effective competition showings within the certification process, rather than requiring a separate filing. Specifically, when a franchising authority seeks certification to regulate a cable operator's basic service tier and associated equipment, should it continue to file FCC Form 328? Should we revise Question 6 of that form to state the new presumption that cable systems are subject to effective competition, and to require a supplement to Form 328 which contains evidence adequate to satisfy the franchising authority's burden of rebutting the presumption of competing provider effective competition with specific evidence that such effective competition does not exist in the franchise area in question?
17. We seek comment on procedures by which a cable operator may oppose a certification. Should we permit a cable operator to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 76.911 of our rules, demonstrating that it satisfies any of the four tests for effective competition? Should the procedures set forth in section 1.106 of our rules continue to govern responsive pleadings thereto? If a franchising authority successfully rebuts a presumption of competing provider effective competition, a cable operator seeking to demonstrate that low penetration, municipal provider, or LEC effective competition exists in the franchise area would bear the burden of demonstrating the presence of such effective competition, whereas we would presume the presence of competing provider effective competition absent a franchising authority's demonstration to the contrary. We ask commenters whether we should retain the requirement in section 76.911(b)(1) that the filing of a petition for reconsideration alleging that effective competition exists would automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation pending the outcome of the reconsideration proceeding. Should we make any revisions to existing section 76.911 of our rules? If the Commission does not act on a section 76.911 petition for reconsideration within six months, should the petition be deemed granted based on the same finding that would underlie a presumption of competing provider effective competition,
18. Our rules currently permit cable operators to request information from a competitor about the competitor's reach and number of subscribers, if the evidence establishing effective competition is not otherwise available. We invite comment on whether we should amend our rules to provide that if a franchising authority filing Form 328 wishes to demonstrate a lack of effective competition and necessary evidence is not otherwise available, the franchising authority may request directly from an MVPD information regarding the MVPD's reach and number of subscribers in a particular franchise area. What would be the costs and benefits of such an approach? As currently required for such requests by cable operators, should we require the MVPD to respond to such a request within 15 days, and should we retain the requirement that such responses may be limited to numerical totals related to subscribership and reach? Existing section 76.907(c), which governs such requests in the context of petitions for a determination of effective competition and which also applies to petitions for reconsideration of certification pursuant to section 76.911(a)(1), would remain in effect.
19. We ask commenters to indicate whether any other revisions to the rules would be necessary to implement a new effective competition framework in which we presume the existence of competing provider effective competition. In addition, we invite comment on whether the new rules and procedures for effective competition should go into effect once the Commission announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) of the rules that require such approval.
20. Similarly, if the Commission adopts an order implementing the presumption that cable operators are subject to effective competition, how should we address cable operator petitions seeking findings of effective competition that are pending as of the adoption date? Should any such petitions that are pending as of the effective date of the new rules be granted? Or should such petitions be adjudicated on the merits under the new presumption of competing provider effective competition? Should different procedures apply if a pending petition seeking a finding of effective competition was opposed? We also seek comment on any other appropriate manner in which we should dispose of these pending petitions.
21. If the Commission adopts a new presumption, we invite comment on whether the new procedures we seek comment on above overall would be less burdensome for cable operators including small operators, and whether fewer effective competition determinations would require Commission adjudication. Approximately how many franchising authorities with current certifications will submit a new FCC Form 328, and for approximately how many CUIDs? We invite comment on whether we should retain section 76.907 of our rules, which governs petitions for a determination of effective competition. If a franchising authority is certified after a presumption of competing provider effective competition is adopted, a cable operator may at a later date wish to file a petition for a determination of effective competition demonstrating that circumstances have changed and one of the four types of effective competition exists. If we retain section 76.907 and adopt a presumption of competing provider effective competition, we would need to revise section 76.907(b) to reflect the new presumption.
22. We invite comment on whether franchising authorities, including small franchising authorities, would face significant, unreasonable burdens in preparing revised Form 328, including the attachment rebutting a presumption of competing provider effective competition. Would any such burdens be justified given the prevalence of effective competition in the market today? Should we take any actions to mitigate the burdens on franchising authorities, particularly small franchising authorities, or do so few franchising authorities expend the resources needed to regulate basic cable rates that separate procedures are not needed? If commenters seek different rules applicable to small franchising authorities, what rules should we adopt and how should we define “small franchising authority” in this context? For example, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
23. What are the costs and benefits that would result from the adoption of a presumption of competing provider effective competition? Would such a presumption ease significant burdens that cable operators currently face in filing effective competition petitions
24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),
25. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how it should improve the effective competition process. Specifically, it asks whether it should adopt a rebuttable presumption that cable operators are subject to effective competition. Pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), a franchising authority is permitted to regulate basic cable rates only if the cable system is not subject to effective competition.
26. In initiating this proceeding, we are also implementing part of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (“STELAR”), enacted on December 4, 2014. Specifically, section 111 of STELAR directs the Commission to adopt a streamlined effective competition petition process for small cable operators. Through this proceeding, we intend to fulfill Congress' goal that we ease the burden of the existing effective competition process on small cable operators, especially those that serve rural areas, through a rulemaking that shall be completed by June 2, 2015. We seek comment on whether the adoption of a rebuttable presumption of effective competition would reflect the current multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) marketplace and reduce regulatory burdens on all cable operators—large and small—and on their competitors, while more efficiently allocating the Commission's resources and amending outdated regulations.
27. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 543, and section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Public Law 113–200, section 111, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014).
28. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36. The NPRM invites comment on whether the Commission should presume that cable operators are subject to competing provider effective competition, with the burden of rebutting this presumption falling on the franchising authority. If such an approach is adopted, a franchising authority seeking certification to regulate a cable system's basic service would file FCC Form 328, including a demonstration that the franchising authority has met its burden. Franchising authorities are already required to file FCC Form 328 to obtain certification to regulate a cable system's basic service, but the demonstration rebutting a presumption of competing provider effective competition would be a new requirement. Cable operators, including small cable operators, would retain the burden of demonstrating the presence of any other type of effective competition, which a cable operator may seek to demonstrate if a franchising authority rebuts the presumption of competing provider effective competition. A cable operator opposing a certification would be permitted to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 76.911 of our rules, as is currently the case, demonstrating that it satisfies any of the four tests for effective competition. The procedures set forth in section 1.106 of our rules would continue to govern responsive pleadings thereto. While a certification would become effective 30 days after the date filed unless the Commission notifies the franchising authority otherwise, the filing of a petition for reconsideration based on the presence
37. Some franchising authorities have current certifications that will be in place as of the effective date of the new rules. The NPRM asks whether, if the presumption is ultimately reversed, these certifications should be administratively revoked on the effective date of the new presumption. The NPRM also asks how the Commission should address cable operator petitions seeking findings of effective competition that are pending as of the adoption date of a presumption of competing provider effective competition, including whether the Commission should grant any such petitions.
38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
39. Overall, the Commission seeks to adopt an approach that will more closely correspond to the current marketplace, and it aims to lessen the number of effective competition determinations addressed by the Commission and thus to reduce regulatory burdens on cable operators and their competitors, and to more efficiently allocate the Commission's resources and amend outdated regulations. In paragraphs 21–23 of the NPRM, the Commission considers the impact of procedures implementing a presumption of competing provider effective competition on all entities, including small entities. The Commission invites comment on whether the new procedures it seeks comment on overall would be less burdensome for cable operators, including small operators, and whether fewer effective competition determinations would require Commission adjudication. The NPRM asks whether franchising authorities, including small franchising authorities, would face significant, unreasonable burdens in preparing revised Form 328, including the attachment rebutting a presumption of competing provider effective competition. The NPRM asks whether any such burdens would be justified given the prevalence of effective competition in the market today, and whether the Commission should take any actions to mitigate the burdens on franchising authorities, particularly small franchising authorities. If commenters seek different rules applicable to small franchising authorities, the Commission asks what rules it should adopt and how it should define “small franchising authority” in this context. Overall, the Commission solicits alternative proposals, and it will welcome those that would alleviate any burdens on small entities. The Commission will consider alternatives to minimize the regulatory impact on small entities. For example, the NPRM seeks comment on any proposals that it should consider in the alternative, including whether there are any areas in which DBS reception is so limited that the Commission should not presume DBS subscribership in excess of 15 percent of households. Additionally, the NPRM asks whether the Commission should implement an alternate approach of presuming that the franchising authority lacks legal authority to adopt rate regulations, based on a presumption of competing provider effective competition.
40. None.
41. This document contains proposed new or revised information collection requirements, including the processes that would apply if the Commission adopts a rebuttable presumption of effective competition. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
42.
43.
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
44.
45.
46. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
47. Accordingly,
48.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 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, 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.
In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed to be subject to effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(2).
(b) If the cable operator seeks to demonstrate that effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4) exists in the franchise area, it bears the burden of demonstrating the presence of such effective competition. Effective competition as defined in § 76.905(b)(2) is governed by the presumption in § 76.906.
The criteria for determining effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(4) are described in Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order in CS Docket No. 96–85, FCC 99–57 (released March 29, 1999).
(b) * * *
(4) The cable system in question is not subject to effective competition. The franchising authority must submit specific evidence demonstrating its rebuttal of the presumption in § 76.906 that the cable operator is subject to effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(2). Unless a franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary, the franchising authority may presume that the cable operator is not subject to effective competition pursuant to § 76.905(b)(1), (3) or (4).
The franchising authority bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that effective competition exists with evidence that effective competition, as defined in § 76.905(b)(2), does not exist in the franchise area. If the evidence establishing the lack of effective competition is not otherwise available, franchising authorities may request from a multichannel video programming distributor information regarding the multichannel video programming distributor's reach and number of subscribers. A multichannel video programming distributor must respond to such request within 15 days. Such responses may be limited to numerical totals.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 20, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In April 2012 the authority for collecting Dairy Product Prices was moved from NASS to the Agricultural Marketing Service.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 20, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725–17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications for permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that James Shine, Ph.D., Harvard University School of Public Health, 401 Park Drive, 404H West, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, and the NMFS Forensics Office, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412, have applied for amendments to their respective permits, Scientific Research Permit Nos. 17278 and 17557.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.
The applications and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376.
Written comments on these applications should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate.
Jennifer Skidmore, Amy Sloan, or Malcolm Mohead; phone: (301) 427–8401.
The subject amendments to these permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 17278, issued on August 29, 2012 (77 FR 54902), authorizes Dr. Shine to import and receive parts from subsistence-collected long-finned pilot whales (
Permit No. 17557, issued on August 9, 2013 (78 FR 50395), authorizes the NMFS Forensics Office to receive, import, export, transfer, archive, and conduct analyses marine mammal and endangered species parts. Species include all those covered under the MMPA and ESA under NMFS jurisdiction. Samples are archived at the lab and used to support law enforcement actions, research studies (primarily genetics), and outreach education. The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include scalloped hammerhead sharks (S
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that
Rebecca Trainor or Reza Karamloo, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482–4470, respectively.
On the same day the Department initiated this CVD investigation, the Department also initiated a CVD investigation of welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and AD investigations of welded line pipe from Korea and Turkey.
The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I.
Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we have disregarded
Because we preliminarily determine that the CVD rates in this investigation are
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 75 days after we make our final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.
The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 1450; by telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email at
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Act”) was enacted into law on September 16, 2011. Public Law 112–29, 125 Stat. 283 (2011). Under section 10(b) of the Act, eligible small entities shall receive a 50 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents. The Act further provides that micro entities shall receive a 75 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.
This information collection covers the submissions made by patent applicants and patentees to excuse small and micro entity fee payment errors. Specifically, 37 CFR 1.28(c) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the small entity amount. 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the micro entity amount.
This information collection is necessary so that patent applicants and patentees may pay the balance of fees due (
The items in this collection may be submitted online using EFS-Web, the USPTO's Web-based electronic filing system, or on paper by either mail or hand delivery.
The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs is $504.00 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email at
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131
The information in this collection can be submitted electronically through EFS-Web, the USPTO's web-based electronic filing system, as well as on paper. The USPTO therefore accounts for both electronic and paper submissions in this collection.
Electronically if applicants submit the information using the TEAS forms. By mail or hand delivery if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form.
The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage is $57.50 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final notice.
The NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) publishes this notice to announce that it is establishing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for its uniformed enforcement officers (EOs). Current OPM regulations allow an agency to establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the government-wide maximum uniform allowance rate. OLE increases the current annual limit for NMFS EOs in order to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of its EOs under its new uniform standards.
The new uniform allowance is implemented as of April 1, 2015.
Everett Baxter, 301–427–8272.
NMFS is implementing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and furnish uniform items for its enforcement officers (EOs). The current $800.00 annual limit is inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of NMFS EOs under its new uniform standards. In addition, OLE now has a new uniform policy requiring five classes of uniforms. In the past, EOs only had two classes of uniforms. As a result of these two factors, OLE increases the initial maximum uniform allowance for EOs from $800 to $2,000.
OLE published a notice with a request for comments in the
5 U.S.C. 5903; E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 316.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
We are issuing this notice to advise the public that NMFS has prepared a new Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in response to the Makah Tribe's request that NMFS waive the take moratorium of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to allow for treaty right hunting of eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales in usual and accustomed grounds off the coast of Washington State. We are requesting written comments on the DEIS and announcing the dates and locations of two public meetings regarding the DEIS.
Two public meetings will be held as follows:
(1) April 27, 2015, Seattle, Washington; and
(2) April 29, 2015, Port Angeles, Washington.
Specific times and locations for each of these meetings are included in
Written or electronic comments on the DEIS from all interested parties are encouraged and must be received no later than 5 p.m. PDT on June 11, 2015. All comments and material received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0104, by any of the following methods:
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Steve Stone, NMFS Northwest Region, (503) 231–2317 or Shannon Bettridge, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427–8402.
The DEIS is available in electronic form on the Internet at the following address:
(1) NMFS Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Contact Steve Stone at 503–231–2317; and
(2) NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 1, Seattle, WA 98115–6349. Contact Leah Mattox at 206–526– 6150.
The public will have the opportunity to provide written and oral comments on the DEIS at two public meetings. Dates, times, and addresses for the public meetings are as follows:
(1) April 27, 2015, 6:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m., NOAA Western Regional Center, Building 9 (Kelly C. Sandy III Auditorium), 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115; and
(2) April 29, 2015, 6:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m., Vern Burton Memorial Community Center, 308 East 4th Street, Port Angeles, WA.
On March 13, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the availability of NMFS' DEIS concerning the Makah Indian Tribe's February 2005 request to resume limited hunting of ENP gray whales in the coastal portion of the Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing grounds, off the coast of Washington State, for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. Informed by information received during public scoping, this DEIS contains updates and a new set of alternatives compared to a previous DEIS released on May 9, 2008 (73 FR 26394) and later terminated on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 29967). The Tribe's proposed action stems from the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which expressly secures the Makah Tribe's right to hunt whales. To exercise that right, the Tribe is seeking authorization from NMFS under the MMPA and the Whaling Convention Act. The release of this new DEIS is one of several steps NMFS will undertake to evaluate the Tribe's request.
The DEIS, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, considers various alternatives to the Tribe's proposed action. To develop the full range of action alternatives—five in total—we considered the principal components associated with a hunt, including: The time when whale hunting would occur; the area where whale hunting would occur; the annual and six-year limits on the number of whales harvested, struck, and struck and lost; cessation of whale hunting if a predetermined number of identified whales (
The DEIS provides an important opportunity for the public to formally comment on the Tribe's proposal and the various alternatives. These comments, in conjunction with considerations described in the DEIS, will provide key information to assist NMFS with its final decision on the Tribe's request.
For access to the Federal government building in Seattle, Washington, the Department of Commerce Western Region Security Office has advised that all attendees must have valid government-issued identification (e.g., driver's license, tribal identification card, or passport). Prospective attendees for the public meeting in the NOAA Auditorium in Seattle, Washington should submit their first and last names and affiliation, if appropriate, via the NMFS email site (See
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact Steve Stone (see
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 186 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from SAExploration Inc. (SAE) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a proposed oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet, Alaska between April 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to SAE to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 20, 2015.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
An electronic copy of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
We are also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The EA will be posted at the NOAA Fisheries Incidental Take internet site once it is finalized.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On October 28, 2014, we received a request from SAE for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to seismic surveys in Cook Inlet, Alaska. After further correspondence and revisions by the applicant, we determined that the application was adequate and complete on January 12, 2015.
SAE proposes to conduct oil and gas exploration seismic surveys. The proposed activity would occur between April 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015, for a period of 160 days. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Operation of seismic airguns in arrays of 440 in
SAE plans to conduct 3D seismic surveys over multiple years in the marine waters of both upper and lower Cook Inlet. This proposed authorization will cover activities occurring between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016. The ultimate survey area is divided into two units (upper and lower Cook Inlet). The total potential survey area is 3,934 square kilometers (1,519 square miles); however, only a portion (currently unspecified) of this area will ultimately be surveyed, and no more than 777 square kilometers (300 square miles) in a given year. The exact location of where the 2015 survey will be conducted is not known at this time, and probably will not be known until spring 2015 when SAE's clients have finalized their data acquisition needs.
The components of the project include laying recording sensors (nodes) on the ocean floor, operating seismic source vessels towing active air gun arrays, and retrieval of nodes. There will also be additional boat activity associated with crew transfer, recording support, and additional monitoring for marine mammals. The primary seismic source for offshore recording consists of a 2 x 880-cubic-inch tri-cluster array for a total of 1,760-cubic-inches (although a 440-cubic-inch array may be used in very shallow water locations as necessary). Each of the arrays will be deployed in a configuration outlined in Appendix A of the application. The arrays will be centered approximately 15 meters (50 feet) behind the source vessel stern, at a depth of 4 meters (12 feet), and towed along predetermined source lines at speeds between 7.4 and 9.3 kilometers per hour (4 and 5 knots). Two vessels with full arrays will be operating simultaneously in an alternating shot mode; one vessel shooting while the other is recharging. Shot intervals are expected to be about 16 seconds for each array resulting in an overall shot interval of 8 seconds considering the two alternating arrays. Operations are expected to occur 24 hours a day, with actual daily shooting to total about 12 hours. An acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to position and interpolate the location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted transceiver calculates the position of the nodes by measuring the range and bearing from the transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted to every third node. The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the transponders, which respond with short pulses that are used in measuring the range and bearing. Several offshore vessels will be required to support recording, shooting, and housing in the marine and transition zone environments. Exact vessels to be used have not been determined.
The request for incidental harassment authorization is for the 2015 Cook Inlet open water season (April 1 to December 31). All associated activities, including mobilization, survey activities, and demobilization of survey and support crews, would occur between the above dates. The plan is to conduct seismic surveys in the Upper Cook unit sometime between April 1 and December 31. The northern border of the seismic survey area depicted in Figure 1 takes into account the restriction that no activity occur between April 15 to October 15 in waters within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Susitna Delta (defined as the nearshore area between the mouths of the Beluga and the Little Susitna rivers). A small wedge of the upper Cook unit falls within 16 kilometers of the Beluga River mouth, but survey here would occur after October 15, taking into account any timing restrictions with nearshore beluga habitat. The seismic acquisition in lower Cook unit would initially begin in late August or mid-September, and run until December 15 taking into account any self-imposed location/timing restrictions to avoid encounters with sea otters or Steller's eiders. The exact survey dates in a given unit will depend on ice conditions, timing restrictions, and other factors. If the upper Cook Inlet seismic surveys are delayed by spring ice conditions, some survey may occur in lower Cook Inlet from March to May to maximize use of the seismic fleet. Actual data acquisition is expected to occur for only 2 to 3 hours at a time during each of the 3 to 4 daily slack tides. Thus, it is expected that the air guns would operate an average of about 8 to 10 total hours per day. It is estimated that it will take 160 days to complete both the upper and lower Cook units, and that no more than 777 square kilometers (300 square miles) of survey area will be shot in 2015.
The area of Cook Inlet that SAE plans to operate in has been divided into two subsections: Upper and Lower Cook Inlet. Upper Cook (2,126 square kilometers; 821 square miles) begins at the line delineating Cook Inlet beluga whale (
Lower Cook (1,808 square kilometer; 698 square mile) begins east of Kalgin Island and running along the east side of lower Cook Inlet to Anchor Point (Figure 2 in SAE application).
Marine seismic operations will be based on a “recording patch” or similar approach. Patches are groups of six receiver lines and 32 source lines (Figure 3 in SAE application). Each receiver line has submersible marine sensor nodes tethered (with non-kinking, non-floating line) equidistant (50 meters; 165 feet) from each other along the length of the line. Each node is a multicomponent system containing three velocity sensors and a hydrophone (Figure 4 in SAE application). Each receiver line is approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) in length, and are spaced approximately 402 meters (1,320 feet) apart. Each receiver patch is 19.4 square kilometers (7.5 square miles) in area. The receiver patch is oriented such that the receiver lines run parallel to the shoreline.
The 32 source lines, 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) long and spaced 502 meters (1,650 feet) apart, run perpendicular to the receiver lines (and perpendicular to the coast) and, where possible, will extend approximately 5 kilometers (3 miles) beyond the outside receiver lines and approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) beyond each of the ends of the receiver lines. The outside dimensions of the maximum shot area during a patch shoot will be 12 kilometers by 16 kilometers (7.5 miles by 10 miles), with an area of 192 square kilometers (754 square miles). All shot areas will be wholly contained within the survey boxes depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE's application. Shot intervals along each source line will be 50 meters (165 feet).
It may take a period of three three to five days to deploy, shoot, and record a single receiver patch. On average, approximately 49 square kilometers (18.75 square miles) of patch will be shot daily. During recording of one patch, nodes from the previously surveyed patch will be retrieved, recharged, and data downloaded prior to redeployment of the nodes to the next patch. As patches are recorded, receiver lines are moved side to side or end to end to the next patch location so that receiver lines have continuous coverage of the recording area. Autonomous recording nodes lack cables but will be tethered together using a thin rope for ease of retrieval. This non-floating, non-kinking rope will lay on the seabed surface, as will the nodes, and will have no effect on marine traffic. Primary vessel positioning will be achieved using GPS with the antenna attached to the air gun array. Pingers deployed from the node vessels will be used for positioning of nodes. The geometry/patch could be modified as operations progress to improve sampling and operational efficiency.
Air guns are the acoustic sources of primary concern and will be deployed from the seismic vessels. However, there are other noise sources to be considered. These include the pingers and transponders associated with locating receiver nodes, as well as propeller noise from the vessel fleet.
The primary seismic source for offshore recording consists of a 2 x 880-cubic-inch tri-cluster array for a total of 1,760-cubic-inches (although a 440-cubic-inch array may be used in very shallow water locations as necessary). Each of the arrays will be deployed in a configuration outlined in Appendix A. The arrays will be centered approximately 15 meters (50 feet) behind the source vessel stern, at a depth of 4 meters (12 feet), and towed along predetermined source lines at speeds between 7.4 and 9.3 kilometers per hour (4 and 5 knots). Two vessels with full arrays will be operating simultaneously in an alternating shot mode; one vessel shooting while the other is recharging. Shot intervals are expected to be about 16 seconds for each array resulting in an overall shot interval of 8 seconds considering the two alternating arrays. Operations are expected to occur 24 hours a day, with actual daily shooting to total about 12 hours.
Based on the manufacturer's specifications, the 1,760-cubic-inch array has a peak-peak estimated sound source of 254.55 dB (decibels) re 1 micropascals (μPa) @ 1 m (53.5 bar-m; Far-field Signature, Appendix A), with a root mean square (rms) sound source of 236.55 dB re 1 μPa. The manufacturer-provided source directivity plots for the three possible air gun arrays are shown in Appendix A of the application. They clearly indicate that the acoustical broadband energy is concentrated along the vertical axis (focused downward), while there is little energy focused horizontally. The spacing between air guns results in offset arrival timing of the sound energy. These delays “smear” the sound signature as offset energy waves partially cancel each other, which reduces the amplitude in the horizontal direction. Thus, marine mammals near the surface and horizontal to the air gun
Air gun arrays typically produce most noise energy in the 10- to 120-hertz range, with some energy extending to 1 kilohertz (kHz) (Richardson
An acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to position and interpolate the location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted transceiver calculates the position of the nodes by measuring the range and bearing from the transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted to every third node. The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the transponders, which respond with short pulses that are used in measuring the range and bearing. The system provides a precise location of every node as needed for accurate interpretation of the seismic data. The transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne Scout USBL, while transponders will be the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815–000–06. Because the transceiver and transponder communicate via sonar, they produce underwater sound levels. The Scout USBL transceiver has a transmission source level of 197 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m (rms) and operates at frequencies between 35 and 55 kHz. The transponder produces short pulses of 184 to 187 dB re 1 μPa (rms) @ 1 m at frequencies also between 35 and 55 kHz.
Both transceivers and transponders produce noise levels just above or within the most sensitive hearing range of seals (75 Hz to 100 kHz; (Hemilä
SAE will be using a variety of vessels to conduct the seismic survey and related activities. These include: Two source vessels, three node equipment deployment and retrieval vessels, one mitigation and housing vessel, one crew transport vessel, and two bow pickers.
Marine mammals most likely to be found in the upper Cook activity area are the beluga whale (
Although there is considerable distributional overlap in the humpback whale stocks that use Alaska, the whales seasonally found in lower Cook Inlet are probably of the Central North Pacific stock. Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this stock has recently been estimated at 7,469, with the portion of the stock that feeds in the Gulf of Alaska estimated at 2,845 animals (Allen and Angliss 20143). The Central North Pacific stock winters in Hawaii and summers from British Columbia to the Aleutian Islands (Calambokidis
Humpback use of Cook Inlet is largely confined to lower Cook Inlet. They have been regularly seen near Kachemak Bay during the summer months (Rugh
Minke whales are the smallest of the rorqual group of baleen whales reaching lengths of up to 35 feet. They are also the most common of the baleen whales, although there are no population estimates for the North Pacific, although estimates have been made for some portions of Alaska. Zerbini
During Cook Inlet-wide aerial surveys conducted from 1993 to 2004, minke whales were encountered only twice (1998, 1999), both times off Anchor Point 16 miles northwest of Homer. A minke whale was also reported off Cape Starichkof in 2011 (A. Holmes, pers. comm.) and 2013 (E. Fernandez and C. Hesselbach, pers. comm.), suggesting this location is regularly used by minke whales, including during the winter. Recently, several minke whales were recorded off Cape Starichkof in early summer 2013 during exploratory drilling conducted there (Owl Ridge 2014). There are no records north of Cape Starichkof, and this species is unlikely to be seen in upper Cook Inlet. There is a chance of encountering this whale during seismic operations along the Kenai Peninsula in lower Cook Inlet.
Each spring, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale migrates 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) northward from breeding lagoons in Baja California to feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi seas, reversing their travel again in the fall (Rice and Wolman 1971). Their migration route is for the most part coastal until they reach the feeding grounds. A small portion of whales do not annually complete the full circuit, as small numbers can be found in the summer feeding along the Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts (Rice
Human exploitation reduced this stock to an estimated “few thousand” animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). However, by the late 1980s, the stock was appearing to reach carrying capacity and estimated to be at 26,600 animals (Jones and Schwartz 2002). By 2002, that stock had been reduced to about 16,000 animals, especially following unusually high mortality events in 1999 and 2000 (Allen and Angliss 2014). The stock has continued to grow since then and is currently estimated at 19,126 animals with a minimum estimate of 18,017 (Carretta
Most gray whales migrate past the mouth of Cook Inlet to and from northern feeding grounds. However, small numbers of summering gray whales have been noted by fisherman near Kachemak Bay and north of Anchor Point. Further, summering gray whales were seen offshore of Cape Starichkof by marine mammal observers monitoring Buccaneer's Cosmopolitan drilling program in 2013 (Owl Ridge 2014). Regardless, gray whales are not expected to be encountered in upper Cook Inlet, where there are no records, but might be encountered during seismic operations along the Kenai Peninsula south of Ninilchik. However, seismic surveys are not planned in this region during the summer months when gray whales would be most expected.
The Cook Inlet beluga whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a small geographically isolated population that is separated from other beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula. The population is genetically (mtDNA) distinct from other Alaska populations suggesting the Peninsula is an effective barrier to genetic exchange (O'Corry-Crowe
The Cook Inlet beluga DPS was originally estimated at 1,300 whales in 1979 (Calkins 1989) and has been the focus of management concerns since experiencing a dramatic decline in the 1990s. Between 1994 and 1998 the stock declined 47 percent which was attributed to overharvesting by subsistence hunting. Subsistence hunting was estimated to annually
Prior to the decline, this DPS was believed to range throughout Cook Inlet and occasionally into Prince William Sound and Yakutat (Nemeth
Harbor porpoise are small (1.5 meters length), relatively inconspicuous toothed whales. The Gulf of Alaska Stock is distributed from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass and was most recently estimated at 31,046 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014). They are found primarily in coastal waters less than 100 meters (100 meters) deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010) where they feed on Pacific herring (
Although they have been frequently observed during aerial surveys in Cook Inlet, most sightings are of single animals, and are concentrated at Chinitna and Tuxedni bays on the west
Dall's porpoise are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean including Alaska, although they are not found in upper Cook Inlet and the shallower waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss 2014). Compared to harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise prefer the deep offshore and shelf slope waters. The Alaskan population has been estimated at 83,400 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), making it one of the more common cetaceans in the state. Dall's porpoise have been observed in lower Cook Inlet, including Kachemak Bay and near Anchor Point (Owl Ridge 2014), but sightings there are rare. There is a remote chance that Dall's porpoise might be encountered during seismic operations along the Kenai Peninsula.
Two different stocks of killer whales inhabit the Cook Inlet region of Alaska: the Alaska Resident Stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock (Allen and Angliss 2014). The resident stock is estimated at 2,347 animals and occurs from Southeast Alaska to the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2014). Resident whales feed exclusively on fish and are genetically distinct from transient whales (Saulitis
Killer whales are occasionally observed in lower Cook Inlet, especially near Homer and Port Graham (Shelden
The Western Stock of the Steller sea lion is defined as all populations west of longitude 144°W to the western end of the Aleutian Islands. The most recent estimate for this stock is 45,649 animals (Allen and Angliss 2014), considerably less than that estimated 140,000 animals in the 1950s (Merrick
Steller sea lions inhabit lower Cook Inlet, especially in the vicinity of Shaw Island and Elizabeth Island (Nagahut Rocks) haulout sites (Rugh
The upper reaches of Cook Inlet may not provide adequate foraging conditions for sea lions for establishing a major haul out presence. Steller sea lions feed largely on walleye pollock (
With more than 150,000 animals state-wide (Allen and Angliss 2014), harbor seals are one of the more common marine mammal species in Alaskan waters. They are most commonly seen hauled out at tidal flats and rocky areas. Harbor seals feed largely on schooling fish such a walleye pollock, Pacific cod, salmon, Pacific herring, eulachon, and squid. Although harbor seals may make seasonal movements in response to prey, they are resident to Alaska and do not migrate.
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Stock, ranging from approximately Anchorage down along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula to Unimak Pass, has been recently estimated at a stable 22,900 (Allen and Angliss 2014). Large numbers concentrate at the river mouths and embayments of lower Cook Inlet, including the Fox River mouth in Kachemak Bay (Rugh
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components (
Operating active acoustic sources, such as airgun arrays, has the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; (Ketten and Mountain 2009; Tubelli
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; (Southall
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; (Southall
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; (Hemilä
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz. (Reichmuth
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal species (seven cetacean and two pinniped species) are likely to occur in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in SAE's proposed project area, three classified as a low-frequency cetaceans (humpback, minke, gray whale), two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (beluga and killer whales), and two are classified as a high-frequency cetaceans (Dall's and harbor porpoise) (Southall
The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-auditory effects (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict. The consequences of behavioral modification to individual fitness can range from none up to potential changes to growth, survival, or reproduction, depending on the context, duration, and degree of behavioral modification. Examples of behavioral modifications that could impact growth, survival or reproduction include: Drastic changes in diving/surfacing/swimming patterns that lead to stranding (such as those associated with beaked whale strandings related to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar); longer-term abandonment of habitat that is specifically important for feeding, reproduction, or other critical needs, or significant disruption of feeding or social interaction resulting in substantive energetic costs, inhibited
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
Toothed whales. Few systematic data are available describing reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. However, systematic work on sperm whales (Tyack
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (
Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project) beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United Kingdom from 1997—2000 have provided data on the occurrence and behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; Gordon
Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based on the limited existing evidence, belugas should not necessarily generally be grouped with delphinids in the “less responsive” category.
Pinnipeds. Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996–2001 provided considerable information regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris
Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic surveys, sound will consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between air gun shots (approximately 12 seconds). However, at long distances (over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be “stretched” to seconds with long decays (Madsen
This could affect communication signals used by low frequency mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions, masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies might suggest (Richardson
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
Although the published body of scientific literature contains numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound,
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during the proposed seismic surveys in Cook Inlet. Cetaceans generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent as those of cetaceans, and occasionally they seem to be attracted to operating seismic vessels (NMFS, 2010).
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response, which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with “stress.” These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion. For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (sensu Seyle, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-term (days or weeks) stress response due to exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton
For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics. Although empirical information on the effects of sensory impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, we assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather information about its environment and communicate with other members of its species would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and because marine mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress responses. However, marine mammals also might experience stress responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also assumes that stress responses could persist beyond the time interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral responses to TTS. Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble formations (Crum
In general, very little is known about the potential for strong, anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
However, in past IHA notices for seismic surveys, commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times, including in the
It should be noted that strandings related to sound exposure have not been recorded for marine mammal species in Cook Inlet. Beluga whale strandings in Cook Inlet are not uncommon; however, these events often coincide with extreme tidal fluctuations (“spring tides”) or killer whale sightings (Shelden
Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed for SAE's oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. The specifications for the pingers (source levels and frequency ranges) were provided earlier in this document. In general, pingers are known to cause behavioral disturbance and are commonly used to deter marine mammals from commercial fishing gear or fish farms. Due to the potential to change marine mammal behavior, shut downs described for airguns will also be applied to pinger use.
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will temporarily increase in the action area during SAE's seismic survey as a result of the operation of nine vessels. To minimize the effects of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, SAE will follow NMFS's Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines and Regulations and will alter heading or speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel. In addition, vessels will be operating at slow speed (4–5 knots) when conducting surveys and in a purposeful manner to and from work sites in as direct a route as possible. Marine mammal monitoring observers and passive acoustic devices will alert vessel captains as animals are detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson
There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson
Although some of SAE's equipment contains cables or lines, the risk of entanglement is extremely remote. Additionally, mortality from entanglement is not anticipated. The material used by SAE and the amount of slack is not anticipated to allow for marine mammal entanglements.
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area. As noted earlier, upper Cook Inlet is an important feeding and calving area for the Cook Inlet beluga whale and critical habitat has been designated for this species in the proposed seismic survey area.
Fish are the primary prey species for marine mammals in upper Cook Inlet. Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid, and octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Common prey species in Knik Arm include salmon, eulachon and cod. Harbor seals feed on fish such as pollock, cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, and salmon, as well as a variety of benthic species, including crabs, shrimp, and cephalopods. Harbor seals are also opportunistic feeders with their diet varying with season and location. The preferred diet of the harbor seal in the Gulf of Alaska consists of pollock, octopus, capelin, eulachon, and Pacific herring (Calkins, 1989). Other prey species include cod, flat fishes, shrimp, salmon, and squid (Hoover, 1988). Harbor porpoises feed primarily on Pacific herring, cod, whiting (hake), pollock, squid, and octopus (Leatherwood
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for long distance communication and communication under poor underwater visibility conditions (Zelick
Since objects in the water scatter sound, fish are able to detect these objects through monitoring the ambient noise. Therefore, fish are probably able to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, and physical features by listening to environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). There are two sensory systems that enable fish to monitor the vibration-based information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell
Fish are sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds due to swim bladder resonance. As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the swim bladder is rapidly squeezed as the high pressure wave, and then the under pressure component of the wave, passes through the fish. The swim bladder may repeatedly expand and contract at the high sound pressure levels, creating pressure on the internal organs surrounding the swim bladder.
Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species can be divided into the following categories: (1) Pathological effects; (2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological effects include lethal and
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen
Carlson (1994), in a review of 40 years of studies concerning the use of underwater sound to deter salmonids from hazardous areas at hydroelectric dams and other facilities, concluded that salmonids were able to respond to low-frequency sound and to react to sound sources within a few feet of the source. He speculated that the reason that underwater sound had no effect on salmonids at distances greater than a few feet is because they react to water particle motion/acceleration, not sound pressures. Detectable particle motion is produced within very short distances of a sound source, although sound pressure waves travel farther.
SAE's seismic survey requires the deployment of a submersible recording system in the inter-tidal and marine zones. An autonomous “nodal” (
In addition, seismic noise will radiate throughout the water column from airguns and pingers until it dissipates to background levels. No studies have demonstrated that seismic noise affects the life stages, condition, or amount of food resources (fish, invertebrates, eggs) used by marine mammals, except when exposed to sound levels within a few meters of the seismic source or in few very isolated cases. Where fish or invertebrates did respond to seismic noise, the effects were temporary and of short duration. Consequently, disturbance to fish species due to the activities associated with the seismic survey (
Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable 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).
For the proposed mitigation measures, SAE listed the following protocols to be implemented during its seismic survey program in Cook Inlet.
SAE proposes to conduct both daytime and nighttime operations. Nighttime operations would be initiated only if a “mitigation airgun” (typically the 10 in
SAE proposes to establish exclusion zones to avoid Level A harassment (“injury exclusion zone”) of all marine mammals and to avoid Level B harassment (“disturbance exclusion zone”) of any beluga whales or groups of five or more killer whales or harbor porpoises detected within the designated zones. The injury exclusion zone will correspond to the area around the source within which received levels equal or exceed 180 dB re 1 µPa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 µPa [rms] for pinnipeds and SAE will shut down or power down operations if any marine mammals are seen approaching or entering this zone (more detail below). The disturbance exclusion zone will correspond to the area around the
A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating energy sources from a full array firing to a mitigation airgun. A shutdown is the immediate cessation of firing of all energy sources. The arrays will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is sighted approaching close to or within the applicable exclusion zone of the full arrays but is outside the applicable exclusion zone of the single source. If a marine mammal is sighted within the applicable exclusion zone of the single energy source, the entire array will be shutdown (
A ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume of air guns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose of a ramp-up (or “soft start”) is to “warn” cetaceans and pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities.
During the proposed seismic survey, the seismic operator will ramp up the airgun array slowly. NMFS proposes that the rate of ramp-up to be no more than 6 dB per 5-minute period. Ramp-up is used at the start of airgun operations, after a power- or shut-down, and after any period of greater than 10 minutes in duration without airgun operations (
A full ramp-up after a shutdown will not begin until there has been a minimum of 30 minutes of observation of the applicable exclusion zone by PSOs to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire exclusion zone must be visible during the 30-minute lead-in to a full ramp up. If the entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp-up from a cold start cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the injury exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp-up, ramp-up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside of the zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15–30 minutes: 15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds (
If a marine mammal is detected outside the Level A injury exclusion zone and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter that zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course may, when practical and safe, be changed to also minimize the effect on the seismic program. This can be used in coordination with a power down procedure. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic and support vessels will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the applicable exclusion radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion radius, further mitigative actions will be taken,
The following additional protective measures for beluga whales and groups of five or more killer whales and harbor porpoises are proposed. Specifically, a 160-dB vessel monitoring zone would be established and monitored in Cook Inlet during all seismic surveys. If a beluga whale or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are visually sighted approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity would not commence until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB disturbance zone. Whenever beluga whales or groups of five or more killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, the airguns may be powered down before the animal is within the 160-dB disturbance zone, as an alternative to a complete shutdown. If a power down is not sufficient, the sound source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
In addition to the mitigation measures above, NMFS proposes implementation of the following mitigation measures.
SAE will not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to protect beluga whales in the designated critical habitat in this area that is important for beluga whale feeding and calving during the spring and fall months. The range of the setback required by NMFS was designated to protect this important habitat area and also to create an effective buffer where sound does not encroach on this habitat. This seasonal exclusion is proposed to be in effect from April 15-October 15. Activities can occur within this area from October 16-April 14.
The mitigation airgun will be operated at approximately one shot per minute, only during daylight and when there is good visibility, and will not be operated for longer than 3 hours in duration. In cases when the next start-up after the turn is expected to be during lowlight or low visibility, use of the mitigation airgun may be initiated 30 minutes before darkness or low visibility conditions occur and may be operated until the start of the next seismic acquisition line. The mitigation gun must still be operated at approximately one shot per minute.
NMFS proposes that SAE must suspend seismic operations if a live marine mammal stranding is reported in Cook Inlet coincident to, or within 72 hours of, seismic survey activities involving the use of airguns (regardless of any suspected cause of the stranding). The shutdown must occur if the animal is within a distance two times that of the 160 dB isopleth of the largest airgun array configuration in use. This distance was chosen to create an additional buffer beyond the distance at which animals would typically be considered harassed, as animals involved in a live stranding event are likely compromised, with potentially increased susceptibility to stressors, and the goal is to decrease the likelihood that they are further disturbed or impacted by the seismic survey, regardless of what the original cause of the stranding event was. Shutdown procedures will remain in effect until NMFS determines and advises SAE that all live animals involved in the stranding have left the
Finally, NMFS proposes that if any marine mammal species are encountered, during seismic activities for which take is not authorized, that are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms), then SAE must alter speed or course, power down or shut-down the sound source to avoid take of those species.
NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE'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 adverse 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 measures are 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 seismic airguns, 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 seismic airguns 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).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 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 adverse impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an 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. SAE submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be conducted during seismic operations as part of the proposed IHA application. That information can be found in Sections 11 and 13 of the application. The monitoring measures may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
Monitoring measures proposed by the applicant or prescribed by NMFS should contribute to or accomplish one or more of the following top-level goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action,
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: the long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals would be done by experienced PSOs throughout the period of marine survey activities. PSOs
A minimum number of six PSOs (two per source vessel and two per support vessel) would be required onboard the survey vessel to meet the following criteria: (1) 100 Percent monitoring coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight (nautical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk; (2) maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and (3) maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams would consist of NMFS-approved field biologists. An experienced field crew leader would supervise the PSO team onboard the survey vessel. SAE currently plans to have PSOs aboard three vessels: The two source vessels and one support vessel (
The observer(s) would watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the source and support vessels, typically the flying bridge. The observer(s) would scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, assisted by 40 x 80 long-range binoculars.
All observations would be recorded in a standardized format. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting would be recorded:
• Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), sighting cue, behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, time of sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from the PSO, direction and speed relative to vessel, apparent reaction to activities (
• Time, location, speed, activity of the vessel (
• The positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity of the PSO location.
The ship's position, speed of support vessels, and water temperature, water depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, every 30 minutes during a watch, and whenever there is a change in any of those variables.
In addition to the vessel-based PSOs, SAE proposes to utilize shore-based monitoring daily in the event of summer seismic activity occurring nearshore to Cook Inlet beluga Critical Habitat Area 1, to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the airgun operations and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or within the project area. This communication will allow the vessel-based observers to go on a “heightened” state of alert regarding occurrence of marine mammals in the area and aid in timely implementation of mitigation measures.
Immediate reports will be submitted to NMFS if 25 belugas are detected in the Level B disturbance exclusion zone to evaluate and make necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation. If the number of detected takes for any marine mammal species is met or exceeded, SAE will immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources (
SAE would submit a weekly field report to NMFS Headquarters as well as the Alaska Regional Office, no later than close of business each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic survey activities take place. The weekly field reports would summarize species detected (number, location, distance from seismic vessel, behavior), in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting (discharge volume of array at time of sighting, seismic activity at time of sighting, visual plots of sightings, and number of power downs and shutdowns), behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals exposed.
Monthly reports will be submitted to NMFS for all months during which in-water seismic activities take place. The monthly report will contain and summarize the following information:
• Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal sightings.
• Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity (number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
• An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
• A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (i) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement (ITS); and (ii) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on ESA-listed marine mammals.
SAE would submit an annual report to NMFS's Permits and Conservation Division within 90 days after the end of operations on the water or at least 90 days prior to requiring a subsequent authorization, whichever comes first. The annual report would include:
• Summaries of monitoring effort (
• Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
• Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal
• Analyses of the effects of survey operations.
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as: (i) Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state; (ii) closest point of approach versus survey activity state; (iii) observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey activity state; (iv) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey activity state; (v) distribution around the source vessels versus survey activity state; and (vi) numbers of animals detected in the 160 dB harassment (disturbance exclusion) zone.
NMFS would review the draft annual report. SAE must then submit a final annual report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft annual report. If NMFS decides that the draft annual report needs no comments, the draft report shall be considered to be the final report.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SAE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
In the event that SAE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that SAE 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 authorized activities (
While SAE has previously applied for Authorizations for work in Cook Inlet, Alaska, work was not conducted upon receiving the Authorization. SAE has previously conducted work under Incidental Harassment Authorizations in the Beaufort Sea.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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; 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 seismic survey program with proposed mitigation. Anticipated impacts to marine mammals are associated with noise propagation from the sound sources (
SAE requests authorization to take nine marine mammal species by Level B harassment. These nine marine mammal species are: Cook Inlet beluga whale; humpback whale; minke whale; killer whale; harbor porpoise; Dall's porpoise; gray whale; harbor seal; and Steller sea lion.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by airgun(s) used in the seismic survey, NMFS uses the 160 dB re 1µPa (rms) isopleth to indicate the onset of Level B harassment. The current Level A (injury) harassment threshold is 180 dB (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB (rms) for pinnipeds. The NMFS annual aerial survey data from 2002–2012 was used to derive density estimates for each species (number of individuals/km
To estimate potential takes by Level B harassment for this proposed authorization, as well as for mitigation radii to be implemented by PSOs, ranges to the 160 dB (rms), 180 dB, and 190 dB isopleths were estimated at three different water depths (5 m, 25 m, and 45 m) . The distances to this threshold for the nearshore survey locations are provided in Table 4 in SAE's application. The distances to the thresholds provided in Table 4 in SAE's application correspond to the broadside and endfire directions.
Compared to the airguns, the relevant isopleths for the positioning pinger are quite small. The distances to the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) isopleths are 1 m,
SAE used one method to estimate densities for Cook Inlet beluga whales and another method for the other marine mammals in the area expected to be taken by harassment. Both methods are described in this document.
In similar fashion to a previous IHA issued to Apache, SAE used a habitat-based model developed by Goetz
Densities of other marine mammals in the proposed project area were estimated from the annual aerial surveys conducted by NMFS for Cook Inlet beluga whale between 2000 and 2012 in June (Rugh
Table 5 in SAE's application provides a summary of the results of NMFS aerial survey data collected in June from 2000 to 2012. To estimate density of marine mammals, total number of individuals (other species) observed for the entire survey area by year (surveys usually last several days) was divided by the approximate total area surveyed for each year (density = individuals/km
As a result of discussions with NMFS, SAE has used the NMML model (Goetz
Based on information using Goetz
In order to estimate when that level is reached, SAE is using a formula based on the total potential area of each seismic survey project zone (including
SAE will limit surveying in the proposed seismic survey area (Zones 1 and 2 presented in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE's application) to ensure a maximum of 30 beluga takes during the open water season. In order to ensure that SAE does not exceed 30 beluga whale takes, the following equation is being used:
This formula also allows SAE to have flexibility to prioritize survey locations in response to local weather, ice, and operational constraints. SAE may choose to survey portions of a zone or a zone in its entirety, and the analysis in this proposed authorization takes this into account. Using this formula, if SAE surveys the entire area of Zone 1 (1,319 km
Operations are required to cease once SAE has conducted seismic data acquisition in an area where multiplying the applicable density by the total ensonified area out to the 160-dB isopleth equaled 30 beluga whales, using the equation provided above.
The estimated takes of other Cook Inlet marine mammals that may be potentially harassed during the seismic surveys was calculated by multiplying the following:
• Average density estimates (derived from NMFS aerial surveys from 2000–2012 and presented in Table 3 in this document)
• the area ensonified by levels ≥160 dB re μPa rms in one day (calculated using the total ensonified area per day of 414.92 km
• the number of potential survey days (160).
This equation provides the number of instances of take that will occur in the duration of the survey, but overestimates the number of individual animals taken because not every exposure on every successive day is expected to be a new individual. Especially with resident species, re-exposures of individuals are expected across the months of the survey.
SAE anticipates that a crew will collect seismic data for 8–10 hours per day over approximately 160 days over the course of 8 to 9 months each year. It is assumed that over the course of these 160 days, no more than 777 km
As noted above, using the above method results in an accurate estimate of the instances of take, but likely significantly overestimates the number of individual animals expected to be taken. With most species, even this overestimated number is still very small, and additional analysis is not really necessary to ensure minor impacts. However, because of the number and density of harbor seals in the area, a more accurate understanding of the number of individuals likely taken is necessary to fully analyze the impacts and ensure that the total number of harbor seals taken is small. Montgomery
Table 4 here outlines the density estimates used to estimate Level B harassment takes, the requested Level B harassment take levels, the abundance of each species in Cook Inlet, the percentage of each species or stock estimated to be taken, and current population trends.
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 (
Given the proposed mitigation and related monitoring, no injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of SAE's proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, and none are proposed to be authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (
Cook Inlet beluga whales, the western DPS of Steller sea lions, and Central North Pacific humpback whales are listed as endangered under the ESA. These stocks are also considered depleted under the MMPA. The estimated annual rate of decline for Cook Inlet beluga whales was 0.6 percent between 2002 and 2012. Steller sea lion trends for the western stock are variable throughout the region with some decreasing and others remaining stable or even indicating slight increases. The Central North Pacific population of humpbacks is known to be increasing, with different techniques predicting abundance increases between 4.9 to 7 percent annually. The other seven species that may be taken by harassment during SAE's proposed seismic survey program are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA nor as depleted under the MMPA.
Odontocete (including Cook Inlet beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor porpoises) reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. Belugas in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer appear to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 10–20 km (6–12 mi) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller
The addition of nine vessels, and noise due to vessel operations associated with the seismic survey, would not be outside the present experience of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, although levels may increase locally. Given the large number of vessels in Cook Inlet and the apparent habituation to vessels by Cook Inlet beluga whales and the other marine mammals that may occur in the area, vessel activity and noise is not expected to have effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed
Mitigation measures such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated marine mammal observers, speed and course alterations, and shutdowns or power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges designed both to avoid injury and disturbance will further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects of the seismic survey are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Therefore, the exposure of cetaceans to SAE's proposed seismic survey activity, operation is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival of the affected species or stocks, and therefore will have a negligible impact on them.
Some individual pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from the proposed seismic surveys more than once during the timeframe of the project. Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on pinnipeds are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment”. Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion of pinniped habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas within Cook Inlet will be available for necessary biological functions. In addition, the area where the survey will take place is not known to be an important location where pinnipeds haul out. The closest known haul-out site is located on Kalgin Island, which is about 22 km from the McArther River. More recently, some large congregations of harbor seals have been observed hauling out in upper Cook Inlet. However, mitigation measures, such as vessel speed, course alteration, and visual monitoring, and restrictions will be implemented to help reduce impacts to the animals. Therefore, the exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by this phase of SAE's proposed seismic survey is not anticipated to have an effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival on those species or stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total annual marine mammal take from SAE's proposed seismic survey will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The requested takes proposed to be authorized annually represent 9.6 percent of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population of approximately 312 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2014), 2.34 percent of the Alaska resident stock and 15.9 percent of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island and Bering Sea stock of killer whales (1,123 residents and 345 transients), 0.70 percent of the Gulf of Alaska stock of approximately 31,046 harbor porpoises, 2.1 percent of the 7,469 Central North Pacific humpback whales, 0.06 percent of the 1,233 Alaska minke whales, 0.016 percent of the 83,400 Gulf of Alaska Dall's porpoise, and 0.033 percent of the eastern North Pacific stock of approximately 19,126 gray whales. The take requests presented for harbor seals represent 5.34 percent of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock of approximately 22,900 animals. The requested takes proposed for Steller sea lions represent 1.19 percent of the U.S. portion of the western stock of approximately 45,649 animals. These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment.
NMFS finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to result from the effects of the proposed activity, as proposed to be mitigated through this IHA, will be limited to small numbers relative to the affected species or stocks. In addition to the quantitative methods used to estimate take, NMFS also considered qualitative factors that further support the “small numbers” determination, including: (1) The seasonal distribution and habitat use patterns of Cook Inlet beluga whales, which suggest that for much of the time only a small portion of the population would be accessible to impacts from SAE's activity, as most animals are found in the Susitna Delta region of Upper Cook Inlet from early May through September; (2) other cetacean species and Steller sea lions are not common in the seismic survey area; (3) the proposed mitigation requirements, which provide spatio-temporal limitations that avoid impacts to large numbers of belugas feeding and calving in the Susitna Delta and limit exposures to sound levels associated with Level B harassment; (4) the proposed monitoring requirements and mitigation measures described earlier in this document for all marine mammal species that will further reduce the amount of takes; and (5) monitoring results from previous activities that indicated low numbers of beluga whale sightings within the Level B disturbance exclusion zone and low levels of Level B harassment takes of other marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS determined that the numbers of animals likely to be taken are small.
The subsistence harvest of marine mammals transcends the nutritional and economic values attributed to the animal and is an integral part of the cultural identity of the region's Alaska Native communities. Inedible parts of the whale provide Native artisans with
The Cook Inlet beluga whale has traditionally been hunted by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. For several decades prior to the 1980s, the Native Village of Tyonek residents were the primary subsistence hunters of Cook Inlet beluga whales. During the 1980s and 1990s, Alaska Natives from villages in the western, northwestern, and North Slope regions of Alaska either moved to or visited the south central region and participated in the yearly subsistence harvest (Stanek, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, NMFS estimated 65 whales per year (range 21–123) were taken in this harvest, including those successfully taken for food and those struck and lost. NMFS concluded that this number was high enough to account for the estimated 14 percent annual decline in the population during this time (Hobbs
On October 15, 2008, NMFS published a final rule that established long-term harvest limits on Cook Inlet beluga whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (73 FR 60976). That rule prohibits harvest for a 5-year interval period if the average stock abundance of Cook Inlet beluga whales over the prior five-year interval is below 350 whales. Harvest levels for the current 5-year planning interval (2013–2017) are zero because the average stock abundance for the previous five-year period (2008–2012) was below 350 whales. Based on the average abundance over the 2002–2007 period, no hunt occurred between 2008 and 2012 (NMFS, 2008a). The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, which managed the Alaska Native Subsistence fishery with NMFS, was disbanded by a unanimous vote of the Tribes' representatives on June 20, 2012. At this time, no harvest is expected in 2015 or, likely, in 2016.
Data on the harvest of other marine mammals in Cook Inlet are lacking. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest in Cook Inlet.
There is a low level of subsistence hunting for harbor seals in Cook Inlet. Seal hunting occurs opportunistically among Alaska Natives who may be fishing or travelling in the upper Inlet near the mouths of the Susitna River, Beluga River, and Little Susitna River. Some data are available on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales in Alaska in the marine mammal stock assessments. However, these numbers are for the Gulf of Alaska including Cook Inlet, and they are not indicative of the harvest in Cook Inlet. Some detailed information on the subsistence harvest of harbor seals is available from past studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (Wolfe
Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The primary concern is the disturbance of marine mammals through the introduction of anthropogenic sound into the marine environment during the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals could be behaviorally harassed and either become more difficult to hunt or temporarily abandon traditional hunting grounds. However, the proposed seismic survey will not have any impacts to beluga harvests as none currently occur in Cook Inlet. Additionally, subsistence harvests of other marine mammal species are limited in Cook Inlet.
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 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. The entire upper Cook unit and a portion of the lower Cook unit falls north of 60° N, or within the region NMFS has designated as an Arctic subsistence use area. There are several villages in SAE's proposed project area that have traditionally hunted marine mammals, primarily harbor seals. Tyonek is the only tribal village in upper Cook Inlet with a tradition of hunting marine mammals, in this case harbor seals and beluga whales. However, for either species the annual recorded harvest since the 1980s has averaged about one or fewer of either species (Fall
Villages in lower Cook Inlet adjacent to SAE's proposed seismic area (Kenai, Salamatof, and Ninilchik) have either not traditionally hunted beluga whales, or at least not in recent years, and rarely do they harvest sea lions. Between 1992 and 2008, the only reported sea lion harvests from this area were two Steller sea lions taken by hunters from Kenai (Wolfe
Although marine mammals remain an important subsistence resource in Cook Inlet, the number of animals annually harvested are low, and are primarily harbor seals. Much of the harbor seal harvest occurs incidental to other fishing and hunting activities, and at areas outside of the SAE's proposed seismic areas such as the Susitna Delta or the west side of lower Cook Inlet. Also, SAE is unlikely to conduct seismic activity in the vicinity of any of the river mouths where large numbers of seals haul out.
SAE has identified the following features that are intended to reduce impacts to subsistence users:
• In-water seismic activities will follow mitigation procedures to minimize effects on the behavior of marine mammals and, therefore, opportunities for harvest by Alaska Native communities.
SAE and NMFS recognize the importance of ensuring that ANOs and federally recognized tribes are informed, engaged, and involved during the permitting process and will continue to work with the ANOs and tribes to discuss operations and activities.
Prior to offshore activities SAE will consult with nearby communities such as Nikiski, Tyonek, Ninilchik, Anchor point. SAE plans to attend and present the program description to the different groups listed in Section 3 prior to operations within those areas. During these meetings discussions will include our project description, maps of project area and resolutions of potential conflicts. These meetings will allow SAE to understand community concerns, and requests for communication or mitigation. Additional communications will continue throughout the project. Meetings will also be held with Native Corporation leaders to establish subsistence activities and timelines. Ongoing discussions and meeting with federal and state agencies during the permit process.
A specific meeting schedule has not been finalized, but meetings with the entities identified in Section 3 will occur between December 2014 and March 2015.
SAE will document results of all meetings and incorporate to mitigate concerns into the Plan of Cooperation (POC). There shall be a review of permit stipulations and a permit matrix developed for the crews. The means of communications and contacts list will be developed and implemented into the project. The use of PSOs/MMO's on board the vessels will ensure that appropriate precautions are taken to avoid harassment of marine mammals.
If a conflict does occur with project activities involving subsistence or fishing, the project manager will immediately contact the affected party to resolve the conflict. If avoidance is not possible, the project manager will initiate communication with the Operations Supervisor to resolve the issue and plan an alternative course of action. The communications will involve the Permits Manager and the Anchorage Office of SAE.
The project will not have any effect on beluga whale harvests because no beluga harvest will take place in 2015. Additionally, the proposed seismic survey area is not an important native subsistence site for other subsistence species of marine mammals, and Cook Inlet contains a relatively small proportion of marine mammals utilizing Cook Inlet; thus, the number harvested is expected to be extremely low. The timing and location of subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet harbor seals may coincide with SAE's project, but because this subsistence hunt is conducted opportunistically and at such a low level (NMFS, 2013c), SAE's program is not expected to have an impact on the subsistence use of harbor seals. Moreover, the proposed survey would result in only temporary disturbances. Accordingly, the specified activity would not impact the availability of these other marine mammal species for subsistence uses.
NMFS anticipates that any effects from SAE's proposed seismic survey on marine mammals, especially harbor seals and Cook Inlet beluga whales, which are or have been taken for subsistence uses, would be short-term, site specific, and limited to inconsequential changes in behavior and mild stress responses. NMFS does not anticipate that the authorized taking of affected species or stocks will reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (1) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (2) directly displacing subsistence users; or (3) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from SAE's proposed activities.
There are three marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area: the Cook Inlet beluga whale, the western DPS of Steller sea lion, and the Central North Pacific humpback whale. In addition, the proposed action could occur within 10 miles of designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. NMFS's Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA. This consultation will be concluded prior to issuing any final authorization.
NMFS has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the issuance of an IHA to SAE for the proposed oil and gas exploration seismic survey program in Cook Inlet. The Draft EA has been made available for public comment concurrently with this proposed authorization (see
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to issue an IHA to SAExploration Inc. for taking marine mammals incidental to a seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for SAExploration Inc. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on SAE's request for an MMPA authorization.
SAExploration Inc. (SAE), 8240 Sandlewood Place, Anchorage, Alaska 99507, is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities associated with a marine geophysical (seismic) survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska, contingent upon the following conditions:
1. This Authorization is valid from April 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
2. This Authorization is valid only for SAE's activities associated with seismic survey operations that shall occur within the areas denoted as Zone 1 and Zone 2 as depicted in the attached Figures 1 and 2 of SAE's January 2015 application to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
3.
(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species in the waters of Cook Inlet:
(i) Odontocetes: See Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and take numbers.
(ii) Pinnipeds: See Table 1 (attached) for authorized species and take numbers.
(iii) If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic activities that are not listed in Table 1 (attached) for authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), then the Holder of this Authorization must alter speed or course, power down or shut-down the sound source to avoid take.
(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment) serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in Table 1 or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
(c) If the number of detected takes of any marine mammal species listed in Table 1 is met or exceeded, SAE shall immediately cease survey operations involving the use of active sound sources (
4. The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources (or sources with comparable frequency and intensity) absent an amendment to this Authorization:
(a) Two airgun arrays, each with a capacity of 880 in
(b) A 440 in
(c) A 10 in
(d) A Scott Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) transceiver; and
(e) A Sonardyne TZ/OBC transponder.
5. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS or her designee at (301) 427–8401.
6. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, or her designee at least 48 hours prior to the start of seismic survey activities (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible) at 301–427–8484 or to
7.
(a) Utilize a sufficient number of NMFS-qualified, vessel-based Protected Species Visual Observers (PSVOs) (except during meal times and restroom breaks, when at least one PSVO shall be on watch) to visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessels during daytime operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of sound sources day or night. Two PSVOs will be on each source vessel, and two PSVOs will be on the support vessel to observe the exclusion and disturbance zones. PSVOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7x50) and long-range binoculars (40x80). PSVO shifts shall last no longer than 4 hours at a time. PSVOs shall also make observations during daytime periods when the sound sources are not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior, when feasible. When practicable, as an additional means of visual observation, SAE's vessel crew may also assist in detecting marine mammals.
(b) In addition to the vessel-based PSVOs, utilize a shore-based station to visually monitor for marine mammals. The shore-based station will follow all safety procedures, including bear safety. The location of the shore-based station will need to be sufficiently high to observe marine mammals; the PSOs would be equipped with reticle binoculars (7x50) and long-range binoculars (40x80). The shore-based PSOs would scan the area prior to, during, and after the survey operations involving the use of sound sources, and would be in contact with the vessel-based PSOs via radio to communicate sightings of marine mammals approaching or within the project area.
(c) Record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:
(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun glare; and
(iii) The data listed under Condition 7(d)(ii) shall also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
(d) Establish a 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) “exclusion zone” (EZ) for cetaceans and pinnipeds respectively before the full array (2400 in
(e) Visually observe the entire extent of the EZ (180 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa [rms] for pinnipeds) using NMFS-qualified PSVOs, for at least 30 minutes (min) prior to starting the airgun array (day or night). If the PSVO finds a marine mammal within the EZ, SAE must delay the seismic survey until the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSVO sees a marine mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSVO shall wait 30 min. If the PSVO sees no marine mammals during that time, they should assume that the animal has moved beyond the EZ. If for any reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 min (
(f) Implement a “ramp-up” procedure when starting up at the beginning of seismic operations or any time after the entire array has been shut down for more than 10 min, which means start the smallest sound source first and add sound sources in a sequence such that the source level of the array shall increase in steps not exceeding
(g) Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to enter the relevant EZ. If speed or course alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigation measures, such as a power-down or shutdown, shall be taken.
(h) Power-down or shutdown the sound source(s) if a marine mammal is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant EZ. A shutdown means all operating sound sources are shut down (
(i) Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the smaller designated EZ, the sound sources must then be completely shut down. Seismic survey activity shall not resume until the PSVO has visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the EZ and is not likely to return, or has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with longer dive durations (large odontocetes, including killer whales and beluga whales).
(j) Following a power-down or shutdown and subsequent animal departure, survey operations may resume following ramp-up procedures described in Condition 7(g).
(k) Marine geophysical surveys may continue into night and low-light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the entire relevant EZs can be effectively monitored visually (
(l) No initiation of survey operations involving the use of sound sources is permitted from a shutdown position at night or during low-light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain).
(m) If a beluga whale is visually sighted approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be shut down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone.
(n) Whenever aggregations or groups of killer whales and/or harbor porpoises are detected approaching or within the 160-dB disturbance zone, survey activity will not commence or the sound source(s) shall be shut-down until the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone. An aggregation or group of whales/porpoises shall consist of five or more individuals of any age/sex class.
(o) SAE must not operate airguns within 10 miles (16 km) of the mean higher high water (MHHW) line of the Susitna Delta (Beluga River to the Little Susitna River) between April 15 and October 15 (to avoid any effects to belugas in an important feeding and breeding area).
(p) Seismic survey operations involving the use of airguns and pingers must cease if takes of any marine mammal are met or exceeded.
(q) The mitigation airgun will be operated at approximately one shot per minute and will not be operated for longer than three hours in duration during daylight hours and good visibility. In cases when the next start-up after the turn is expected to be during lowlight or low visibility, use of the mitigation airgun may be initiated 30 minutes before darkness or low visibility conditions occur and may be operated until the start of the next seismic acquisition line.
8.
(a) Submit a weekly field report, no later than close of business (Alaska time) each Thursday during the weeks when in-water seismic survey activities take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals taken.
(b) Submit a monthly report, no later than the 15th of each month, to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division for all months during which in-water seismic survey activities occur. These reports must contain and summarize the following information:
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal sightings;
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity (number of power-downs and shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities;
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of: (A) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) cetaceans that have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (A) Terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement (ITS); and (B) mitigation measures of this Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-listed marine mammals.
(c) Submit a draft Technical Report on all activities and monitoring results to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90 days of the completion of the seismic survey. The Technical Report will include the following information:
(i) Summaries of monitoring effort (
(ii) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
(iii) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(iv) Analyses of the effects of survey operations; and
(v) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without seismic survey activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as: (A) Initial sighting distances versus survey activity state; (B) closest point of approach versus survey activity state; (C) observed behaviors and types of movements versus survey activity state; (D) numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus survey activity state; (E) distribution around the source vessels versus survey activity state; and (F) estimates of take by Level B harassment based on presence in the 160 dB harassment zone.
(d) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be considered to be the final report.
(e) SAE must immediately report to NMFS if 25 belugas are detected within the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) disturbance zone during seismic survey operations to allow NMFS to consider making necessary adjustments to monitoring and mitigation.
9. (a) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
(iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of the incident;
(v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) Water depth;
(vii) Environmental conditions (
(viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(x) The fate of the animal(s); and
(xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumsta nces of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SAE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that SAE 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 SAE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 2 of this Authorization (
10. SAE is required to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion issued to both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources.
11. A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
12. Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Any person who violates any provision of this Incidental Harassment Authorization is subject to civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as authorized under the MMPA.
13. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the Holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 104 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved with regard to the inclusion of Candler, Emanuel, Jenkins, Tattnall, Toombs, and Treutlen Counties, Georgia, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email to
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine applications and, when appropriate, allow applications and issue them as patents. Chapter 30 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides that any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the USPTO of any claim of a patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications. Once initiated, the reexamination proceedings under Chapter 30 are substantially
35 U.S.C. 257 permits a patent owner to request supplemental examination of a patent by the USPTO to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The rules outlining supplemental examination are found at 37 CFR 1.601–1.625.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act terminated
Thus, the items included in this collection cover (i) requests for
The public uses this information collection to request
By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.
The USPTO expects that approximately 95 percent of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically. Of the remaining 5 percent, the vast majority—98 percent—will be submitted by mail, for a total of 204 mailed submissions. The documentation for requests for supplemental examination and requests for
The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs is approximately $929.80 per year.
The fees in 0651–0064 were moved into collection 0651–0072 (America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee Adjustments). As a result, this collection no longer includes any filing or processing fees.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). The period of investigation is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–5973, respectively.
On the same day the Department initiated this CVD investigation, the Department also initiated a CVD investigation of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and AD investigations of welded line pipe from Korea and Turkey.
The scope of the investigation covers welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy (
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually-investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. For companies not individually investigated, we have calculated an “all others” rate as described below. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
In
In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not investigated, we apply an “all others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of this investigation.
The welded line pipe that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and 7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes this notice to solicit comments on the draft NOAA Education Strategic Plan (Plan). NOAA received broad legislative authority from Congress through the America COMPETES Act (2007, 2010) to conduct, develop, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal education activities at all levels to enhance public awareness and understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers. The revision of the Plan establishes the goals for NOAA education programs for the next twenty years with revisions to the Plan every five years. NOAA is seeking broad public review of the NOAA Education Strategic Plan, and
Public comments on this document must be received on or before April 10, 2015.
The draft Plan will be available on the following Web site:
You may submit comments on this document, following the format guidance below, by any of the following methods:
•
Marissa Jones, Education Specialist, NOAA Office of Education, (202) 482–4592
NOAA's Education Council is soliciting general comments on the NOAA Education Strategic Plan, which describes how NOAA will execute programs and activities to achieve cohesive and strategic education outcomes. The Plan focuses on conducting, developing, supporting, promoting, and coordinating education activities to enhance awareness and understanding of mission-related sciences.
For over 200 years, NOAA has imparted scientific knowledge of the Earth's natural systems to benefit society and support the agency's mission. During this time, education was guided by the vision of leadership, the findings of researchers, the mandates of legislation for programs within NOAA, and to respond to the needs of society.
In 2007, Congress officially recognized the role of education in NOAA with the passage of the
“The Administrator, appropriate National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, ocean atmospheric science and education experts, and interested members of the public shall develop a science education plan setting forth education goals and strategies for the Administration, as well as programmatic actions to carry out such goals and priorities over the next 20 years, and evaluate and update such plan every 5 years.”
NOAA is revising its Education Strategic Plan as specified in the America COMPETES Act. Based on NOAA's mission, strengths, and the future needs of our society, the draft plan includes five education goals:
Goal 1—Science-Informed Society: An informed society has access to, interest in, and understanding of NOAA-related sciences and their implications for current and future events.
Goal 2—Conservation & Stewardship: Individuals and communities are actively involved in stewardship behaviors and decisions that conserve, restore, and protect natural and cultural resources related to NOAA's mission.
Goal 3—Safety and Preparedness: Individuals and communities are informed and actively involved in decisions and actions that improve preparedness, response, and resilience to challenges and impacts of hazardous weather, changes in climate, and other environmental threats monitored by NOAA.
Goal 4—Future Workforce: A diverse and highly-skilled future workforce pursues careers in disciplines that support NOAA's mission.
Goal 5—Organizational Excellence: NOAA functions in a unified manner to support, plan, and deliver effective educational programs and partnerships that advance NOAA's mission.
NOAA welcomes all comments on the draft Plan, any inconsistencies perceived within the Plan, and any omissions of important topics or issues. This draft Plan is being issued for comment only and is not intended for interim use. For any shortcoming noted within the draft Plan, please propose specific remedies. Suggested changes will be incorporated where appropriate, and a final Plan will be posted on the NOAA Education Council Web site.
Please follow this format guidance for preparing and submitting comments. Using the format guidance will facilitate the processing of comments and assure that all comments are appropriately considered. Overview comments should be provided first and should be numbered. Comments that are specific to particular pages, paragraphs, or lines of the section should identify the page and line numbers to which they apply. Please number each page of your comments.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Huna Totem Corporation (HTC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to HTC to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B Harassment only, during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 20, 2015.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
An electronic copy of HTC's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
We are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA and the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The EA will be posted at the foregoing Web site once it is finalized.
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 June 23, 2014 NMFS received an application from HTC for the taking of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. HTC submitted a revised application on September 9, 2014. On February 26, 2015 the applicant submitted an addendum to the application describing modifications to the specified activity. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on February 27, 2015. HTC proposes to conduct in-water work that may incidentally harass marine mammals (
The use of vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during the project timeframe include the humpback whale (
The project would construct a new cruise ship berth terminal and associated upland improvements at the existing facility. The existing facility is served by an approximately 100-foot by 25-foot excursion dock, with an approximately 140-foot walkway connecting to shoreline. There is also an existing 40-foot by 80-foot fishing pier which is connected to the shore by an approximately 120-foot walkway. The new terminal would consist of a floating pontoon, which would be connected to the shore via a new trestle and transfer span. The new terminal would also include two new mooring dolphins, two new breasting dolphins, and three or more new reaction dolphins. Each of these would be interconnected via pile-supported catwalks. The proposed project would require the installation of 25 24-inch piles, 21 30-inch piles, 53 42-inch piles, and 5 60-inch piles.
In-water work, which is work occurring below the mean higher high water (MHHW) will be limited to pile installation and falsework pile extraction. These activities will be limited to the period between June 1 and October 31, 2015 to avoid the period (15 April to 31 May) when spawning herring are most likely to be present within the project area. However, all pile driving is expected to be completed by the end of September. October has been included only to cover any contingencies that may arise.
The project will require the installation of 104 steel pipe piles of varying diameters below the MHHW. Total impact hammer time would not exceed 5 minutes per pile for 104 piles resulting in less than 10 hours of driving time. Total vibratory hammer time would not exceed 5 hours per day for a maximum of 20 days resulting in a total of 100 hours.
The overall project, including work not anticipated to result in incidental take, was initiated in September 2014 and will run through May 2016.
The existing Icy Strait Point site is located in Hoonah, Alaska. The project site is located at the junction of Icy Strait and Port Frederick, in the Baranof-Chichagof Islands watershed (HUC #19010203). Please see Sheet 1 of Appendix A in the HTC application for details.
The proposed action would involve construction of a new cruise ship berth terminal and associated upland improvements at the existing facility. The existing facility is served by an approximately 100-foot by 25-foot excursion dock, with an approximately 140-foot walkway connecting to shoreline. There is also an existing 40-foot by 80-foot fishing pier which is connected to the shore by an approximately 120-foot walkway. The new terminal would consist of a floating pontoon, which would be connected to the shore via a new trestle and transfer
In-water work (work below the MHHW) will be limited to pile installation. Over-water work will include construction and installation of the steel trestle and transfer span, construction of the over-water portions of the mooring, breasting, and reaction dolphins, and construction of the catwalk spans. The floating pontoon will be fabricated in a dry dock and floated into position.
In-water and over-water components of the project would be constructed in areas with water depths ranging between MHHW and approximately −60 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). The majority of the in-water and over-water work including construction of the mooring, breasting, and reaction dolphins; catwalks, a portion of the transfer span and floating pontoon will be completed between approximately −25 feet and −60 feet MLLW.
A detailed description of in-water and over-water project components may be found in Table 1 of the HTC Application.
In-water and over-water work will primarily be completed using equipment mounted on barges and/or barge-mounted derricks. It is anticipated that a maximum of 3 barges, including material barges, will be anchored (four anchors per barge) at the site during offshore construction. The barges may be anchored with spud anchors in shallow water and line anchors in deeper water. Small vessels will be used for crew access and miscellaneous construction activities. Limited upland equipment will be used to support in-water construction.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable 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.
For the proposed project, HTC worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds which are depicted in Table 4 found later in the Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment section.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for twenty minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, HTC would employ the following standard mitigation measures:
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and HTC staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
The following measures would apply to HTC's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile and the estimated ZOIs for relevant 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 affecting 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.
• 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 pile driving, 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 pile driving, 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).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, 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.
The potential use of bubble curtains was discussed with HTC. However, impact driving would only occur for brief, irregular periods. Additionally, the project is being conducted in relatively deep water where it is difficult to deploy bubble curtains and their efficacy would be uncertain. Therefore, NMFS does not propose to require the use of bubble curtains.
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.
Nine marine mammal species have known distribution ranges that include the portion of Icy Strait/Port Frederick in which construction activities will occur. These are humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, killer whale, minke whale, and Pacific white-sided dolphin. There are specific stocks of individual species that may occur in the vicinity of the Project area. These include the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale; the North Central Pacific Stock of humpback whale; Gulf of Alaska and Western Aleutians stock of minke whale; North Pacific Stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin; Alaska Resident stock of killer whale; Golf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Aleutian transient stock of Killer whale; West coast transient stock of killer whale; Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise; Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise; eastern depleted population stock (DPS) of Steller's sea lion; western DPS of Steller's sea lion; and Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seal.
This IHA application assesses the potential impacts of the proposed project on these 12 stocks.
We have reviewed HTC's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Section 3 of HTC's application instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (
In the species accounts provided here, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.
Humpback whales range from California to the Chukchi Sea, Hawaii, and the Mariana Islands (NMFS 1991). During summer and fall, humpback whales in the North Pacific forage over the continental shelf and along the coasts of the Pacific Rim, from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak Island. Within this feeding area there are three relatively separate populations that migrate from these colder, highly productive higher-latitude waters to winter/spring calving and mating areas in warmer, lower-latitude coastal waters. Humpback whales in the waters of southeast Alaska belong to the Central North Pacific stock. This stock forages seasonally in the waters of British Columbia and Alaska and then, during winter, migrates to the Hawaiian Islands for mating and calving; however, a portion
While the estimated population of the North Pacific stock remains much lower than the population size before whaling, humpback whales are increasing in abundance throughout much of their range. While the species currently remains listed as endangered throughout its range, the State of Alaska, in 2014, filed a petition with NMFS to designate the Central North Pacific Stock of humpback whale as a DPS and to delist this DPS under the ESA (ADF&G 2014).
In the North Pacific, humpback abundance was estimated at fewer than 1,400 whales in 1966, after heavy commercial exploitation. The current abundance estimate for the Central North Pacific stock is approximately 10,103 whales (Allen and Angliss 2013). The population across Southeast Alaska experienced a 10.6% annual population increase over the 1991–2007 study period (Dahlheim
Dall's porpoise are only found in the North Pacific and adjacent seas. Based primarily on the population response data and preliminary genetics analyses (Winans and Jones 1988), a delineation between Bering Sea and western North Pacific stocks has been recognized. However, similar data are not available for the eastern North Pacific, thus one stock of Dall's porpoise is recognized in Alaskan waters. Dall's porpoise along the west coast of the continental U. S. from California to Washington comprise a separate stock (Allen and Angliss 2013).
Dall's porpoise occur throughout Alaska, and in general, are considered to be common throughout their range (Buckland
The current best population estimate for the Alaskan stock of Dall's porpoise is 83,400 (Allen and Angliss 2013). However, surveys for this stock are greater than 12 years old and, consequently, NMFS considers the minimum population estimate to be “unknown”, and has also not calculated a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level for Dall's porpoise (Allen and Angliss 2013). In the Southeast Alaska region, Dall's porpoise populations increased annually by 2.5% between 1991 and 2007(Dahlheim
Gray whales are common along the Gulf of Alaska coast, but rare in the inside waters of southeastern Alaska (Braham 1984). During a four-year opportunistic marine mammal survey in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, only a single gray whale was documented (Gabriele and Lewis, 2000).
Gray whales are found primarily in shallow water and usually remain closer to shore than any other large cetacean. Two stocks of gray whales are recognized in the Pacific: the Eastern North Pacific stock and the Western North Pacific stock (Carretta
The current best population estimate for the Eastern North Pacific stock is 19,126 (Carretta
The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise primarily frequent coastal waters and in the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska, they occur most frequently in waters less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010).
Within the inland waters of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise distribution is clumped in several areas with high densities observed in the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait region (Dahlheim et al. 2009, Allen and Angliss, 2013). Data collected between 2010 and 2012 indicated that there are an estimated 322 harbor porpoise that reside in the Icy Strait area, including Excursion Inlet and Port Frederick (Dahlheim 2015). Another study found no evidence of seasonality for harbor porpoise across spring, summer or fall (Dahlheim et al., 2008).
In Alaska, there are three separate stocks of harbor porpoise: Southeast Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea. The Southeast Alaska Stock occurs from northern B.C. to Cape Suckling, and the Gulf of Alaska Stock ranges from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass. The population estimates for the Southeast Alaska stock is 11,146 (Allen and Angliss 2013). However, this abundance estimate is based on surveys conducted between 1993 and 1997(Dahlheim et. al 2000). NMFS has not established a PBR for Southeast Alaska stock harbor porpoise, due to the fact that the available abundance estimates are greater than 8 years old. Similarly, due to the age of the abundance estimates,
Although resident in some parts of its range, the killer whale can also be transient. Killer whale movements generally appear to follow the distribution of their prey, which includes marine mammals, fish, and squid. Of eight killer whale stocks currently recognized in the Pacific U.S., four occur in Southeast Alaskan waters: (1) Alaska Residents, from southeast Alaska to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, (2) Northern Residents, from B.C. through parts of southeast Alaska, (3) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians, and Bering Sea Transients, from Prince William Sound through to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, and (4) West Coast Transients, from California through southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2013). However, Northern resident killer whales have not been observed in the Icy Strait area over the course of two decades of research and have been eliminated from any additional consideration (Dahlheim, 2015).
Resident killer whales have been found in all major waterways of Southeast Alaska as well as in protected bays and inlets and observed in all seasons. Two specific resident pods were frequently encountered throughout Icy Strait. These would be the AG pod numbering a minimum of 42 whales and the AF pod with a minimum count of 79 whales. Whales have been seen there every month of the year and the Icy Strait corridor is a major route for them both entering and exiting inland waters. The AG pod has been observed inside Port Frederick, passing directly off the shore of Hoonah (Dahlheim, 2015).
The current best abundance estimate for the North Pacific Alaska Resident stock of killer whales is 2,347 (Allen and Angliss 2013). This stock of killer whales is not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. Based on currently available data, the level of human- caused mortality and serious injury is not known to exceed the potential biological removal (PBR) level for this stock, which is calculated at 23.4 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). Therefore, the North Pacific Alaska Resident stock of killer whales is not classified as a strategic stock.
The current best abundance estimate for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock of killer whales is 587 individuals. These whales occur mainly from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea though their range includes all of the U.S. EEZ in Alaska (Allen and Angliss, 2013). In recent years, a small number of the ‘Gulf of Alaska’ transients (identified by genetics and association) have been seen in southeastern Alaska where previously only West coast transients had been seen.
This stock of killer whales is not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. Based on currently available data, the level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is not known to exceed the potential biological removal (PBR) level for this stock, which is calculated at 5.9 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). Therefore, the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock of killer whales is not classified as a strategic stock.
The West Coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California. Allen and Angliss (2012) provide an abundance estimate of 354 for the West Coast transient stock. Although this estimate is more than eight years old, NMFS is not aware of a more recent estimate for the entire stock. A more recent estimate of 243 whales is available, however this estimate excludes whales of this stock from California. Therefore, 354 describes the number of whales believed to occur throughout the entire stock's range, including whales from California. A notable percentage of whales from the West Coast transient stock have never been observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155 West Coast transient killer whales have been identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim and White (2010). The same study identified three pods of transients, equivalent to 19 animals, that remained almost exclusively in the southern part of Southeast Alaska (
This stock of killer whales is not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. Based on currently available data, the level of human- caused mortality and serious injury is not known to exceed the potential biological removal (PBR) level for this stock, which is calculated at 2.4 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). Therefore, the West Coast transient stock of killer whales is not classified as a strategic stock.
In the Northern Hemisphere, minke whales are usually seen in coastal areas, but can also be seen in pelagic waters during northward migrations in spring and summer, and southward migration in autumn. In the North Pacific, the summer range of the minke whale extends to the Chukchi Sea; in the winter, the whales move farther south close within 2° of the equator (Perrin and Brownell 2002).
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes three stocks of minke whales in the North Pacific: the Sea of Japan/East China Sea, the rest of the western Pacific west of 180°N, and the remainder of the Pacific (Donovan 1991). For management purposes in Pacific U.S. waters, three stocks of minke whales are recognized—the Alaska, Hawaii, and California/Oregon/Washington stocks (Allen and Angliss 2013). Minke whales that could potentially occur within the action area are members of the Alaska stock.
Minke whales are relatively common in the Bering and Chukchi seas and in the inshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska. They are not considered abundant in any other part of the eastern Pacific, but they are seen occasionally around Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska and in central Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis (2000) documented a total of 29 minke whales during a four-year period conducting opportunistic marine mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. Another study found Minke whales scattered throughout inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait to Clarence Strait with concentrations near the entrance of Glacier Bay. Although sightings of minke whales were infrequent over the 17-year study period, minke whales were encountered during all seasons, with a few animals recorded each year. (Dahlheim et al. 2008)
The current best abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of minke whales is unknown. (Allen and Angliss 2013). This stock of minke whales is not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. The greatest uncertainty regarding the status of the Alaska minke whale stock has to do with the uncertainty
The Pacific white-sided dolphin is found throughout the temperate North Pacific Ocean, north of the coasts of Japan and Baja California, Mexico. In the eastern North Pacific the species occurs from the southern Gulf of California, north to the Gulf of Alaska, west to Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands, and is rarely encountered in the southern Bering Sea. The species is common both on the high seas and along the continental margins, and animals are known to enter the inshore passes of Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington (Ferrero and Walker 1996). Two management stocks of Pacific white-sided dolphin are currently recognized: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington stock, and (2) the North Pacific stock. Pacific white-sided dolphins that could potentially be present within the action area would be members of the North Pacific stock. Pacific white-sided dolphin were not documented in the waters of Icy Strait. It also appears that when Pacific white-sided dolphins are present in Southeast Alaska they tend to occur in highest concentrations during the spring (Dahlheim
The current best abundance estimate for the North Pacific stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin is 26,880 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2013). However, this estimate is based on survey data that is greater than 8 years old. As a result, NMFS reports the minimum population estimate as currently unknown (Allen and Angliss 2013). This stock of Pacific white-sided dolphin is not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. The level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is not known to exceed the PBR, which is undetermined as the most recent abundance estimate is more than 8 years old. Because the PBR is undetermined, the level of annual U.S. commercial fishery-related mortality that can be considered insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate is unknown. The Alaska stock of Pacific white-sided dolphins is not classified as a strategic stock, but reliable estimates of the minimum population size, population trends, PBR, and status of the stock relative to optimum sustainable population size are currently not available (Allen and Angliss 2013).
Harbor seals range from Baja California, north along the western coasts of the U.S., B.C., and southeast Alaska, west through the GOA, PWS, and the Aleutian Islands, and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands.
In 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service and their co-management partners, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, defined 12 separate stocks of seals harbor based largely on the genetic structure. Given the genetic samples were not obtained continuously throughout the range, a total evidence approach was used to consider additional factors such as population trends, observed harbor seal movements and traditional Alaska Native use areas in the final designation of stock boundaries. This represents a significant increase in the number of harbor seal stocks from the three stocks (Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Southeast Alaska) previously recognized. Harbor seals that occur within the proposed project area are part of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait Stock (Allen and Angliss 2013).
Harbor seals are commonly present throughout the waters of Icy Strait and Port Frederick and are found in all water depths, but tend to congregate in the near- shore waters of both Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. Harbor seals typically inhabit estuarine and coastal waters, hauling out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and glacial ice flows. They are generally non-migratory, but move locally with the tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction. Female harbor seals give birth to a single pup while hauled out on shore or on glacial ice flows. Pups are born from May to mid-July. The mother and pup remain together until weaning occurs at 3–6 weeks (Bishop 1967; Bigg 1969). Little is known about breeding behavior in harbor seals. When molting, which occurs primarily in late August, seals spend the majority of the time hauled out on shore, glacial ice, or other substrates. Harbor seals have also historically been an important subsistence resource for Alaska Natives in SE Alaska (Wolfe
Harbor seals have not been observed hauling out, molting, or pupping at Icy Strait Point. However, they likely do haulout at least occasionally within the action area.
According to the most recent stock assessment NMFS (Allen and Angliss 2013), harbor seals are not designated as “depleted” under the MMPA nor are they listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. Based on currently available data, the level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is not known to exceed the potential biological removal (PBR) level for harbor seals comprise the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock, which is calculated at 142 harbor seals per year (Allen and Angliss 2013). Therefore, the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals is not classified as a strategic stock. However, a noticeable decline in harbor seal population has been documented in Glacier Bay National Park (Womble et al., 2010).
The Steller sea lion is a pinniped and the largest of the eared seals. Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur east of 144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the Eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which was de-listed and removed from the list of Endangered Species List on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). The population west of 144° W longitude comprise the Western DPS, which is listed as endangered, based largely on over-fishing of the seal's food supply.
The range of the Steller sea lion includes the North Pacific Ocean rim from California to northern Japan. Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators. They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods. Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs (Allen and Angliss, 2013).
In southeast Alaska, designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions includes major rookery and haulout sites (
The western stock of Steller sea lions in Alaska was listed as endangered in 1997. Declines in Steller sea lion populations are probably attributable to declines in fish populations due to increasing commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. Drowning, entanglement in nets, and shooting by fishermen are listed as possible reasons for the Steller sea lion decline.
The action area is located at approximately 135° W longitude, which is over 150 miles east of the 144° W longitude line. It is likely that most Steller sea lions travelling within the waters of Icy Strait and Port Frederick are likely to be members of the Eastern DPS. However, the action area is known to be an area that is used by both Western and Eastern DPS Steller sea lions. In fact, regular movement of Western DPS across the144° W longitude has been documented and they are described as commonly occurring north of Sumner Strait (NMFS, 2013). For this reason, Western DPS Steller sea lions could potentially be present within the action area. Since no known breeding rookeries are present within the action area, Steller sea lion are considered less likely to be present during the summer months when they return to rookeries to give birth. The current best population estimate for the Eastern DPS is 57,966, while the population estimate for the Western DPS is 52,200 (Allen and Angliss 2013). Additionally, it recently been documented that the population of Stellar sea lions in the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait/Cross Sound region has increased by 8.2% per year from 1970 to 2009, though the proportional increase associated with each DPS is not clear (Matthews
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in HTC's application available online at:
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that stressors, (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 μPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
• Wind and waves
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
• Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10–20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the project would include vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, and down the hole drilling. There are two general categories of sound types: Impulse and non-pulse (defined in the following). Vibratory pile driving and down the hole drilling are considered to be continuous or non-pulsed while impact pile driving is considered to be an impulse or pulsed sound type. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
The likely or possible impacts of the proposed pile driving program in the Icy Strait area on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel. Any impacts to marine mammals, however, are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal species (seven cetacean and two pinniped) may occur in the Icy Strait project area. Of the five cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed project area and for which take is requested, two are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
Potential Effects of Pile Driving Sound—The effects of sounds from pile driving might result in one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects—Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak
Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. In terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Available data on TTS in marine mammals are summarized in Southall
Given the available data, the received level of a single pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin (
Permanent Threshold Shift—When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In severe cases, there can be total or partial deafness, while in other cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal. However, given the possibility that mammals close to a sound source can incur TTS, it is possible that some individuals might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals, based on anatomical similarities. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds (Finneran
Non-auditory Physiological Effects—Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Auditory Masking—Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking, or interfering with, a marine mammal's ability to hear other sounds.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize so the frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Vibratory pile driving is relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for 10 to 30 minutes per installed pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this proposed action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.
Acoustic Effects, Airborne—Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving that have the potential to cause harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Airborne pile driving sound would have less impact on cetaceans than pinnipeds because sound from atmospheric sources does not transmit well underwater (Richardson
Besides being susceptible to vessel strikes, cetacean and pinniped responses to vessels may result in behavioral changes, including greater variability in the dive, surfacing, and respiration patterns; changes in vocalizations; and changes in swimming speed or direction (NRC 2003). There will be a temporary and localized increase in vessel traffic during construction. A maximum of three work barges will be present at any time during the in-water and over water work. The barges will be located near each other where construction is occurring. Additionally, the floating pier will be tugged into position prior to installation.
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal, down the hole drilling and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
Natural tidal currents and flow patterns in the waters of Icy Strait and Port Frederick routinely disturbing sediments. High volume tidal events can result in hydraulic forces that re-suspend benthic sediments, temporarily elevating turbidity locally. Any temporary increase in turbidity as a result of the proposed action is not anticipated to measurably exceed levels caused by these normal, natural periods.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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].”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory pile driving/removal and impact pile driving and are likely to involve temporary changes in behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with the activity, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's surface with heads above the water. However, because there are no regular haul-outs in the vicinity of the site of the proposed project area, we believe that incidents of incidental take resulting from airborne sound or visual disturbance are unlikely.
A down the hole drill will be used for rock excavation and reaming. This is a low energy system powered by air. The down hole drill is contained inside the pile annulus so the energy form the drill is captured inside the pile. The tip of the pile will be between 5 and 20 feet below the mud line. Energy transmitted from the drill has to travel through the pile and through the marine sediment which dampens the energy before it can enter the water column. The interior of the pile is filled with air and air bubbles from the drilling process so the pile annulus and exhaust air works similar to a bubble curtain inside the pile to mitigate noise transmission. For these reasons drilling is unlikely to result in the harassment of marine mammals.
HTC has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, killer whale (
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.
We use generic sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur. To date, no studies have been conducted that explicitly examine impacts to marine mammals from pile driving sounds or from which empirical sound thresholds have been established. These thresholds (Table 4) are used to estimate when harassment may occur (
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of fifteen is often used under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) is assumed here.
According to the Caltrans (2012) compendium there is an average sound pressure level of 195 dB rms for impact driving of 60-in pile and 170 dB rms reported for 72-in steel pipe pile vibratory driving. Based on the formula listed above, it has been determined that the 190 dB rms Level A harassment (injury) threshold for underwater noise for pinniped species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 22 meters during impact pile driving activities, and the 180 dB rms Level A harassment (injury) threshold for cetacean species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 100 meters during impact pile driving activities. Additionally, the 160 dB rms Level B harassment (behavioral disruption) for impulsive source underwater noise for pinniped and cetacean species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 2,150 meters, during impact pile driving and the 120 dB 21,544 meters during vibratory driving as is shown in Table 5.
Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the threshold radius depicted in Table 5. This is represented in in the monitoring plan submitted by HTC in Appendix B, Figure B–1
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a ZOI, described earlier in the mitigation section, during active pile driving. Expected marine mammal presence is determined by past observations and general abundance near the project area during the construction window. Typically, potential take is estimated by multiplying the area of the ZOI by the local animal density. This provides an estimate of the number of animals that might occupy the ZOI at any given moment, or a daily density, which can then be multiplied by the anticipated number of pile driving days to give a total exposure estimate. However, this type of calculation is not applicable in this case, because there are no specific local animal densities for the marine mammal species under examination. As a result, the take requests were estimated using local marine mammal data sets, (
The National Park Service has monitored humpback whales in the bay every year since 1985 to document the number of individuals, residence times, spatial and temporal distribution, feeding behavior and interactions with vessels (Neilson et. al 2013). This monitoring program covers most of Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. Results of 2012 monitoring documented a total of 208 individual humpback whales (including 16 mother-calf pairs) in Glacier Bay and adjacent waters of Icy Strait in the 3-month peak survey period between June and August. Of these 208 whales, 152 were documented as remaining in the vicinity for a period greater than 20 days (Neilson et. al 2013). This averages out to be approximately 70 whale sightings per month. Given that the period of active pile driving is likely to be four months (June through September), a worst-case estimate would predict that up to 280 Level B takes of humpback whale could occur as a result of the proposed action. This represents a very conservative estimate of the maximum number of humpback whales that could potentially be exposed to elevated underwater noise
The Western DPS of Steller sea lion includes all animals at, and west of, Cape Suckling, Alaska (144°W). The Eastern DPS of Steller sea lions are those animals east of this longitudinal boundary. While it was once thought that most of the Steller sea lions present in the waters of Icy Strait were members of the eastern DPS, western DPS Steller sea lions are also commonly observed in waters of Icy Strait (Allen and Angliss, 2013). There is little recent data available regarding the population density or abundance of Steller sea lions in Icy Strait or the vicinity other than populations at a number of haulout sites in the area have increased by 8.2% per year between 1970 and 2009. (Matthews
The results of the National Park Service opportunistic surveys conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait from 1994 and 1999 during a three-month period between June and August each year revealed that the maximum number of sightings in any 3 month period was recorded in 1997, when 359 sightings were documented. This averages out to be approximately 120 seal sightings per month. Given that the period of active pile driving is likely to be four months (June through September), a worst-case estimate would predict that up to 480 individual Level B takes of harbor seals could occur as a result of the proposed action. This represents 9.5% of the current best population estimate (5,042) for the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock (Allen and Angliss 2013). Juvenile harbor seals would not be expected to be exposed, as there are no documented breeding rookeries within the area that could potentially be exposed to noise levels above the Level B harassment threshold.
Dahlheim et al. (2008) encountered Dall's porpoise throughout Southeast Alaska and consistently found concentrations of animals in Icy Strait (Dahlheim et al., 2008). However, there is little comprehensive population density data regarding Dall's porpoise presence in Icy Strait and Port Frederick. Another study conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait between 1994 and 1999 (Gabriele and Lewis 2000) indicated that Dall's porpoise are documented occasionally within waters of Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis (2000) documented a total of 6 Dall's porpoises during a four-year period conducting opportunistic marine mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. All of these sightings were from waters of Icy Strait. In 2 of 4 years, no Dall's porpoises were sighted, while in 1999, a total of 12 Dall's porpoise sightings were recorded (on a total of 2 occasions). Using this number as a worst case estimate, the project could result in up to a maximum of 12 Level B takes of Dall's porpoise. This represents less than 0.01% of the current best population estimate (83,400) for this species (Allen and Angliss 2013). Since Dall's porpoises in the eastern North Pacific typically reside year-round, there is a potential that individuals exposed to be Level B take could be equally likely to be adult or juvenile, male or female.
Gray whales are common along the Gulf of Alaska coast, but rare in the inside waters of southeastern Alaska (Braham 1984). Gabriele and Lewis (2000) documented only a single gray whale during a four-year period conducting opportunistic marine mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. Using this number as a worst case estimate, the project could result in up to 1 Level B take of gray whale, representing less than 0.01% of the Eastern North Pacific stock (19,126) of gray whale (Carretta
The waters of Glacier Bay and the adjacent waters of Icy Strait are considered to be an area of relatively high harbor porpoise density (Allen and Angliss 2013, Dahlheim
Killer whales occur commonly in the waters of the action area, and could include members of several designated stocks that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed project area. These include (1) Alaska Residents, from southeast Alaska to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, (2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians, and Bering Sea Transients, from Prince William Sound through to the Aleutians and Bering Sea, and (3) West Coast Transients, from California through southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2013).
One study conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait between 1994 and 1999 determined that killer whales are documented occasionally within waters of Icy Strait (Gabriele and Lewis 2000). The number of sightings of killer whales during the monitoring period ranged between 36 and 88 for the three-month period. Sightings of 88 killer whales over a three-month period equates to a monthly average of 30 individuals. Applying that average to the four-month permit authorization period would provide a worst-case estimate of up to 120 Level B takes of killer whales occurring as a result of the proposed action.
Minke whales are relatively common in the Bering and Chukchi seas and in the inshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska. They are not considered abundant in any other part of the eastern Pacific, but they are seen occasionally around Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska and in central Icy Strait. Gabriele and Lewis (2000) documented a total of 29 minke whales during a four-year period conducting opportunistic marine mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. The maximum number of individual sightings in any given year was 8 minke whales. At this time, it is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of minimum abundance for this stock, as current data is not available.
Gabriele and Lewis (2000) does not document any Pacific white-sided dolphin during a four-year period conducting opportunistic marine mammal surveys in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait while Dahlheim et al. (2008) reported similar findings for the Icy Strait region over a 17-year study period.
However, since there is a possibility that Pacific white-sided dolphin could potentially occur, it is estimated that the project could result in up to 1 Level B take of Pacific white-sided dolphin, representing less than 0.01% of the estimated population (26,880) (Allen and Angliss 2013). Dolphins are not known to breed in waters of Southeast Alaska, and it is assumed therefore that any individual Pacific white-sided dolphin that were to be exposed to a Level B harassment, would be a solitary adult male or female.
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 (
Pile driving activities associated with the cruise ship terminal re-development, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation, though impact driving may be used for brief, irregular periods. Vibratory driving does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (site-specific acoustic monitoring data show no source level measurements above 180 dB rms) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact driving is necessary, required measures (implementation of shutdown zones) significantly reduce any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for Icy Strait Point further enables the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.
HTC's proposed activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to the Icy Strait cruise ship terminal area and its immediate surroundings. The project will require the installation of a total of
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
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 HTC's re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 6 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment for the proposed work associated with the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. With the exception of the West Coast transient stock of killer whales, the analyses provided above represents between <0.01% to 20.4% of the populations of these stocks that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment. These are small percentages relative to the total populations of the affected species or stocks.
As explained previously, we are proposing to authorize the taking, by Level B harassment only, of 120 killer whales. Three stocks of killer whales are known to occur in the Icy Strait area: (1) Alaska resident stock; (2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock; and (3) West Coast transient stock. Under a scenario in which all of the proposed 120 killer whale takes came from only one of the three identified stocks, the number of takes would represent 0.05% of the Alaska resident stock; 20.4% of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock; and 33.9% of the West Coast transient stock.
The West Coast transient stock is of potential concern with 120 proposed takes accounting for 33.9% of their population. However, 120 represents the maximum number of takes proposed to be authorized for all three stocks of killer whales; given that all three stocks occur in the Icy Strait Area, the 120 proposed takes will most likely be apportioned among the three stocks, resulting in a smaller percentage of the West Coast transient stock that are likely to be taken. NMFS also believes that small numbers of the West Coast transient stock would be taken based on the limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock. The West Coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California while the proposed project activity would be stationary. As described above in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity section, a notable percentage of West Coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast Alaska. A notable percentage of West Coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155 West Coast transient killer whales have been identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according
In summary, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of the West Coast transient stock of killer whales would be affected by the proposed action. This conclusion is based on the small likelihood that all of the incidents of take would come from only one stock; the reduced percentage of the stock likely to be found in the Icy Strait area; the limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock; and the likelihood of repeated exposure of a subset of this stock. Therefore, the estimated incidents of take represent small numbers of West Coast transient killer whales.
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 mitigation and monitoring measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. The nearest locations where subsistence hunting may occur are at Eagle Point, located approximately 10 miles distant from the Icy Strait Cruise Terminal project site and at Flynn Cove, located approximately 7.5 miles from the project site. Peak subsistence hunting months are March, May, and October and the pile driving is slated to occur in the June to September timeframe. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
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. HTC submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in [Appendix B of the HTC Application]. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
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 pile driving 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.
HTC submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application for this project, which can be found on the Internet at
HTC will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. HTC will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan would implement the following procedures for pile driving:
• Three individuals meeting the minimum qualifications identified in Appendix B of the monitoring plan submitted by HTC will monitor the Level A and B harassment zones during impact pile driving, and the Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving.
• During impact pile driving, the area within 100 meters of pile driving activity will be monitored and maintained as marine mammal buffer area in which pile installation will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area of potential disturbance. This area will be monitored by one qualified field monitor stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the immediate vicinity.
• The area within the Level B harassment threshold for impact driving (shown in Figure B–2 of Appendix B of the revised marine mammal monitoring plan) will be monitored by the field monitor stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the vicinity, and by a second qualified field monitor stationed on or in the vicinity of Halibut Island near the 2,150 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone. A third qualified
• During vibratory pile driving, the area within 10 meters of pile driving activity will be monitored and maintained as marine mammal buffer area in which pile installation will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area of potential disturbance. The Level B harassment area will be monitored by three qualified observers (Figure B–2). One individual will be stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the immediate vicinity, a second individual will be stationed on either Halibut Island or a location in the vicinity, and a third observer will be located on a vessel that is conducting meander transects throughout the Level B harassment zone. The monitoring staff will record any presence of marine mammals by species, will document any behavioral responses noted, and record Level B takes when sightings overlap with pile installation activities.
• The individuals will scan the waters within each monitoring zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or equivalent), spotting scopes (Swarovski 20–60 zoom or equivalent), and visual observation.
• The area within which the Level A harassment thresholds could be exceeded (the 100 meter radius) will be maintained as a marine mammal exclusion zone, in which impact pile driving will be shut down immediately if any marine mammal is observed with the area.
• The area within which the Level B harassment thresholds could be exceeded during impact pile driving (Figure B–2) and vibratory pile driving (Figure B–3) will also be monitored for the presence of marine mammals during all impact and vibratory pile driving. Marine mammal presence within these zones, if any, will be monitored but pile driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals were found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone will constitute a Level B take, and will be recorded and used to document the number of take incidents.
• If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (
• The waters will be scanned 20 minutes prior to commencing pile driving at the beginning of each day, and prior to commencing pile driving after any stoppage of 20 minutes or greater. If marine mammals enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal buffer zone (the 100m radius) during or 20 minutes prior to impact pile driving, the monitors will notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has moved outside the designated radius.
• The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 20 minutes after pile driving has completed each day, and after each stoppage of 20 minutes or greater.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, HTC will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, HTC will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
HTC would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with HTC to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. HTC would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that HTC discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that HTC discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: humpback whale and Steller sea lion (Western DPS). NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with NMFS' Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to HTC 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 also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The EA will be posted at
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to HTC for conducting the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for HTC's redevelopment of the Icy Strait Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on HTC's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Tim Gallagher, Alaska Area Manager, HDR, Inc., 2525 C Street, Suite 305, Anchorage, AK 99503–2632, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on spotted seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Brendan Hurley or Courtney Smith, (301) 427–8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The area encompassing the Colville River Delta (CRD) on Alaska's North Slope is currently being assessed for potential oil and gas (O&G) exploration and development. HDR proposes to conduct semi-annual aerial surveys over the next 5 years to better characterize the occurrence and distribution of three ice seal species (spotted seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposedand/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Catherine Cain, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 1450; by telephone at 571–272–8946; or by email at
The USPTO administers the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051
Individuals and businesses may also submit various communications to the USPTO, including letters of protest, requests to make special, responses to petition inquiry letters, petitions to make special, requests to restore a filing date, and requests for reinstatement. The USPTO uses the information described in this collection to process letters of protest, requests to make special, responses to petition inquiry letters, petitions to make special, requests to restore filing date, and requests for reinstatement. The information is used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. Information relating to the registration of a trademark is made publicly available by the USPTO. The release of information in a letter of protest is controlled and may be available upon request only.
A letter of protest is an informal procedure whereby third parties who object to the registration of a mark in a pending application may bring to the attention of the USPTO evidence bearing on the registrability of the mark. A letter of protest must identify the application being protested and the proposed grounds for refusing registration and include relevant evidence to support the protest.
A request to make special may be submitted where an applicant requests that initial examination of an application be advanced out of its regular order because the mark in the application was the subject of an inadvertently cancelled or expired previous registration.
A response to a petition inquiry letter is submitted by a petitioner who is responding to a notice of deficiency that the USPTO issued after receiving an incomplete Petition to the Director. A petition may be considered incomplete if, for example, it does not include the fee required by 37 CFR 2.6 or if it includes an unverified assertion that is not supported by evidence.
The USPTO generally examines applications in the order in which they are received. A petition to make special is a request by the applicant to advance the initial examination of an application out of its regular order.
A request to restore a filing date is submitted by an applicant who previously filed an application that was denied a filing date. The request must include evidence showing that the applicant is entitled to the earlier filing date.
If an applicant has proof that an application was inadvertently abandoned due to a USPTO error, an applicant may file a request to reinstate the application instead of a formal petition to revive. To support such a request, the applicant must include clear evidence of the USPTO error.
Electronically, if applicants submit the information using the forms available through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). By mail or hand delivery, if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form.
The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.
Applicants incur postage costs when submitting non-electronic information to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the vast majority—approximately 98%—of the paper forms are submitted to the USPTO via first-class mail, while the rest are submitted by hand delivery. Out of 541 paper forms, the USPTO estimates that 531 forms will be mailed, at a rate of 49 cents per ounce. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the paper submissions in this collection will be $260.19.
The only item in this information collection with a filing fee is the Petition to Make Special, with a filing fee of $100. The total estimated filing fee cost for this collection is $22,400.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs ($260.19) and filing fees ($22,400.00), is $22,660.19 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Catherine Cain, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–1451, by telephone at 571–272–8946, or by email to
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administers the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051
Such individuals and businesses may also submit various communications to the USPTO, including requests to amend their registrations to delete goods or services that are no longer being used by the registrant. Registered marks remain on the register for ten years and can be renewed, but will be cancelled unless the owner files with the USPTO a declaration attesting to the continued use (or excusable non-use) of the mark in commerce, and a renewal application, within specific deadlines. Applicants may also request to amend or divide a registration, respond to a post-registration Office action, and surrender a registration.
The rules implementing the Act are set forth in 37 CFR part 2. These rules mandate that each register entry include the mark, the goods and/or services in connection with which the mark is used, ownership information, dates of use, and certain other information. The USPTO also provides similar
Electronically, if applicants submit the information using the forms available through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). By mail or hand delivery, if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form.
The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.
Applicants incur postage costs when submitting non-electronic information to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the vast majority—approximately 98%—of the paper forms are submitted to the USPTO via first-class mail, while the rest are submitted by hand delivery. Out of 9,201 paper forms, the USPTO estimates that 9,017 forms will be mailed, at a rate of 49 cents per ounce. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the paper submissions in this collection will be $4,418.33.
Filing fees are charged per class of goods or services; therefore, the total filing fees can vary depending on the number of classes. The total filing fees of $54,388,100 shown here are based on the minimum fee of one class per application.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs ($4,418.33) and filing fees ($54,388,100), is $54,392,518.33 per year.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 58 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
Attest:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 1/16/2015 (80 FR 2400–2401) and 2/13/2015 (80 FR 8068–8069), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
On 2/13/2015 (80 FR 8068–8069), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education
Notice.
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.031S.
For example, section 501 of the HEOA amended section 503(b) of the HEA to include, among the authorized activities under the HSI Program—
(1) Activities to improve student services, including innovative and customized instruction courses designed to help retain students and move the students into core courses;
(2) Articulation agreements and student support programs designed to facilitate the transfer of students from two-year to four-year institutions; and
(3) Providing education, counseling services, or financial information designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of students or their families.
The list of authorized activities in section 503(b) of the HEA was also amended to use the term “distance education technologies” in place of “distance learning academic instruction capabilities.” Therefore, notwithstanding the description of authorized activities in 34 CFR 606.10, applicants may include these activities in their proposals under this competition.
We encourage applicants to read carefully the
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for, enroll in, or complete on time college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.
These priorities are:
Tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to improve academic success, including innovative and customized instruction courses (which may include remedial education and English language instruction) designed to help retain students and move the students rapidly into core courses and through program completion.
Projects that are designed to support the development and implementation of high-quality online or hybrid credit-bearing and accessible learning opportunities that reduce the cost of higher education, reduce time to degree completion, or allow students to progress at their own pace.
In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (
20 U.S.C. 1101–1101d; 1103–1103g.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Individual Development Grants: $513,000.
Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $637,000.
Individual Development Grants: $525,000.
Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $650,000.
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding these maximum amounts for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the
Individual Development Grants: 56.
Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: 31.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(i) Have an enrollment of needy students, as defined in section 502(b) of the HEA (section 502(a)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(i));
(ii) Have, except as provided in section 522(b) of the HEA, average educational and general expenditures that are low, per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, in comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar instruction (section 502(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(ii));
To demonstrate an enrollment of needy students and low average educational and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate student, an IHE must be designated as an “eligible institution” in accordance with 34 CFR 606.3 through 606.5 and the notice inviting applications for designation as an eligible institution for the fiscal year for which the grant competition is being conducted.
For purposes of establishing eligibility for this competition, the notice inviting applications for designation as an eligible institution for FY 2015 was published in the
(iii) Be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered, or making reasonable progress toward accreditation, according to such an agency or association (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iv) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(iv));
(iv) Be legally authorized to provide, and provide within the State, an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree (section 502(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the HEA), or be a junior or community college (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(2)(A)(iii));
(v) Have an enrollment of undergraduate FTE students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application (section 502(a)(5)(B) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(B)); and
(vi) Provide, as an attachment to the application, the documentation the IHE relied upon in determining that at least 25 percent of the IHE's undergraduate FTE students are Hispanic. The 25 percent requirement applies only to undergraduate Hispanic students and is calculated based upon FTE students as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the HEA. Instructions for formatting and submitting the verification documentation to Grants.gov are in the application package for this competition.
(b) Funds for the HSI Program will be awarded each fiscal year; thus, for this program, the “end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application” refers to the end of the fiscal year prior to the application due date. The end of the fiscal year occurs on September 30 for any given year.
(c) In considering applications for grants under this program, the Department will compare the data and documentation the institution relied on in its application with data reported to the Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the IHE's State-reported enrollment data, and the institutional annual report. If different percentages or data are reported in these various sources, the institution must, as part of the 25 percent assurance verification, explain the reason for the differences. If the IPEDS data show that less than 25 percent of the institution's undergraduate FTE students are Hispanic, the burden is on the institution to show that the IPEDS data are inaccurate. If the IPEDS data indicate that the institution has an undergraduate FTE less than 25 percent, and the institution fails to demonstrate that the IPEDS data are inaccurate, the institution will be considered ineligible.
(d)(i) A grantee under the HSI Program, which is authorized by title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A or part B program (section 505 of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1101D). The title III, part A programs include: The Strengthening Institutions Program; the American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program; the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Programs; the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program; and the Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program. Furthermore, a current HSI Program grantee may not give up its HSI grant in order to receive a grant under any title III, part A program (§ 606.2(c)(1)).
(ii) An HSI that does not fall within the limitation described in paragraph (d)(i) may apply for a FY 2015 grant under all title III, part A programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
(e) An eligible HSI that submits multiple applications may only be awarded at most one Individual Development Grant and/or one Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant per fiscal year (34 CFR 606.9 and 606.13). In addition, the Secretary will not award a second Individual Development Grant to an HSI with a current five-year Individual Development Grant as described in 34 CFR 606.9(b)(1).
(f) An eligible HSI that submits a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant with a partnering branch campus that is a part of the same institution will not be awarded a grant (34 CFR 606.7(b)).
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• The selection criteria and the absolute priority to no more than 50 pages for an Individual Development Grant application and no more than 70 pages for a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant application.
• A competitive preference priority, if you are addressing one or both, to no more than three pages (for a total of six pages if you address both).
Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 56 pages for an Individual Development Grant application or 76 pages for a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant application.
Please include a separate heading for the absolute priority and for each competitive preference priority that you address.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margins.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single-spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit applies to all of the application narrative section, including your complete response to the selection criteria (including the budget narrative), the absolute priority, and the competitive preference priorities. However, the page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Department of Education Supplemental Information form (SF 424); Part II, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page project abstract, program activity budget detail form and supporting narrative, and the five-year plan. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested in the application package, these items will be counted as part of your application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement.
The narrative response to the budget selection criteria is not the same as the activity detail budget form and supporting narrative. The supporting narrative for the activity detail budget form lists the requested budget items line by line.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact one of the persons listed under
4.
5.
(b)
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the HSI Program, CFDA number 84.031S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the HSI Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (anED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6010, Washington, DC 20006–8513. FAX: (202) 502–7813.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031S), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
(a)
(1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;
(2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;
(3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and
(4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.
(b)
(1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and
(2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(c)
(1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;
(2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and
(3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.
(d)
(1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and
(2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.
(e)
(1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and
(2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.
(f)
(1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and
(2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(g)
(h)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2012–2013 data.
If a tie remains after applying the tiebreaker mechanism above, priority will be given in the case of applicants for (a) Individual Development Grants, to applicants that addressed the statutory priority found in section 521(d) of the HEA; and (b) Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants, to applicants in accordance with section 524(b) of the HEA, under which the Secretary determines that the cooperative arrangement is geographically and economically sound or will benefit the applicant HSI.
If a tie still remains after applying the additional point(s) and the relevant statutory priority, we will determine the ranking of applicants based on the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
a. The percentage change, over the five-year grant period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at HSIs.
b. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the
c. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same four-year HSI.
d. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year HSIs graduating within six years of enrollment.
e. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year HSIs graduating within three years of enrollment.
f. Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree at institutions in the HSI Program.
5.
Carnisia M. Proctor, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6010, Washington, DC 20006–8513. Telephone: (202) 502–7606 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Applicants should periodically check the HSI Program Web site for further information. The address is:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice of an altered system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) publishes this notice of an altered system of records entitled “Person Authentication Service (PAS)” (18–11–12).
PAS contains records about former, current, and prospective students, and their parents and endorsers, who apply for a user ID and password (FSA ID). The PAS system will be used to generate authentication and log-on credentials for those individuals wishing to access various student financial assistance systems, online applications, Web sites, and services to obtain information about their personal records. PAS will replace the current Department of Education (ED) Personal Identification Number (PIN) Registration System, and the ED PIN Registration System will be retired. The system of records notice for the ED PIN Registration System is 18–11–12; it was published in the
PAS will be used to access a variety of Departmental systems and Web sites, including, but not limited to:
Specifically, through this notice, the Department revises the name of the system from the ED PIN Registration System to the PAS and makes alterations to the system, including, but not limited to, the system location, the categories of records maintained in this system, the system's purposes, and the system's routine uses. Additionally, the Department seeks comment on the altered system of records described in this notice, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
Submit your comments on this notice of an altered system of records on or before April 20, 2015.
The Department filed a report describing the altered system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on March 10, 2015. This altered system of records will become effective at the later date of: (1) The expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on April 19, 2015, unless OMB waives 10 days of the 40-day review period for compelling reasons shown by the Department; or (2) April 20, 2015, unless the system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review. The Department will publish any changes to the altered system of records notice that result from public comment or OMB review.
Address all comments about the altered system of records to FSA PAS System Owner, Technology Office, Union Center Plaza (UCP), 830 First Street NE., room 103E2, Washington, DC 20202–5454. Telephone: 202–377–3557. If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following address:
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 103E2, UCP, 10th Floor, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
On request, we will supply appropriate accommodations or auxiliary aids to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under
FSA PAS System Owner Infrastructure and Operations Group, UCP, 830 First Street NE., Room 103E2, Washington, DC 20202–5454. Telephone number: (202) 377–3557.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11)) requires the Department to publish this notice of an altered system of records in the
The Privacy Act applies to a record about an individual that is maintained in a system of records from which information is retrieved by an unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or Social Security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish a system of records notice in the
The PAS system of records will:
1. Allow a user to create and manage an FSA ID that provides a secure credential for access to FSA systems and Web sites;
2. Provide tracking on changes to user account information;
3. Provide matching with the Social Security Administration for identity verification purposes;
4. Provide usage and authentication information for FSA systems and Web sites;
5. Allow a user to electronically sign various student aid applications, including the FAFSA and the Renewal FAFSA, and Direct Loan Master Promissory Notes, as well as to initiate loan deferments or forbearances; and
6. Support the administration of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) programs.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Education (the Department), publishes a notice of an altered system of records to read as follows:
18–11–12.
Person Authentication Service (PAS).
None.
Dell Systems Virtual Data Center, 2300 West Plano Parkway, Plano, TX 75075–8247. (This is the virtual data center for the PAS application.)
PPS Infotech, 1801 Research Blvd., Suite 615, Rockville, MD 20850–3115. (PPS Infotech has access to the system and contracts directly with the Department for the development, operations and maintenance support for PAS.)
PAS contains records about former, current, and prospective students, their parents and endorsers who apply for a user ID and password (FSA ID).
This system contains identification and authentication information including, but not limited to, first name, middle name, last name, Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, address, telephone number(s), email address, and security challenge questions and corresponding answers.
The collection of personal information for the creation and management of an FSA ID (which includes a user ID and a password) is authorized programmatically by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070,
The information contained in this system will be used to support the administration of title IV of the HEA programs; to generate authentication and log-on credentials for those individuals wishing to access various Departmental student financial assistance systems, online applications, Web sites and services; and to obtain information about their personal records. The system will also provide tracking of changes to user account information, match user information with the Social Security Administration (SSA) for identity verification, and provide usage and authentication information for FSA systems and Web sites.
PAS will be used to access a variety of Departmental systems, including, but not limited to:
The FSA ID generated and stored by this system may also be used by individuals to electronically sign various student aid applications, including the FAFSA and the Renewal FAFSA, and Direct Loan Master Promissory Notes, as well as to initiate loan deferments or forbearances.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with a purpose for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a), under a computer matching agreement (CMA).
(1)
(a) To verify the identity of the individual whom records indicate is applying for, has applied for, has endorsed, or has received a title IV, HEA loan and/or grant, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; adjudicative bodies; and the individual whom the records identify as the endorser or the party obligated to repay the debt;
(b) To determine program eligibility and benefits, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies;
(c) To facilitate default reduction efforts by program participants, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies;
(d) To permit the making, servicing, collecting, assigning, adjusting, transferring, referring, or discharging of a loan or collecting a grant obligation, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational institutions, financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, or Federal Perkins Loan Servicers that made, held, serviced, or have been assigned the debt, and their authorized representatives; a party identified by the debtor as willing to advance funds to repay the debt; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies;
(e) To investigate possible fraud or abuse or verify compliance with program regulations, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies;
(f) To locate a delinquent or defaulted borrower, or an individual obligated to repay a loan or grant, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies;
(g) To conduct credit checks or to respond to inquiries or disputes arising from information on the debt already furnished to a credit reporting agency, disclosures may be made to: Credit reporting agencies; guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; creditors; and adjudicative bodies;
(h) To investigate complaints or to update information or correct errors contained in Department records, disclosures may be made to: Guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, Federal Perkins Loan Servicers, and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; private parties such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; creditors; credit reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies; and
(i) To report information required by law to be reported, including, but not limited to, reports required by 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 6050S, disclosures may be made to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components;
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or agrees to provide or arrange for representation for the employee;
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee;
(v) The United States, where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
The records are stored electronically.
The records are retrievable by SSN, name, or an unique internal account identifier.
All physical access to the Department site, and the sites of the Department contractors where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building for his or her employee or visitor badge.
The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a need-to-know basis, and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. All users of this system of records will have an unique User ID and corresponding password conforming to the Department's security policy. All interactions by individual users with the system are recorded.
Additionally, in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), PAS must receive a signed Authority to Operate (ATO) from a designated Department official. The ATO process includes an assessment of security controls, a plan of action, milestones to remediate any identified deficiencies, and a continuous monitoring program.
FISMA controls implemented by the Department include a combination of management, operational, and technical controls, and include the following control families: Access control, awareness and training, audit and accountability, security assessment and authorization, configuration management, contingency planning, identification and authentication, incident response, maintenance, media protection, physical and environmental protection, planning, personnel security, privacy, risk assessment, system and services acquisition, system and communications protection, system and information integrity, and program management.
The Department of Education has submitted a records retention and disposition schedule for the records covered by this system of records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for approval. No records will be destroyed prior to receiving NARA-approved disposition authority.
PAS Manager, Technology Office, Federal Student Aid, UCP, 830 First St. NE., Room 103E2, Washington, DC 20202.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, provide the system manager with your name, date of birth, and SSN. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. You may address your request to the system manager at the address above.
If you wish to gain access to a record regarding you in the system of records, you can visit the ED PAS Account Management site, call the FAFSA on the web phone number listed on the Web site, or contact the system manager at the address given above. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, you can contact the Customer Service Department at the telephone number listed on the PAS login or registration Web site (Federal Student Aid Information Center (FSAIC): 1–800–4–FED–AID (1–800–433–3243) or TTY (for the hearing impaired): 1–800–730–8913. Your request must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7.
If the SSN you provided to create the account does not match the records of the Social Security Administration (SSA), you will need to correct your SSN in PAS or contact the local office of the SSA for a SSN correction.
The identifying information (first name, middle name, last name, SSN, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, security challenge questions and corresponding answers) will be collected from individuals applying for an FSA ID at the PAS registration Web site. In addition, PAS receives records from SSA which are maintained in the system.
None.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Applications Available: March 20, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 4, 2015.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 6, 2015.
This priority is:
Programs and projects designed to develop new information that:
(1) Improves the capability of schools to plan, conduct, and improve programs to identify and serve gifted and talented students (up to 10 points); and
(2) Assists schools in the identification of, and provision of services to, gifted and talented students (including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals with limited English proficiency, and individuals with disabilities) who may not be identified and served through traditional assessment methods (up to 10 points).
In accordance with section 5465(b) of the ESEA, at least 50 percent of the applications approved under this competition must address element (2) above.
(1) Conducting scientifically based research on methods and techniques for identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and for using gifted and talented programs and methods to serve all students; and program evaluations, surveys, and the collection, analysis, and development of information needed to accomplish the proposed project;
(2) Carrying out professional development (including fellowships) for personnel (including leadership personnel) involved in the education of gifted and talented students;
(3) Establishing and operating model projects and exemplary programs for serving gifted and talented students, including innovative methods for identifying and educating students who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs (such as summer programs, mentoring programs, service learning programs, and cooperative programs involving business, industry, and education);
(4) Implementing innovative strategies, such as cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and service learning;
(5) Carrying out programs of technical assistance and information dissemination, including assistance and information with respect to how gifted and talented programs and methods, where appropriate, may be adapted for use by all students;
(6) Making materials and services available through State regional educational service centers, institutions of higher education, or other entities; or
(7) Providing funds for challenging, high-level course work, disseminated through technologies (including distance learning), for individual students or groups of students in schools and LEAs that would not otherwise have the resources to provide such course work.
(1) The proposed gifted and talented services, materials, and methods can be adapted, if appropriate, for use by all students; and
(2) The proposed programs can be evaluated.
The definitions are:
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (ii) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
Under the “special rule” in section 5464(c) of the ESEA, the Assistant Secretary is authorized to award funds to SEAs, LEAs, or both. For FY 2015, the competitive grants made under this competition will be made to SEAs only.
2.
3.
a.
b.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.206A.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, provide the project narrative and management plan to address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. The required budget and budget narrative will be provided in a separate section. You must limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on the application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also, note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under Javits, CFDA number 84.206A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for Javits at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You also can find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-
• You must upload any narrative section and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and email or fax your statement to: Jennifer Brianas, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E220, Washington, DC 20202–6450. FAX: (202) 205–4921.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.206A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.206A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15
1.
(a)
(i) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project (10 points).
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise address the needs of disadvantage individuals (10 points).
(iii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses (10 points).
(b)
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (10 points).
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (10 points).
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance (10 points).
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise (10 points).
(c)
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (10 points).
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (10 points).
(d)
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (15 points).
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (15 points).
(e)
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (10 points).
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (10 points).
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence of promise (10 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
An additional factor we will consider in selecting an application for an award is the requirement in section 5465(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7253d(b)). Under this section, the Assistant Secretary must ensure that no less than 50 percent of the applications approved under this competition address element (2) of the competitive preference priority in this notice.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance
4.
5.
Jennifer Brianas, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E220, Washington, DC 20202–6450. Telephone: (202) 401–0299 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for, enroll in, or complete on time college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.
These priorities are:
Academic tutoring and counseling programs and student support services.
Projects that are designed to leverage technology through implementing high-quality accessible digital tools, assessments, and materials that are aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready standards.
This priority is:
Projects that support activities that strengthen Native American Pacific Islander language preservation and revitalization.
In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (
Title III, part A, section 320 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1059g).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
At the time of submission of their applications, applicants must certify their total undergraduate headcount enrollment and that 10 percent of the IHE's enrollment is Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander. An assurance form, which is included in the application materials for this competition, must be signed by an official for the applicant and submitted.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the AANAPISI Program, an institution must also be—
(i) Accredited or pre-accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;
(ii) Legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and
(iii) Designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it has: (A) An enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (B) low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student as described in 34 CFR 607.4.
The notice for applying for designation as an eligible institution was published in the
(b) A grantee under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program, which is authorized by title V, part A of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A programs, including the AANAPISI Program. Further, a current HSI Program grantee may not give up its HSI grant in
An eligible HSI that is not a current grantee under the HSI Program may apply for a FY 2015 grant under all title III, part A programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You can also obtain an application via the Internet using the following address:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• The selection criteria to no more than 50 pages.
• The absolute priority to no more than three pages.
• A competitive preference priority, if you are addressing one or both, to no more than three pages (for a total of six pages if you address both).
• The invitational priority to no more than two pages, if you address it.
Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 61 pages.
Please include a separate heading for the absolute priority and for each competitive preference priority and invitational priority that you address.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margins.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single-spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limits.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Supplemental Information for SF 424 Form; Part II, the Budget Information Summary Form (ED Form 524); and Part IV, the assurances and certifications. The page limit also does not apply to the table of contents, the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the application narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limits.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the AANAPISI Program, CFDA number 84.031L, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the AANAPISI Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact one of the people listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Pearson Owens, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6029, Washington, DC 20006–8513. FAX: (202) 502–7681.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031L), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031L), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
a.
1. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (10 points)
2. The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals. (5 points)
3. The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (5 points)
b.
1. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (10 points)
2. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (5 points)
3. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice). (10 points)
c.
1. The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (5 points)
2. The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (5 points)
d.
In addition, the Secretary considers:
1. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. (5 points)
2. The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (5 points)
e.
1. The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project. (3 points)
2. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (2 points)
f.
1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (10 points)
2. The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (2.5 points)
3. The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (2.5 points)
g.
1. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (5 points)
2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (5 points)
3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from a panel of three non-Federal reviewers.
3.
(1) Faculty development;
(2) Funds and administrative management;
(3) Development and improvement of academic programs;
(4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;
(5) Joint use of facilities; and
(6) Student services.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2012–2013 data. If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given to applications from IHEs that have the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
a. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI;
b. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI;
c. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year AANAPISIs who graduate within six years of enrollment; and
d. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year AANAPISIs who graduate within three years of enrollment.
5.
Pearson Owens or Don Crews, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20006–8513. You may contact these individuals at the following email addresses or telephone numbers:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Applicants should periodically check the Department's Web site for the title III, part A programs for further information. The address is:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
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 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:
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Solar Star California XIII, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is March 31, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of past response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with Millsboro TCE Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Millsboro, Delaware was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Intervet, Inc. and Mallinckrodt Veterinary, Inc. (“Settling Parties”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Parties to reimburse EPA $950,000.00 for all non-reimbursed past response costs incurred by EPA for the Site through May 27, 2014.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on April 20, 2015.
The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be obtained from Cynthia T. Weiss (3RC42), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Millsboro TCE Contaminated Superfund Site, Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs” and “EPA Docket No. CERCLA–03–2015–0036–CR,” and should be forwarded to Cynthia T. Weiss at the above address.
Cynthia T. Weiss (3RC42), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814–2659;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by April 20, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OGC–2015–0162, online at
M. Lea Anderson, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–5571; fax number (202) 564–5603; email address:
On October 17, 2011, EPA proposed to partially approve and to partially disapprove a revision to the Arkansas SIP intended to address the regional haze requirements of the Clean Air Act. 76 F R 64186. In that same action, EPA also proposed to partially disapprove the portion of the Arkansas' interstate transport SIP submittal addressing the visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Clean Air Act for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM
The proposed consent decree would resolve the lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club by establishing that EPA must take proposed action by March 16, 2015 and final action by December 15, 2015 to address the deficiencies in the Arkansas SIP that were identified by EPA in its March 12, 2012 action. See the proposed consent decree for the specific details.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2015–0162) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of comment period.
EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the second external review draft of a document titled, “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria” (EPA/600/R–14/006). The original
The public comment period began on January 30, 2015, and ends April 30, 2015. Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2015.
The “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria” is available primarily via the internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
For technical information, contact Dr. Molini Patel, NCEA; telephone: 919–541–1492; fax: 919–541–1818; or email:
Comments may be submitted electronically via
For information on submitting comments to the docket, please contact the ORD Docket at EPA's Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202–566–1752; fax: 202–566–9744; or email:
Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7146 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and transport of
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0091, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jon Monger, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6406J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–0628; fax number: (202) 564–1686; email address:
This notice is organized as follows:
As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations published on March 26, 2010
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle,
Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from Arvens Technology, Inc., with contents claimed as confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels produced using
EPA expects to consider comments received and then use the information to evaluate petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use pennycress oil as a feedstock for the production of biofuel, and that seek an EPA determination regarding whether such biofuels qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel, in addition to the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of pennycress feedstock in determining whether petitioners' proposed biofuel production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.
EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using pennycress oil as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the petition and other data gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we used a similar approach to that used for camelina oil in a rule published on March 5, 2013
EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using pennycress oil as a biofuel feedstock for purposes of making GHG reduction threshold determinations for the RFS program. This is in part because of the similarities of pennycress oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because pennycress is not expected to have significant land use change impacts. Instead of performing new agricultural sector modeling, EPA relied upon the soybean oil analysis conducted for the March 2010 rule to assess the relative GHG impacts of growing and transporting pennycress oil for use as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the agricultural sector GHG emissions from pennycress oil production, including land use change, crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, and feedstock distribution. For each component, we believe that the GHG emissions are less than or equal to the emissions from that component of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis (described below), we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts of using pennycress oil in responding to petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by assuming that GHG emissions are similar to those associated with the use of soybean oil for biofuel production. We invite comment on this proposed approach.
Pennycress is an oilseed crop of the flowering mustard plant family Brassicaceae. Pennycress is native to Eurasia and has been in North America for approximately 200 years. It is widespread throughout temperate regions, and can grow in cropland, fallow land, and along roadsides, among other places.
Pennycress oil is not edible, and currently has no commercial markets, but it has many potential uses. Pennycress oil has high concentrations of erucic acid,
Based on information currently available, pennycress is expected to be primarily planted in the U.S. as a rotation crop with corn and soybeans,
Pennycress is currently cultivated on approximately 1,000 acres of land in the U.S., in Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana.
Average yields of 1,000–2,000 pounds of pennycress seed per acre have been achieved on test plots,
Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, pennycress does not have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be significantly affected by an increase in pennycress-based biofuels. Based on information provided in the petition itself, from USDA, and in the scientific literature, returns on pennycress are expected to be approximately $120 per acre, given average yields of 1,800 pounds per acre and a contract price of $0.15 per pound (See Table 2). For comparison purposes, the USDA estimates of corn and soybean returns, including operating costs but not overhead costs such as hired labor, were between $206 and $440 per acre in 2013.
Although we expect most pennycress used as a renewable fuel feedstock for the RFS program would be grown in the U.S. and Canada, we expect that pennycress grown in other countries would also not have a significant impact on other agricultural commodity markets and would therefore not result in significant indirect GHG emissions.
As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing pennycress, we compared crop inputs for pennycress to those for soybeans. Inputs compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, diesel, and gasoline.
Current literature suggests that only minimal fertilizer inputs are needed to grow pennycress.
Pennycress has a higher percentage of oil per pound of seed than soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by mass, therefore crushing one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In comparison, pennycress seeds can contain up to 34% oil, and mechanical crushing extracts approximately 28% oil.
Pennycress has naturalized in all of the continental United States,
EPA evaluated the seed crushing and oil extraction process and compared the lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil and pennycress oil. EPA assumed the processing of pennycress would be similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because pennycress seeds produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the GHG emissions associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for pennycress than soybeans per pound of feedstock oil produced.
There is not a significant amount of industry data on energy used for crushing and oil extraction of pennycress. Based on data provided in the petition submitted, and EPA's standard emissions factors for electricity and natural gas, we estimate that the GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction are 80 kgCO2e/ton pennycress oil. For comparison, in the analysis for the March 2010 final rule, the lifecycle GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction were estimated to be 426 kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a conservative estimate, we propose to assume that the GHG emissions related to crushing and oil extraction are the same for pennycress as for soybeans.
Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when pennycress is crushed and the oil is extracted. In our modeling of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS rule, the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD models included the use of the soy meal (sometimes referred to as press cake) co-product as livestock feed. In our modeling, the use of the soy meal as livestock feed displaced the need for other similar feed products and therefore impacted the relative prices and production of crop and livestock products. These crop and livestock impacts were reflected in the land use change, livestock and agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts estimated for biofuels produced from soybean oil. Although EPA did not conduct modeling to isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal co-product, we believe that overall the soy meal co-product lowered the GHG emissions associated with soybean oil-based biofuels. Similarly, we believe that any use of the pennycress press cake would provide an additional benefit (
EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for pennycress as such emissions for soybeans. Because pennycress contains more oil per pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the pennycress before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per ton of oil produced. To the extent that pennycress is grown on more disperse fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported further, the energy needed to move the pennycress could be higher than soybeans. Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG emissions assessment that the GHG emissions associated with transporting pennycress and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the same. Pennycress and soybean oils are quite similar in terms of density and energy content; therefore, we also assumed that the GHG emissions from transporting the oil from a crushing facility to a biofuel production facility would be the same for the two different feedstocks.
Compared to soybean oil, pennycress oil has less than or equal GHG emissions per ton of oil from crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, and direct and indirect land use change. Pennycress and soybean oils are also likely to have similar GHG emissions from feedstock distribution. Therefore, we believe that the feedstock production and transport portion of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with pennycress are likely to be similar to or less than the GHG emissions for the corresponding portion of the lifecycle analysis for soybean oil. EPA's purpose in evaluating petitions under 40 CFR 80.1416 is not to prepare a precise lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of every fuel type, but to gather sufficient information on which to inform its decision of whether proposed biofuels qualify under the program in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. Based on our comparison of pennycress oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its future evaluations of petitions proposing to use pennycress oil as a feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and transport of pennycress oil that is the same as that which we have used for soybean oil, on a per ton of oil basis. Although EPA could conduct a more precise analysis, we do not believe it is necessary for purposes of the determinations EPA must make in responding to petitions. EPA solicits comment on this proposed approach.
Pennycress oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean and camelina oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as these feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to be the same for each of these feedstocks. After reviewing comments received in response to this Notice, we will combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use of pennycress oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether the proposed pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of pennycress oil feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from pennycress oil feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or advanced (D-code 5) RINs.
EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of pennycress oil as a feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel production pathways described in petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 which use pennycress oil as a feedstock.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on March 26, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
• FCSIC Report on System Performance
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238) to acquire shares of a savings and loan holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 6, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101–2566:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 16, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452–3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263–4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
FR Y–6: Section 5(c)(1)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)(1)(A)), sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the International Banking Act (IBA) (12 U.S.C. 3106(a) and 3108(a)), sections 11(a)(1), 25, and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1), 602, and 611a), and sections 113, 312,
FR Y–7: Sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106(a) and 3108(a)) and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1), respectively).
FR Y–10 and FR Y–10E
The data collected in the FR Y–6, FR Y–7, FR Y–10, and FR Y–10E are not considered confidential. With regard to information that a banking organization may deem confidential, the institution may request confidential treatment of such information under one or more of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). The most likely case for confidential treatment will be based on FOIA exemption 4, which permits an agency to exempt from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential,” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). To the extent an institution can establish the potential for substantial competitive harm, such information would be protected from disclosure under the standards set forth in
The FR Y–7 is an annual information collection submitted by qualifying FBOs to update their financial and organizational information with the Federal Reserve. The FR Y–7 collects financial, organizational, and managerial information. The Federal Reserve uses information to assess an FBO's ability to be a continuing source of strength to its U.S. operations, and to determine compliance with U.S. laws and regulations.
The FR Y–10 is an event-generated information collection submitted by FBOs; top-tier HCs; security holding companies as authorized under Section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1)); state member banks unaffiliated with a BHC; Edge Act and agreement corporations that are not controlled by a member bank, a domestic BHC, or a FBO; and nationally chartered banks that are not controlled by a BHC (with regard to their foreign investments only) to capture changes in their regulated investments and activities. The Federal Reserve uses the data to monitor structure information on subsidiaries and regulated investments of these entities engaged in banking and nonbanking activities. The FR Y–10E is a free-form supplement that may be used to collect additional structural information deemed to be critical and needed in an expedited manner.
As evident by the recent financial crisis, it was difficult for regulators to precisely identify parties involved in financial transactions domestically and internationally. At the time, there was no unified global identification system for to link legal entities with different and multiple regulators and jurisdictions. The Board and each financial regulatory agency assigns its' own internal primary identifier to the entities that it regulates, such as the Federal Reserve's Research Statistics Supervision and Discount Identification (
Several years ago, the Financial Stability Board began leading an international initiative to implement a global identifier system that would uniquely identify parties to financial transactions, and in January 2013, the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee was established to oversee the Global Legal Entity Identifier System. Domestically, the Financial Stability Oversight Council's Data Committee has encouraged U.S. financial regulators to review and incorporate LEIs in their data collections that would most benefit for purposes of improving financial stability monitoring. As the usage of LEI becomes more prominent, it would enable examiners, economists, and financial analysts to perform improved analyses, particularly during stressed market conditions, and would assist the regulatory community and the financial services industry at large, both domestically and internationally. In addition, it is expected that the use of the LEI among the regulators will expand to facilitate better information sharing and coordination regarding domestic financial policy, rulemaking, examinations, reporting requirements, and enforcement actions. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have already incorporated LEI in some of their data collections, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recently proposed replacing the existing Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Reporter's Identification number in HMDA submissions with LEI.
While the Federal Reserve has considered retrieving LEI's from the issuers directly, this method has been deemed as ineffective since the associated structure data is very limited at this time. Reconciling the entity's LEI with their current structure data would be difficult and most likely result in inaccuracies given that so many institutions have similar attributes, such as entity names. Therefore, obtaining the LEI directly from the reporting entity is the most reliable source to accurately match an entity with the correct LEI.
The Federal Reserve proposes to add the LEI to the FR Y–6 and FR Y–7 organizational chart effective with fiscal year ends beginning June 30, 2015. Submission of existing LEI information would follow the normal FR Y–6 and FR Y–7 submission deadlines. The Federal Reserve proposes a one-time information collection to populate existing LEI data for all FR Y–10 reportable entities (excluding branches), as of June 30, 2015. Respondents would submit this information no later than September 30, 2015. LEIs issued after June 30, 2015, should be reported on the appropriate FR Y–10 schedules. For all LEIs assigned between June 30, 2015, and September 30, 2015, information must be received at the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank by October 30, 2015. The Federal Reserve would provide a means for institutions to provide their one-time submission data in a format easier than individual FR Y–10 submissions.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration.
Request for Information (RFI).
The Office of Acquisition Policy is requesting feedback on a proposed class deviation to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to address common Commercial Supplier Agreement terms that are inconsistent with or create ambiguity with Federal law. This class deviation will go into effect forty-five (45) days from the date of publication of this RFI in the
Submit comments in response to Notice—MVA–2015–01 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. James Tsujimoto, Program Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at telephone 202–208–3585 or email
GSA defines Commercial Supplier Agreements as terms and conditions that are customarily offered to the public by vendors of supplies or services that meet the definition of “commercial item” and are intended to create a binding legal obligation on the end user. Commercial Supplier Agreements are particularly common in information technology acquisitions, including acquisitions of commercial computer software and commercial technical data, but they may apply to any supply or service.
Customarily, commercial item supplies and services are offered to the public under standard agreements that may take a variety of forms, including license agreements, terms of service (TOS), terms of sale or purchase, and similar agreements. These customary, standard Commercial Supplier Agreements typically contain terms and conditions that make sense when the purchaser is a private party but are inappropriate when the purchaser is the Federal Government.
The existence of Federally-incompatible terms in contractors' standard Commercial Supplier Agreements has long been recognized in FAR 27.405–3(b), which is limited to the acquisition of commercial computer software. This clause advises contracting officers to exercise caution when accepting a contractor's terms and conditions. However, the use of Commercial Supplier Agreements is not limited to information technology acquisitions; Commercial Supplier Agreements have become ubiquitous in a broad variety of contexts, from travel to telecommunications to financial services to building maintenance systems, including purchases below the simplified acquisition threshold.
Discrepancies between Commercial Supplier Agreements and Federal law or the Government's needs create recurrent points of inconsistency. Below are several examples of incompatible clauses that are commonly found in Commercial Supplier Agreements:
• Jurisdiction or venue clauses may require that disputes be resolved in a particular state or Federal court. Such clauses conflict with the sovereign immunity of the US Government and cannot apply to litigation where the US Government is a defendant because those disputes must be heard either in US District Court (28 U.S.C. 1346) or the US Court of Federal Claims (28 U.S.C. 1491).
• Automatic renewal clauses may automatically renew or extend contracts unless affirmative action is taken by the Government. Such clauses that require the obligation of funds prior to appropriation violate the restrictions of
• Termination clauses may allow the contractor to unilaterally terminate a contract if the Government is alleged to have breached the contract. Termination clauses and other clauses that permit substantive unilateral modification by the contractor are not permitted. Additionally, Government contracts are subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601–613). The Contract Disputes Act requires a certain process for resolving disputes, including terminations, and that the “Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution” under the terms of the FAR Disputes clause at 52.233–1.
As a result, Industry and Government representatives must undergo lengthy and costly contract term negotiations in order to avoid Commercial Supplier Agreement terms that conflict or are incompatible with Federal law. Both sides may expend considerable resources on legal counsel and negotiations before coming to agreement.
Moreover, the current order of precedence contained in the commercial item clause at FAR 52.212–4 potentially allows commercial agreements to supersede the terms of Federal contracts, especially in those areas where Federal law is implicated indirectly. As a result, industry and Government representatives must spend significant time and resources tailoring Commercial Supplier Agreements to comply with Federal law.
GSA intends to issue a class deviation to clarify the order of precedence in the commercial item clause by explaining that the terms of the commercial item clause control in the event of a conflict with a Commercial Supplier Agreement.
The class deviation will also implement standard terms and conditions to minimize the need for negotiating the terms of Commercial Supplier Agreements on an individual basis. The new clause will make unenforceable any conflicting or inconsistent Commercial Supplier Agreement terms that are addressed in the class deviation, so long as an express exception is not authorized elsewhere by Federal statute. GSA has identified fifteen (15) points of inconsistency with Federal law that are addressed by this class deviation. Below is a list of the fifteen points of inconsistency and a summary of how they will be addressed by the class deviation:
1. Definition of contracting parties: Contract agreements are between the commercial supplier or licensor and the U.S. Government. Government employees or persons acting on behalf of the Government will not be bound in their personal capacity by the Commercial Supplier Agreement.
2. Contract formation: Commercial Supplier Agreements may be integrated into a contract, so long as the terms are included verbatim and are not incorporated by reference. The terms of the deviated clause and other identified elements will supersede any conflict with the Commercial Supplier Agreement. This order of precedence will allow for the incorporation of Commercial Supplier Agreements, with certain clauses being stricken as unenforceable, without the need to individually negotiate agreements. “Click-wrap”, “Browse-wrap” and other such mechanisms that purport to bind the end-user will not bind the Government or any Government authorized end-user.
3. Patent indemnity (contractor assumes control of proceedings): Any clause requiring that the commercial supplier or licensor control any litigation arising from the government's use of the contractor's supplies or services is deleted. Such representation when the Government is a party is reserved by statute for the U.S. Department of Justice.
4. Automatic renewals of term-limited agreements: Due to Anti-Deficiency Act restrictions, automatic contract renewal clauses are impermissible. Any such Commercial Supplier Agreement clauses are unenforceable.
5. Future fees or penalties: Future fees—such as attorney fees, cost or interest—may only be awarded against the U.S. Government when expressly authorized by statute (
6. Taxes: Any taxes or surcharges that will be passed along to the Government will be governed by the terms of the underlying contract. The cognizant contracting officer must make a determination of applicability whenever such a request is made.
7. Payment terms or invoicing (late payment): Any Commercial Supplier Agreement terms that purport to establish payment terms or invoicing requirements that contradict the terms of the Government contract will be unenforceable. Discrepancies found during an audit must comply with the invoicing procedures from the underlying contract.
8. Automatic incorporation/deemed acceptance of third party terms: No third party terms may be incorporated into the contract by reference. Incorporation of third party terms after the time of award may only be performed by bilateral contract modification with the approval of the cognizant contracting officer.
9. State/foreign law governed contracts: Clauses that conflict with the sovereign immunity of the U.S. Government cannot apply to litigation where the U.S. Government is a defendant because those disputes must be heard either in U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Commercial Supplier Agreement terms that require the resolution of a dispute in a forum other than that expressly authorized by Federal law are deleted. Statutes of limitation on potential claims shall be governed by U.S. Government law.
10. Equitable remedies, injunctions, binding arbitration: Equitable remedies, injunctive relief and binding arbitration clauses may not be enforced unless explicitly authorized by agency guidance or statute.
11. Unilateral termination of Commercial Supplier Agreement by supplier: Commercial suppliers may not unilaterally terminate or suspend a contract unless the supplies or services are generally withdrawn from the commercial market. Remedy from contractual breach by the Government must be pursued under the Contract Disputes Act.
12. Unilateral modification of Commercial Supplier Agreement by supplier: Unilateral changes of the Commercial Supplier Agreement are impermissible and any clause authorizing such changes is unenforceable.
13. Assignment of Commercial Supplier Agreement or Government contract by supplier: The contract, Commercial Supplier Agreement, party rights and party obligations may not be assigned or delegated without express Government approval. Payment to a third party financial institution may still be reassigned.
14. Confidentiality of Commercial Supplier Agreement terms and conditions: The content of the Commercial Supplier Agreement and the final contract pricing may not be deemed confidential. The Government may retain other marked confidential information as required by law, regulation or agency guidance, but will appropriately guard such confidential information.
15. Audits (automatic liability for payment): Discrepancies found during an audit must comply with the invoicing procedures from the underlying contract. Disputed charges
This class deviation will apply to all new awards for GSA acquisitions for commercial supplies or services. Existing contracts will be required to incorporate the new terms whenever an option period is exercised or the contract is otherwise modified.
This effort will reduce risk by uniformly addressing common unacceptable Commercial Supplier Agreement terms, facilitate efficiency and effectiveness in the contracting process by reducing the administrative burden for the Government and industry, and promote competition by reducing barriers to industry, particularly small businesses.
Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Ms. Sarah Carr, Acting Director, Office of Clinical Research and Bioethics Policy, Office of Science Policy, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Dr., Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496–9838, or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 5,536.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #203 entitled “Ensuring Safety of Animal Feed Maintained and Fed On-Farm.” This draft guidance is intended to help animal producers (persons who feed animals) develop and implement on-farm practices to ensure the safety of animal feed maintained and fed to animals on the farm.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 3, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV–12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Phares Okelo, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–226), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6862, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry # 203 entitled “Ensuring Safety of Animal Feed Maintained and Fed On-Farm.” This draft guidance is intended to help animal producers (persons who feed animals) develop and implement on-farm practices to ensure the safety of animal feed maintained and fed to animals on the farm. In this document, “farm” means animal production units such as integrated poultry grower operations, swine finishing units, and cattle feedlots. This document outlines basic measures that may be taken to maintain the safety of all types of feed held on the farm for use in animal production. This draft guidance recommends establishing measures to ensure the acquisition of safe feed and maintenance of its safety until the feed is offered to animals in the farm environment. This document does not address feed manufacture, which also may occur on farms.
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
FDA concludes that there are no collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 19, 2015.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
There are two modes of data collection with hospital quality leaders: (1) A semi-structured qualitative interview and (2) a standardized survey. The data from the qualitative interviews and standardized surveys will be analyzed to provide us with information on the quality and efficiency impact of measures that we use to assess care in the hospital inpatient and outpatient settings. The surveys seek to understand whether the use of performance measures has led to changes in provider behavior, and where undesired effects are occurring as a result of implementing quality and efficiency measures. The survey will also help identify characteristics associated with high performance, which if understood, could be used to leverage improvements in care among lower performing hospitals. The focus of the survey is to assess the impacts of the measures that we use in the context of public reporting (pay-for-reporting) and value-based purchasing programs.
2.
There are two modes of data collection with nursing home quality leaders: (1) A semi-structured qualitative interview and (2) a standardized survey. The data from the qualitative interviews and standardized surveys will be analyzed to provide us with information on the quality and efficiency impact of measures that we use to assess care in nursing homes delivering skilled nursing care. The surveys seek to understand whether the use of performance measures has led to changes in provider behavior (both at the nursing home-level and at the frontline of care), and whether undesired effects are occurring as a result of implementing quality and efficiency measures. The survey will also help identify characteristics associated with high performance, which if understood, could be used to leverage improvements in care among lower performing nursing homes. The focus of the survey is to assess the impacts of the measures that we use in the context of public reporting (pay-for-reporting) and quality improvement.
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant
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.
The Project LAUNCH MSE seeks to determine the impact of the combined LAUNCH services and strategies on child, family, and systems level outcomes. Data for the MSE will be collected through several mechanisms. First, all LAUNCH grantees will submit semi-annual reports through a web-based data entry system. Second, Project LAUNCH grantees will be systematically sampled to include 10 non-tribal and 5 tribal sites, and matched comparison communities (10 non-tribal and 5 tribal) will be recruited to participate in data collection efforts. Within each site, 2 elementary schools and 4 early childhood education (ECE) centers will be selected as data collection sites. Data collected from this sample of LAUNCH and comparison communities will include:
• Surveys of parents of a sample of young children (birth through age eight). Topics include child health, social emotional health, school readiness, parent-child relationships, parent depression, home environment, and parental social support.
• Surveys of a sample of kindergarten teachers. The survey will assess kindergarten students' school readiness in the areas of physical health and well-being; social competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive development; and communication skills.
• Surveys of elementary school and ECE administrators. The survey will assess child suspension and expulsion.
In addition, key informant interviews will be conducted with local and state early childhood leaders to gather contextual information about systems-level activities and change.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14,505.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(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: OPRE 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; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a document entitled “Pediatric Stakeholder Meeting; Request for Comments” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–9115.
In the
On page 10493, in the first column, the Docket No. heading, “[Docket No. FDA–20115–N–0456]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–0456]”.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which
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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Tobacco Products, is announcing a public workshop to obtain information on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and the public health. This will be the final in a series of three workshops. The workshop will include presentations and panel discussions about the current state of the science and will focus on impacts on the population as a whole, including users and non-users of tobacco products.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caryn Cohen (see
• A brief abstract for each presentation. The abstract should identify the specific topic(s) to be addressed and the amount of time requested.
• A one-page biosketch that describes and supports the speaker's scientific expertise on the specific topic(s) being presented, nature of the individual's experience and research in the scientific field, positions held, and any program development activities.
Panelists will discuss their scientific knowledge on the questions and
• A one-page biosketch that describes and supports the speaker's scientific expertise on the specific topic(s) being presented, nature of the individual's experience and research in the scientific field, positions held, and any program development activities.
If you are interested in serving as a presenter or panelist, please submit the requested information, along with the topic on which you would like to speak, to
FDA is announcing a public workshop to gather scientific information and stimulate discussion among scientists about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The focus of this workshop will be the impact of e-cigarettes on population health, including prevalence and patterns of use, impacts of e-cigarettes on tobacco product users and non-users, and knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about e-cigarette products. A workshop on December 10–11, 2014, focused on e-cigarette product science, product packaging, constituent labeling, and environmental impact; and a workshop on March 9–10, 2015, focused on the impact of e-cigarettes on individual health.
On April 25, 2014, FDA published a document to extend its tobacco product authorities to additional products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” entitled “Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products” (79 FR 23141, April 25, 2014, Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0189) (proposed deeming rule). If the proposed deeming rule is finalized as proposed, e-cigarettes that are tobacco products would be subject to FDA regulation under Chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387–387u). As stated in the proposed deeming rule, FDA “is aware of the recent significant increase in the prevalence in e-cigarette use” (79 FR 23141 at 23152), and there is much to be learned about these relatively new entrants to the market.
These workshops are intended to better inform FDA about these products. Should the Agency move forward as proposed to regulate e-cigarettes, additional information about the products would assist the Agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the law. This would be true regardless of the details of any such final rule. Accordingly, FDA is working to obtain such information now rather than waiting for the conclusion of the deeming rulemaking.
Participants should note that this workshop is not intended to inform the Agency's deeming rulemaking. All comments regarding the proposed deeming rule were to be submitted to the Agency by August 8, 2014 (Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0189). As such, the scope of this workshop is limited to the topics presented in section III.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments to
The public workshop will include presentations and panel discussion regarding e-cigarettes and the public health, specifically relating to the impact of e-cigarettes on the population as a whole. Topics to be addressed include: (1) Prevalence and patterns of use; (2) impacts on current tobacco product users; (3) impacts on non-users of tobacco products; and (4) knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about e-cigarette products.
Additional information related to workshop presentations and discussion topics, including specific questions to be addressed at the workshop, can be found at
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice provides information on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) intent to publish a funding opportunity announcement for Education and Research Centers (ERCs). The purpose of this program is to support existing NIOSH ERCs and establish new ERCs, as appropriate, to address the burden of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) in the United States by providing state-of-the-art interdisciplinary graduate and research training for the next generation of OSH practitioners and researchers.
Dr. Elizabeth H. Maples, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E–74, Atlanta, GA 30333; Phone (not toll-free numbers): (404) 498–2557, Fax: (404) 498–2571, Email:
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), intends to publish a funding opportunity announcement for Education and Research Centers (ERCs) that are focused on occupational safety and health graduate training and research training.
NIOSH is mandated to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the ERCs are one of the principal means for meeting this mandate. ERCs are academic institutions that provide high-quality interdisciplinary graduate training, continuing education, and outreach in the core occupational safety and health disciplines of industrial hygiene (IH), occupational health nursing (OHN), occupational medicine residency (OMR), and occupational safety (OS), as well as closely related allied disciplines. Research and research training are integral components of ERCs, with ERC faculty and NIOSH trainees conducting research on issues related to the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA). The ERCs also serve as regional resources for industry, labor, government, and the public.
This Notice of Intent is being provided to allow potential applicants sufficient time to develop meaningful collaborations and responsive projects. The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is expected to be published in May 2015 with an expected application due date in November 2015.
The FOA will utilize the T42 activity code. ERCs are located in accredited academic institutions across the country and provide graduate degree and certificate training in core and allied disciplines of OSH. ERCs also provide interdisciplinary research training to identify, assess, address, and improve OSH. ERCs conduct outreach to help improve knowledge and awareness of work-related safety and health issues, and they provide continuing education for OSH professionals. Through comprehensive, integrated programs, ERCs improve the safety and health of our nation's workers.
• Approximate Current Fiscal Year Funding: $24,000,000.
• Approximate Number of Awards: 15–20.
• Approximate Average Awards: Up to $1,800,000/year.
• Fiscal Year Funds: 2016.
• Budget Period: 12 months.
• Project Period: Up to 5 years for established ERCs and up to 3 years for new ERCs.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
• Undergo a selection process in which all responsive applications will be discussed and assigned an overall impact/priority score, and
• Receive a written critique.
This Notice encourages investigators with expertise and insights in the area of occupational safety and health to begin to consider applying for this upcoming FOA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meetings.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee and its Commercial Diving Safety on the Outer Continental Shelf Subcommittee will meet on April 7 and 8, 2015, in New Orleans, LA to discuss the safety of operations and other matters affecting the offshore oil and gas industry. These meetings are open to the public.
The Commercial Diving Safety on the Outer Continental Shelf Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, April 7, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and the full National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 8, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. These meetings may end early if the Committee has completed its business, or they may be extended based on the number of public comments. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make oral presentations at the meetings should reach the Coast Guard (see
The meetings will be held at the OMNI Riverfront Hotel, 701 Convention Center Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 524–8200,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution and review by Committee members prior to the meeting must be submitted no later than April 1, 2015, must be identified by docket number USCG–2013–1078 and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please submit comments using only one of the above methods.
A public oral comment period will be held during the meeting on April 8, 2015, and speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
Lieutenant Commander William Nabach, Designated Federal Official of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant (CG–OES–2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE. Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593–7509; telephone (202) 372–1410, fax (202) 372–8382 or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the authority of 41 CFR 102–3 and
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Subcommittee on Commercial Diving Safety on the Outer Continental Shelf will meet on April 7, 2015 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. to review, discuss and formulate recommendations for a final report on commercial diving safety.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory full Committee will meet on April 8, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to review and discuss Subcommittee progress, reports and recommendations received from the Subcommittee on Commercial Diving Safety on the Outer Continental Shelf from their deliberations on April 7, 2015. The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee will then use this information and consider public comments in formulating recommendations to the Coast Guard. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Official during the discussion and recommendation portions of the meeting as well as during the public comment period, see Agenda item (4).
A complete agenda for April 8, 2015, is as follows:
(1) Current Business—Presentation and discussion of a final report and included recommendations from the Subcommittee on Commercial Diving Safety on the Outer Continental Shelf.
(2) New Business—Introduction of new Task Statements by the Coast Guard:
(a) Cyber Security on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf;
(b) Offshore Well Intervention Vessel Operations, Activities, Purpose and Definition;
(c) Safety of Persons Assigned to Lifeboats during Launching, Recovery and Maintenance Activities for Units working on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf; and
(d) Towage of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Mobile Offshore Units and Floating Offshore Installations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
(3) Presentations and discussions on the following matters:
(a) Annual Report of Coast Guard Action/Disposition on National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee Final Reports;
(b) International Association of Drilling Contractors Contractor Management and Bridging Arrangement;
(c) Arctic and International Maritime Organization Polar Code; and
(d) Well Intervention.
(4) Public comment period.
The agenda, draft final report, new task statements and presentations will be available approximately 7 days prior to the meeting at the
Meeting minutes will be available for public view and copying within 90 days following the meeting at the
To receive automatic email notices of future National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee meetings in 2015, go to the online docket, USCG–2013–1078 (
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of an updated policy letter entitled “Engineer Officer Endorsements on Uninspected Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels.” The letter provides guidance to Coast Guard officers with respect to the upcoming enforcement of existing requirements for the proper credentialing of engineering officers. Some accident investigations have found that engineers were not properly credentialed to serve in their assigned positions. This notice promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.
The Coast Guard's enforcement of existing requirements for the proper credentialing of engineer officers on uninspected commercial fishing vessels begins October 15, 2015.
For information about this document call or email Mr. Jack Kemerer, Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1249, email
Longstanding Coast Guard regulations
We understand that strict industry-wide compliance may still not be practicable as of October 15, 2015. Therefore, where an owner/operator or company has established a training program designed to bring company operations into compliance with the prescribed regulations on engineer officer endorsements, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) may defer, for a specific vessel or fleet of vessels, on a case by case basis, strict enforcement of the provisions of the regulations beyond October 15, 2015. Persons seeking this consideration should submit a proposal to their cognizant OCMI as soon as possible but not later than October 15, 2015.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Small Vessel Reporting System (SVRS). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours, but no changes to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before April 20, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In order to register for the SVRS pilot program, participants enter data via the SVRS Web site, which collects information such as biographical information and vessel information. Participants will go through the in person CBP inspection process during SVRS registration, and in some cases, upon arrival in the United States.
For each voyage, SVRS participants will be required to submit a float plan about their voyage via the SVRS Web site in advance of arrival in the United States. The float plan includes vessel information, a listing of all persons on board, estimated dates and times of departure and return, and information on the locations to be visited on the trip. Participants in SVRS can create a float plan for an individual voyage or a template for a float plan that can be used multiple times.
SVRS is authorized by 8 U.S.C. 1225, 8 CFR 235.1, 19 U.S.C. 1433, and 19 CFR 4.2. The SVRS Web site is accessible at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain oral solution products for cleansing of the colon known as Prepopik. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that, the country of origin of the oral solution is China for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on March 13, 2015. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within April 20, 2015.
Grace A. Kim, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade (202) 325–7941.
Notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2015, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain oral solution products known as Prepopik, which may be offered to the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs under its Federal Supply Schedule contract. This final determination, HQ H253443, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the processing in China results in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the oral solution is China for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your letter dated April 23, 2014, and your supplemental submission dated July 18, 2014, requesting a final determination on behalf of your client, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Ferring”), pursuant to subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511
This final determination concerns the country of origin of Ferring's PREPOPIK® for
Pursuant to 19 CFR § 177.22(b)(7), you requested confidential treatment with respect to certain information submitted. As that information constitutes privileged or confidential matters, it has been bracketed and will be redacted from any published versions.
Prepopik is a dual-acting osmotic and stimulant laxative bowel preparation for a colonoscopy in adults. Prepopik is imported in packets containing one dose, to which a dosing cup is added in the U.S. Prepopik is ingested by dissolving the powder in water, using the supplied plastic dosing cup. To produce Prepopik, sodium picosulfate (manufactured in Country A [******]), magnesium oxide (manufactured in Country B [******]), anhydrous citric acid (manufactured in Country C [******]), and three inactive ingredients (sourced from Country C and Country D [******]) are sent to China in powder form or in fine particles. The manufacturing process, described in detail to CBP, consists of sieving, wet mixing the sodium picosulfate to form granules, mixing magnesium oxide and citric acid into a granule formulation, product flavoring, and final blending which is stated not to result in a chemical reaction during any of the steps carried out in China. The final product is placed into single dosage packets. Each Prepopik packet contains 10mg sodium picosulfate, 3.5g magnesium oxide, and 12g citric acid. The packets are sent to a third party in the U.S. to be packaged into child-resistant pouches along with the pre-marked, plastic dosing cup.
After importation, once water is added, the magnesium oxide and citric acid combine to form magnesium citrate. The magnesium citrate, is an osmotic laxative that stimulates the absorption of water into the bowel, while the sodium picosulfate stimulates peristalsis in the bowel to expel its contents.
What is the country of origin of the Prepopik for purposes of U.S. government procurement and marking?
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing, and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw materials. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses, filtering and packaging does not result in a substantial transformation.
In HQ H215656, dated January 11, 2013, a pain reliever medicine called Rybix ODT was imported from France. The active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) was manufactured in India, which was shipped to France and processed in four stages. In the first stage, the API was de-lumped and granulated with a suspension of inactive ingredients then sieved and sized. In the second stage, several inactive ingredients designed to assist in drug administration were added to the API to make a flavor preblend. In the third stage, the tablets were formed and collected in polyethylene-lined foil bags. In the last stage, the tablets were packaged in child-resistant blister packs and prepared for shipment to the U.S. CBP found that the imported good did not undergo a substantial transformation in France, because the processing in France did not result in a change in the medicinal use of the product and the API retained its chemical and physical properties.
However, in HQ 563207, dated June 1, 2005, Actoplus Met
Ferring states that as imported, the only API present in Prepopik is the sodium picosulfate which retains its chemical and physical properties and is merely put into a dosage form and packaged. Ferring further contends that the processing in China does not result in a change in the medicinal use of the finished product. However, we note that magnesium oxide may be used for different reasons, as an antacid to relieve heartburn, sour stomach, or acid indigestion; or as a laxative for short-term, rapid emptying of the bowel.
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. § 1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.”
Section 134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR § 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” as:
the country of manufacture, production or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the “country of origin” within the meaning of this part; . . .
The country of origin of an article for U.S. tariff purposes is the country in which the last substantial transformation took place. A substantial transformation occurs when an article is used in a manufacturing process or operation that results in a new article that has a new name, character or use different from that of the original imported article. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact.
In the instant case, Ferring mixes all the ingredients by blending, sieving, and mixing. We find that this processing results in a substantial transformation. The combination of the two ingredients results in a more stimulative laxative effect for purposes of cleansing the bowels. Therefore, we find that the country of origin of Prepopik is China for country of origin marking purposes.
Based on the facts in this case, we find that the imported Prepopik is substantially transformed in China. The country of origin for government procurement and marking purposes is China.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of October 27, 2014.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 4075 Sprig Driver, Suite A, Concord, CA 94520, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec Services, LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 22, 2014.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 1350 Slater Rd., Unit 9, Ferndale, WA 98248, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec Services, LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Saybolt, LP, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Saybolt, LP, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of December 4, 2014.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Saybolt, LP, 4025 Oak Ln, Sulphur, LA 70665, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Saybolt, LP is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of October 30, 2014.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1708 Marshall St., Jacksonville, FL 32206, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B–17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443–2265 (This is not a toll-free number). HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1–800–927–7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California.
April 20, 2015.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.
Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W–1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978–4310. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1- (800) 877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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.
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold three meetings in Nevada in fiscal year 2015. The meetings are open to the public.
Chris Hanefeld, Public Affairs Specialist, Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, telephone: (775) 289–1842, email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• April 24 (Las Vegas)—Southern Nevada District Resource Management Plan, Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and Transmission Corridors.
• July 16–17 (Caliente)—Ash Springs Recreation Area, and Mountain Biking and Trails Systems.
• September 17 (Beatty)—Battle Mountain District Resource Management Plan, and Mountain Biking and Trails Systems.
Managers' reports of field office activities will be given at each meeting. The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.
Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Chris Hanefeld no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority have prepared the Long-Term Water Transfers Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The Final EIS/EIR addresses water transfers to Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors south of the Delta and in the San Francisco Bay area from CVP and non-CVP sources from north of the Delta using Delta pumps (both CVP and State Water Project (SWP) facilities). Water transfers could occur through various methods such as groundwater substitution, cropland idling, reservoir release, and conservation, and could include individual and multiyear transfers from 2015 through 2024.
Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after the release of the Final EIS/EIR. After the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the action that will be implemented and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.
Send written correspondence or requests for copies to Mr. Brad Hubbard, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; or via email to
To request a compact disc of the Final EIS/EIR, please contact Mr. Brad Hubbard as indicated above, or call (916) 978–5204. The Final EIS/EIR may be viewed at the Bureau of Reclamation's Web site at
Mr. Brad Hubbard, Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, via email at
Hydrologic conditions, climatic variability, and regulatory requirements for operation of water projects commonly affect water supply availability in California. Project supplies are often the primary source of water for south of Delta users, and the complex factors constraining operational decisions not only strain total annual water supplies, but regularly create mismatched timing between planting decisions and announcement of final water supply allocations, making advance planning for water shortages necessary and routine. These conditions and resulting shortages create a need for water transfers to help meet water demands.
The purpose of the Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR is to facilitate voluntary water transfers from willing sellers upstream of the Delta to water users south of the Delta and in the San Francisco Bay Area. The maximum approvable quantity transferable to any contractor cannot exceed that contractor's total contract supply, but instead helps to make up for shortages. Such transfers need to be implementable within narrow annual windows for decisions on each end and flexible enough to address highly
The EIS/EIR analyzes four alternative actions. Alternative 1 is No Action. Alternative 2, Full Range of Transfers, is the Proposed Action. This alternative combines all potential transfer measures that met the purpose and need and were carried forward through the screening process. Alternative 3, No Cropland Modifications, includes conservation, groundwater substitution, and reservoir release. Alternative 4, No Groundwater Substitution, includes conservation, cropland idling transfers— rice, field and grains, crop shifting, and reservoir release.
Transfers of CVP supplies and transfers that require use of CVP facilities are subject to review by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in accordance with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Reclamation's water transfer guidelines, and California State law. Pursuant to Federal and State law and subject to separate written agreement, Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources would facilitate water transfers involving CVP contract water supplies and CVP and SWP facilities. Buyers and sellers would be responsible for negotiating the terms of the transfers, including amount of water for transfer, method to make water available, and price.
The EIS/EIR identifies potential selling parties in northern California, methods by which water could be made available for transfer, and maximum amounts of water available through each method. The EIS/EIR also identifies potential purchasing agencies south of the Delta and the proposed use of transfer water.
The EIS/EIR analyzes alternative transfer methods to make water available through operational flexibility of the existing system. Groundwater substitution transfers occur when sellers forego diversion of their surface water supplies and pump an equivalent amount of groundwater as an alternative supply. The purchasing agency would receive the foregone surface water supply. The quantity of water available for transfer would account for potential stream flow losses as a result of groundwater-surface water interaction. Cropland idling would make water available for transfer that would have been used for agricultural irrigation without the transfer. Typically, the proceeds from the water transfer would pay farmers to idle land that they would have placed in production. Reservoir release transfers would involve releasing water from non-Project entities (not part of the CVP or SWP) for transfer that would have otherwise remained in storage. Conservation transfers involve actions to reduce the diversion of surface water by the transferring entity by reducing irrecoverable water losses.
Water transfers under the Proposed Action involving conveyance through the Delta would be implemented within the operational parameters of the existing system, which includes Biological Opinions on the Continued Long-term Operations of the CVP/SWP and any other regulatory restrictions in place at the time of implementation of the water transfers. Current operational parameters applicable to the transfer water include use of the SWP's Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant and CVP's C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant during July through September only.
A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published in the
Copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available for public review at the following locations:
1. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
2. Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240–0001.
3. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 842 6th Street, Los Banos, CA 93635.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plat listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plat will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen on April 20, 2015.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 19 South, Range 71 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 5, 2015.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from NiSource Inc. and its subsidiary Columbia Pipeline Group (hereafter, NiSource), for an amendment to add the northern long-eared bat to its Endangered Species Act (ESA) incidental take permit (ITP). The application includes a revised Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). We request public comments on NiSource's revised HCP and our draft EA.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments on or before April 20, 2015.
•
•
•
Karen Herrington, NiSource MSHCP Coordinator, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 360 Pearson Ct., Saint Charles, MO 63304; or by phone at 612–713–5315.
We have received an application from NiSource for an amendment to its Endangered Species Act (ESA) incidental take permit (ITP), to add the northern long-eared bat. The application includes a revised HCP, developed to satisfy the criteria listed in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA pertaining to issuance of incidental take permits. If NiSource has met these criteria, and its HCP and supporting information are statutorily complete, an amended incidental take permit that includes the northern long-eared bat will be issued. Issuances of ITPs by the Service are Federal actions subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To comply with NEPA, the Service prepared an EA, the purpose of which is to determine the significance of environmental impacts that could result from amending the NiSource ITP to include the northern long-eared bat, and through subsequent implementation of the revised NiSource HCP.
We request public comments on NiSource's revised HCP and our draft EA. For availability of these documents, see
NiSource, headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana, is engaged in natural gas transmission, storage, and distribution across the eastern United States. In September 2013, the Service issued NiSource an ITP for 10 federally listed species that occur in portions of its 14-State operating territory. The permit allows NiSource to incidentally take these species while operating and maintaining its interstate natural gas pipeline infrastructure. After issuance of the ITP, the Service proposed listing the northern long-eared bat (
On January 13, 2015, the Service received an application from NiSource to have the northern long-eared bat added to its ITP. The application includes a revised HCP that provides an analysis of NiSource activities across its 14-State operating territory, which includes Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Northern long-eared bats are present in each of those 14 States. Based on the analysis in the revised HCP, certain NiSource activities (
Over the 49 year life of the permit, NiSource is requesting incidental take, primarily in the form of habitat harassment and harm, for no more than 93,500 acres of habitat that could support up to 4,618 northern long-eared bats. After all practicable steps have been taken to avoid and minimize take, NiSource will fund mitigation projects to compensate for the impacts of its take. Such projects will include protecting high-quality northern long-eared bat habitats, restoring and protecting degraded northern long-eared bat habitat, and potentially establishing new habitat.
The NEPA process will culminate with a decision by the Service's Regional Director on one of three alternatives found in Chapter 2 of the EA: (1) No Action (Status Quo); (2) Approve ITP Amendment Request (Applicant's Preferred Alternative); (3) Approve ITP Amendment Request with Conditions (Service's Preferred Alternative). Once an alternative is selected, the Regional Director will then decide whether issuance of an amended ITP to NiSource Inc., including subsequent implementation of its revised HCP, will significantly affect the quality of the human environment, as defined by the NEPA.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant the joint motion to terminate the above-referenced investigation based upon settlement.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 26, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Knowles Electronics, LLC, of Itasca, Illinois. 78
The evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held from May 6 through May 14, 2014. On August 29, 2014, the ALJ issued the final initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337. Respondents and complainant (conditionally) petitioned for review of various portions of the final ID. The Commission determined to review the final ID in part, and issued a Notice dated November 6, 2014, 79 FR 67446–48 (Nov. 13, 2014), in which the Commission specified the issues under review and the questions pertaining to such issues. The Commission received timely opening and reply briefs regarding the issues under review, as well as the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, from both parties to the investigation.
On February 11, 2015, the parties filed a “Joint Motion To Extend the Target Date by 10 Days” representing that an extension was necessary because the parties were “making progress on an agreement which, if signed, would resolve their dispute and permit termination of this investigation pursuant to 19 CFR 210.21.” Motion To Extend at 1. The Commission granted the joint motion extending the target date for completion of this investigation to March 16, 2015.
On February 25, 2015, the parties filed a “Joint Motion To Terminate Investigation No. 337–TA–888 on the Basis of Settlement.”
Having examined the joint motion, the settlement agreement, and the record of this investigation, the Commission has determined to grant the joint motion to terminate the investigation. The Commission finds that this termination will not prejudice the public interest.
The Commission has therefore terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On March 16, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the lawsuit entitled
A Complaint that was filed along with the proposed Consent Decree alleges that Exide Technologies (“Exide”) has violated the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations, certain terms and conditions of Exide's Clean Air Act Title V operating permit, and corresponding requirements under Indiana state law at its secondary lead smelting facility in Muncie, Indiana. The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the claims alleged in the Complaint in exchange for Exide's commitment to make specific improvements to its air pollution control and monitoring systems at its Muncie facility, including installing a new furnace exhaust gas afterburner, and to pay civil penalties to the United States and the State. The penalties would be paid as allowed claims in Exide's pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, captioned
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 Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
The cost for a paper copy of the Consent Decree is $8.25.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice with request for comments.
Three synthetic cannabinoids: N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-CHMINACA), N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-PINACA), and [1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3-yl](naphthalen-1-yl)methanone (THJ-2201) were temporarily placed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act by a final order published by the Drug Enforcement Administration on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5042). This means that any person that wishes to manufacture AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 after January 30, 2015, must be registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration and have obtained a manufacturing quota pursuant to 21 CFR part 1303.
The Drug Enforcement Administration cannot issue individual manufacturing quotas for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, or THJ-2201 until it establishes aggregate production quotas. Therefore, this notice proposes the 2015 aggregate production quotas for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201.
Interested persons may file written comments on this notice in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.11(c). Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before April 20, 2015. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
Based on comments received in response to this Notice, the Administrator may hold a public hearing on one or more issues raised. In the event the Administrator decides in her sole discretion to hold such a hearing, the Administrator will publish a notice of any such hearing in the
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA–410” on all correspondence, including any attachments. The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection online at
The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket. Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential
An electronic copy of this document is available at
Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 826, requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II each year. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 28 CFR 0.100.
The DEA established the 2015 aggregate production quotas for substances in schedules I and II on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53216). Subsequently, on December 19, 2014, DEA published in the
AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 were non-controlled substances when the aggregate production quotas for schedule I and II substances were established. Therefore no aggregate production quotas for AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201 were established at that time.
In determining the 2015 aggregate production quotas of these three synthetic cannabinoids, the Administrator considered the following factors in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 CFR 1303.11(b): (1) Total net disposal of the class by all manufacturers during the current and 2 preceding years; (2) trends in the national rate of net disposal of the class; (3) total estimated inventories of the basic class and of all substances manufactured from the class, and trends in inventory accumulation; (4) projected demand for each class as indicated by procurement quotas requested pursuant to 21 CFR 1303.12; and (5) other factors affecting medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and lawful export requirements, as the Administrator finds relevant. These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.
The Administrator, therefore, proposes that the annual 2015 aggregate production quotas for the following temporarily controlled schedule I controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, be established as follows:
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Thursday, April 16, 2015.
The offices of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701.
This meeting of the Board of Trustees will be open to the public.
(1) Chair's Remarks; (2) Executive Director's Remarks; (3) Overview of Trustee Responsibilities; (4) Board Officers & Committee Elections; (5) Consent Agenda Approval, including program reports of the Education Programs, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy/Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy/Udall Archives, and resolutions related to the Operating Procedures of the Board of Trustees and the Parks in Focus Fund, Inc. (6) Financial and Internal Controls Update; (7) Ethics Briefing; (8) Program Panel & Discussion; and (9) Appropriations Update.
Philip J. Lemanski, Executive Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901–8500.
March 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 27, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 27, 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
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is providing notice of revised normal cost percentages for employees covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986.
The revised normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2015. Agency appeals of the normal cost percentages must be filed no later than September 21, 2015.
Send or deliver agency appeals of the normal cost percentages and requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Board of Actuaries, care of Gregory Kissel, Senior Actuary, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
Karla Yeakle, (202) 606–0299.
The FERS Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–335, created a new retirement system intended to cover most Federal employees hired after 1983. Most Federal employees hired before 1984 are under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Section 8423 of title 5, United States Code, as added by the FERS Act of 1986, provides for the payment of the Government's share of the cost of the retirement system under FERS. Employees' contributions are established by law and constitute only a portion of the cost of funding the retirement system; employing agencies are required to pay the remaining costs. The amount of funding required, known as “normal cost,” is the entry age normal cost of the provisions of FERS that relate to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (Fund). The normal cost must be computed by OPM in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and standards (using dynamic assumptions). The normal cost calculations depend on economic and demographic assumptions. Subpart D of part 841 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates how normal costs are determined.
In its meeting on June 18, 2013, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System (the Board) recommended changes to certain demographic assumptions used in the actuarial valuations of CSRS and FERS. The most significant change applies additional projected mortality improvement resulting in greater assumed annuitant longevity. The previous assumptions reflected mortality rates improved to year 2024; the revised projection assumes mortality rates are expected to improve indefinitely at an ultimate rate of 1.0 percent annually for employees and non-disabled annuitants. OPM has adopted the Board's recommendations.
With regard to the economic assumptions described under section 841.402 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, used in the actuarial valuations of FERS, the Board concluded that it would be appropriate to continue to assume a rate of investment return of 5.25 percent. In addition, the Board determined that the assumed inflation rate should remain at 3.00 percent and that the projected rate of General Schedule salary increases should remain at 3.25 percent. These salary increases are in addition to assumed within-grade increases. These assumptions are intended to reflect the long term expected future experience of the Systems.
The demographic assumptions are determined separately for each of a number of special groups, in cases where separate experience data is available. Based on the demographic and economic assumptions described above, OPM has determined the normal cost percentage for each category of employees under section 841.403 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 5001 of Public Law 112–96, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012, established provisions for FERS Revised Annuity Employees (FERS–RAE). The law permanently increases the retirement contributions by 2.30 percent of pay for these employees. Subsequently, Section 401 of Public Law 113–67, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, created another class of FERS coverage, FERS-
The Governmentwide normal cost percentages, including the employee contributions, are as follows:
Under section 841.408 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, these normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2015.
The time limit and address for filing agency appeals under sections 841.409 through 841.412 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, are stated in the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2015.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, (202) 606–2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No Schedule A Authorities to report during January 2015.
No Schedule B authorities to report during January 2015.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during January 2015.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during January 2015.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218.
March 30, 2015, at 11 a.m.
Commission hearing room, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268–0001.
The Postal Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting to discuss the agenda items outlined below. Part of the meeting will be open to the public as well as audiocast, and the audiocast may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
The agenda for the Commission's March 30, 2015 meeting includes the items identified below.
1. Report from the Office of Public Affairs and Government Relations.
2. Report from the Office of General Counsel.
3. Report from the Office of Accountability and Compliance.
4. Discussion of pending litigation.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268–0001, at 202–789–6820 (for agenda-related inquiries) and Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary of the Commission, at 202–789–6800 or
By direction of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–291) (“Rating Agency Act”), enacted on September 29, 2006, defines the term “nationally recognized statistical rating organization,” or “NRSRO” and provides authority for the Commission to implement registration, recordkeeping, financial reporting, and oversight rules with respect to registered credit rating agencies. The Rating Agency Act added a new section 15E, “Registration of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations” (15 U.S.C. 78o–7) to the Exchange Act. Exchange Act section 15E(h)(2) provides the Commission with authority to prohibit, or require the management and disclosure of, any potential conflict of interest relating to the issuance of credit ratings by an NRSRO (15 U.S.C. 78o–7(h)(2)).
The Commission adopted, and subsequently amended, Rule 17g–5 pursuant, in part, to section 15E(h)(2) of the Exchange Act.
On August 27, 2014, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 17g–5.
Second, the Commission added paragraph (c)(8) to Rule 17g–5 to prohibit an NRSRO from issuing or maintaining a credit rating where a person within the NRSRO who participates in determining or monitoring the credit rating, or developing or approving procedures or methodologies used for determining the
Third, the Commission added paragraph (f) to Rule 17g–5, which provides that upon written application by an NRSRO the Commission may exempt, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, the NRSRO from paragraph (c)(8) of Rule 17g–5 if the Commission finds that due to the small size of the NRSRO it is not appropriate to require the separation of the production of credit ratings from sales and marketing activities and the exemption is in the public interest.
The collection of information obligation imposed by Rule 17g–5 is mandatory for credit rating agencies that are applying to register or are registered with the Commission as NRSROs. Registration with the Commission as an NRSRO is voluntary.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g–5 requires disclosures by NRSROs on a transaction by transaction basis. The Commission estimates that the total number of structured finance ratings issued by all NRSROs in a given year is approximately 2,436 and that it would take 1 hour per transaction to make the information publicly available. The Commission therefore estimates that the corresponding annual disclosure burden for NRSROs is approximately 2,436 hours industry-wide.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g–5 also requires arrangers to disclose certain information. The Commission previously estimated that there are approximately 200 arrangers subject to the rule. The Commission estimates that it would take approximately 300 hours to develop a system, as well as the policies and procedures, for the disclosures required by Rule 17g–5. In the Adopting Release, the Commission estimated that there are approximately 336 issuers, sponsors, or underwriters of asset-backed securities. Therefore, the one-time burden for the additional 136 respondents is approximately 40,800 hours. The Commission therefore estimates that, over a three-year period, the total industry-wide one-time burden would be approximately 13,600 hours per year when annualized over three years.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g–5 also requires disclosures by arrangers on a transaction by transaction basis. The Commission estimates that 336 arrangers would arrange approximately 20 new transactions per year and that it would take 1 hour per transaction to make the information publicly available, resulting in a total annual disclosure burden of approximately 6,720 hours.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g–5 also requires disclosure of information by arrangers on an ongoing basis that is used by an NRSRO to undertake credit rating surveillance on the structured finance product. The Commission estimates this disclosure would be required for approximately 125 transactions a month, and it would take each respondent approximately 0.5 hours per transaction to disclose the information. Therefore, the Commission estimates that it would take each respondent approximately 750 hours on an annual basis to disclose such information, for a total aggregate annual disclosure burden of 252,000 hours.
Paragraph (e) of Rule 17g–5 requires NRSROs to submit an annual certification to the Commission. The Commission estimates that it would take each NRSRO approximately 2 hours to complete the certification, resulting in a total industry-wide annual reporting burden for 10 NRSROs of 20 hours.
New paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(E) of Rule 17g–5 may require NRSROs to redraft the agreement templates they use with respect to obtaining representations from issuers, sponsors, or underwriters as required under Rule 17g–5. The Commission estimates that an NRSRO will spend approximately two hours on a one-time basis to redraft these templates with respect to each issuer, sponsor, or underwriter, for a total industry-wide one-time disclosure burden of approximately 6,720 hours. The Commission therefore estimates that the total one-time disclosure burden to redraft the templates would be approximately 2,240 hours per year when annualized over three years.
New paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(E) of Rule 17g–5 also requires issuers, sponsors, and underwriters to post on the Rule 17g–5 Web sites any executed Form ABS Due Diligence-15E delivered by a person employed to provide third-party due diligence services. The Commission estimates that issuers, sponsors, and underwriters will need to post approximately 715 Forms ABS Due Diligence-15E on Rule 17g–5 Web sites per year (in addition to the information that is already posted to the Web sites). The Commission estimates that it will take the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter approximately ten minutes to upload each form and post it to the Web site, for a total industry-wide annual disclosure burden of approximately 119 hours.
As a consequence of the new absolute prohibition in paragraph (c)(8) of Rule 17g–5, the Commission believes that an NRSRO will need to update the written policies and procedures to address and manage conflicts of interest the NRSRO must establish, maintain, and enforce under section 15E(h) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17g–5. The Commission estimates that updating the conflicts of interest policies and procedures would take an NRSRO an average of approximately 100 hours, for an industry-wide one-time reporting burden of approximately 1,000 hours. In addition, Exhibit 7 to Form NRSRO requires an NRSRO to provide a copy of the written policies and procedures in the exhibit. Paragraph (e) of Rule 17g–1 requires an NRSRO to promptly file with the Commission an update of its registration on Form NRSRO when information on the form is materially inaccurate. The update of registration must be filed electronically on the Commission's EDGAR system. The Commission estimates that it would take an NRSRO an average of approximately twenty-five hours on a one-time basis to prepare and file the update of registration to account for the update of the NRSRO's written policies and procedures to address and manage conflicts of interest, for an industry-wide one-time reporting burden of approximately 250 hours. The Commission therefore estimates that the total one-time reporting burden to update the conflicts of interest policies and procedures and to prepare and file an update of registration to account for the update of the NRSRO's written policies and procedures would be 1,250 hours, or approximately 417 hours per year when annualized over three years.
Finally, paragraph (f) of Rule 17g–5 permits an NRSRO to apply for an exemption from the prohibited conflict under paragraph (c)(8) of Rule 17g–5. The Commission estimated that an NRSRO would likely spend an average of approximately 150 hours to draft and submit the application to the Commission. If all 10 NRSROs apply for an exemption, this would result in a one-time industry-wide reporting burden of 1,500 hours, or approximately 500 hours per year when annualized over 3 years.
Accordingly, the total estimated burden associated with Rule 17g–5 is 50,270 hours on a one-time basis (40,800 + 6,720 + 1,250 + 1,500 = 50,270) and 261,295 hours on an annual basis (2,436 + 6,720 + 252,000 + 20 +119 = 261,295).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela C. Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 3110.15 (Temporary Program to Address Underreported Form U4 Information) to extend the expiration date of the refund program under that rule, which currently is July 31, 2015, until December 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On December 30, 2014, the SEC approved FINRA Rule 3110.15, which establishes a temporary refund program whereby FINRA will issue a refund to members of Late Disclosure Fees assessed for the late filing of responses to Question 14M (relating to unsatisfied judgments or liens) on the Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer), subject to specified conditions.
As proposed, FINRA Rule 3110.15 will provide that FINRA will issue a refund to firms of Late Disclosure Fees assessed for the late filing of responses to Form U4 Question 14M (unsatisfied judgments or liens) if the Form U4 amendment is filed between April 24, 2014, and December 1, 2015, and one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The judgment or lien has been satisfied, and at the time it was unsatisfied, it was under $5,000, and the date the judgment or lien was filed with a court (as reported on Form U4 Judgment/Lien DRP, Question 4A) was on or before August 13, 2012;
(2) the unsatisfied judgment or lien was satisfied within 30 days after the individual learned of the judgment or lien (as reported on Form U4 Judgment/Lien DRP, Question 4.B.).
The refund program will continue to have a retroactive effective date of April 24, 2014, but it will automatically sunset on December 1, 2015, as proposed. Thus, firms will not be able to obtain a refund pursuant to the parameters established under the program after December 1, 2015. While the program is in effect, FINRA will initially assess firms a Late Disclosure Fee and subsequently refund the fee in the firm's FINRA Flex-Funding Account if the firm can establish, or if FINRA otherwise determines, that the conditions of the program have been satisfied.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The temporary refund program under FINRA Rule 3110.15 encourages members to comply with their existing reporting obligations and allows them to receive a refund of Late Disclosure Fees if the conditions specified in FINRA Rule 3110.15 are satisfied. As such, FINRA does not believe that extending the expiration date of the temporary refund program will result in any burden on members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of this proposed rule change by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) is to provide clearance and settlement services for energy futures contracts (“Energy Futures”) and options on Energy Futures contracts. In order to do so, OCC is proposing to add new risk models to its STANS methodology as
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide clearance and settlement services for Energy Futures and options on Energy Futures. As described more fully below, OCC is proposing to add new risk models to its STANS methodology that are designed to risk manage Energy Futures.
OCC is proposing to clear and settle 25 Energy Futures and 3 futures options that are proposed to be traded on NFX.
NFX will list petrol and natural gas futures contracts and options on petrol futures contracts. The futures are based on a variety of refined oil fuels and natural gasses that are commonly used for hedging market participants' portfolios. Specifically, NFX will list the following cash-settled petrol and natural gas futures contracts: NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures (BFQ), NFX Gasoil Financial Futures (GOQ), NFX Heating Oil Financial Futures (HOQ), NFX WTI Crude Oil Financial Futures (CLQ), NFX RBOB Gasoline Financial Futures (RBQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Financial Futures—10,000 (HHQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Financial Futures—2,500 (NNQ), NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Penultimate Financial Futures—2,500 (NPQ) and NFX Henry Hub Natural Gas Penultimate Financial Futures—10,000 (HUQ).
Further, NFX will list options on NFX WTI Crude Financial Futures (LOQ), NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures (BCQ) and the NFX Henry Hub Penultimate Financial Futures (LNQ) that settle directly into the referenced futures contract.
NFX will also list electricity futures. These electricity futures are based on electricity prices at different hubs and smaller nodes from across the United States reflecting different power distribution grids and circuits and are look-alike products to products traded on ICE Futures, U.S. and cleared by ICE Clear U.S., Inc. For each of these nodes, there is a “peak” and “off-peak” future representing prices at time periods in the day when electricity usage is high compared to when the demand on the grid is lower. The electricity futures NFX selected for listing are the most popular nodes and hubs within the electricity futures market. More specifically, NFX will list the following electricity contracts, to be settled on final settlement prices based on an average regional transmission organization, independent system operator (“ISO”) published real-time or day-ahead locational marginal prices (“LMPs”)
• NFX ISO–NE Massachusetts Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Future (NOPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Massachusetts Hub.
• NFX ISO–NE Massachusetts Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures (NEPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Massachusetts Hub.
• NFX MISO Indiana Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Futures (CINQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Indiana Hub as published by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”).
• NFX MISO Indiana Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial Futures (CPOQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Indiana Hub as published by MISO.
• NFX PJM AEP Dayton Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Futures (MSOQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the AEP Dayton Hub.
• NFX PJM AEP Dayton Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial Futures (AODQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly
• NFX PJM Northern Illinois Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Futures (PNLQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Northern Illinois Hub.
• NFX PJM Northern Illinois Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial Futures (NIOQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Northern Illinois Hub.
• NFX PJM Western Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures (PJDQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
• NFX PJM Western Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures (PJCQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
• NFX PJM Western Hub Real-Time Off-Peak Financial Futures (OPJQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
• NFX PJM Western Hub Real-Time Peak Financial Future (PJMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average real-time hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the Western Hub.
• NFX CAISO NP–15 Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures (ONPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the NP–15 Hub.
• NFX CAISO NP–15 Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures (NPMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the NP–15 Hub.
• NFX CAISO SP–15 Hub Day-Ahead Off-Peak Financial Futures (OFPQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly off-peak LMPs for the contract month for the SP–15 Hub.
• NFX CAISO SP–15 Hub Day-Ahead Peak Financial Futures (SPMQ), settling on final settlement prices based on average day-ahead hourly peak LMPs for the contract month for the SP–15 Hub.
The proposed Energy Futures are look-alike products to energy futures traded on other futures exchanges and cleared by other DCOs. Accordingly, there is a significant amount of historical data and academic literature concerning risk models for energy futures, as discussed below. OCC has used such data and literature in the development of its risk models for Energy Futures.
Based on such data and literature, OCC has identified two characteristics specific to energy futures (compared to futures contracts already cleared, settled and risk managed by OCC) for which new risk models need to be added to the STANS methodology:
• Energy futures prices are known to be more volatile as contracts approach delivery because of the convergence with cash-market prices and the potential for real-life trading and delivery complications of the underlying commodity. This phenomenon is known as the “Samuelson effect,”
• The price volatility of certain energy futures display a seasonal pattern (a/k/a “seasonality”).
OCC's multi-factor models can be further categorized as either a two-factor model or three-factor model. The two factor model consists of a short-run and long-run factor, while the three-factor model consists of a short-run factor, long-run factor and seasonality factor.
OCC plans to use a two-factor risk model to compute theoretical prices for NFX Brent Crude Financial Futures contracts and NFX WTI Crude Oil Financial Futures contracts since such futures do not exhibit seasonality.
OCC plans to use a three-factor risk model in order to compute theoretical prices for the remainder of the Energy Futures.
Based on the above, OCC believes that the proposed enhancements to STANS have been appropriately designed to support the clearance and settlement of Energy Futures, which belief is supported by model back testing results. Moreover, energy futures are not new or novel contracts, and the clearance and settlement of Energy Futures does not present material risk to OCC.
OCC also proposes to add a Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement in order to support the clearance and settlement of Energy Futures and options on Energy Futures. OCC performs clearance and settlement services for NFX pursuant to the Clearing Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Clearing Agreement, OCC has agreed to clear the specific types of contracts enumerated in the Clearing Agreement and may agree to clear and settle additional types of contracts through the execution by both parties of a new Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement. Energy Futures and options on Energy Futures are not enumerated in the Clearing Agreement, nor do they fall under an existing Schedule C to the Clearing Agreement. Therefore, a new Schedule C providing for the clearance and settlement of Energy Futures and options on Energy Futures is required. A copy of such Schedule C is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on competition.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commissions Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–OCC–2015–006 and should be submitted on or before April 10, 2015.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt new Rule 12.14, Front Running of Block Transactions, to conform with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 12.14, Front Running of Block Transactions, which would require that Members and persons associated with a Member shall comply with FINRA Rule 5270 as if such Rule were part of the Exchange's Rules.
FINRA Rule 5270 includes exceptions to the general prohibitions of the rule where a member can demonstrate that a transaction is unrelated to the material, non-public market information received in connection with the customer order. The Supplementary Material to FINRA Rule 5270 includes an illustrative list of potentially permitted transactions as examples of transactions that, depending upon the circumstances, may be unrelated to the customer block order. These types of transactions may include: Where the member has information barriers established to prevent internal disclosure of such information; actions [sic] in the same security related to a prior customer order in that security; transactions to correct bona fide errors; or transactions to offset odd-lot orders.
In addition, Rule 5270 does not preclude transactions undertaken for the purpose of fulfilling, or facilitating the execution of, the customer block order. However, when engaging in trading activity that could affect the market for the security that is the subject of the customer block order, the member must minimize any potential disadvantage or harm in the execution of the customer's order, must not place the member's financial interests ahead of those of its customer, and must obtain the customer's consent to such trading activity. A member may obtain its customers' consent through affirmative written consent or through the use of a negative consent letter. The negative consent letter must clearly disclose to the customer the terms and conditions for handling the customer's orders; if the customer does not object, then the member may reasonably conclude that the customer has consented and the member may rely on such letter for all or a portion of the customer's orders. In addition, a member may provide clear and comprehensive oral disclosure to and obtain consent from the customer on an order-by-order basis, provided that the member documents who provided such consent and such consent evidences the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions for handling the customer's order.
The Exchange also proposes to state in new Rule 12.14 that although the prohibitions in Rule 5270 are limited to imminent block transactions, the front running of other types of orders that place the financial interests of the Member or persons associated with a Member ahead of those of its customer or the misuse of knowledge of an imminent customer order may violate
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to enable the Exchange to better protect imminent customer block orders, as well as to provide greater harmonization among Exchange and FINRA rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt new Rule 12.14, Front Running of Block Transactions, to conform with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 12.14, Front Running of Block Transactions, which would require that Members and persons associated with a Member shall comply with FINRA Rule 5270 as if such Rule were part of the Exchange's Rules.
FINRA Rule 5270 includes exceptions to the general prohibitions of the rule where a member can demonstrate that a transaction is unrelated to the material, non-public market information received in connection with the customer order. The Supplementary Material to FINRA Rule 5270 includes an illustrative list of potentially permitted transactions as examples of transactions that, depending upon the circumstances, may be unrelated to the customer block order. These types of transactions may include: Where the member has information barriers established to prevent internal disclosure of such information; actions [sic] in the same security related to a prior customer order in that security; transactions to correct bona fide errors; or transactions to offset odd-lot orders.
In addition, Rule 5270 does not preclude transactions undertaken for the purpose of fulfilling, or facilitating the execution of, the customer block order. However, when engaging in trading activity that could affect the market for the security that is the subject of the customer block order, the member must minimize any potential disadvantage or harm in the execution of the customer's order, must not place the member's financial interests ahead of those of its customer, and must obtain the customer's consent to such trading activity. A member may obtain its customers' consent through affirmative written consent or through the use of a negative consent letter. The negative consent letter must clearly disclose to the customer the terms and conditions for handling the customer's orders; if the customer does not object, then the member may reasonably conclude that the customer has consented and the member may rely on such letter for all or a portion of the customer's orders. In addition, a member may provide clear and comprehensive oral disclosure to and obtain consent from the customer on an order-by-order basis, provided that the member documents who provided such consent and such consent evidences the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions for handling the customer's order.
The Exchange also proposes to state in new Rule 12.14 that although the prohibitions in Rule 5270 are limited to imminent block transactions, the front running of other types of orders that place the financial interests of the Member or persons associated with a Member ahead of those of its customer or the misuse of knowledge of an imminent customer order may violate other Exchange rules, including Rule 3.1 and Rule 12.6, or provisions of the federal securities laws.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to enable the Exchange to better protect imminent customer block orders, as well as to provide greater harmonization among Exchange and FINRA rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA, on behalf of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental Draft EIS) will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Orange County and Riverside County, California. The original Notice of Intent
The deadline for comments is Monday, April 13, 2015.
Smita Deshpande; 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100; Irvine, CA 92612; (949) 724–2245;
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Caltrans as the assigned National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) agency, in cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Army Corps of Engineers, will prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS on a proposal for a median-to-median connector between State Route 241 (SR–241) and the State Route 91 (SR–91) Express Lanes, project in Orange County and Riverside County, California.
The proposed median-to-median connector project encompasses 12–ORA–241 (PM 36.1/39.1), 12–ORA–91 (PM 14.7/18.9), and 08–RIV–91 (PM 0.0/1.5) for a length of approximately 8.7 miles. Anticipated federal approvals include an FHWA Air Quality Conformity Determination, Biological Opinion Amendment and permits under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Caltrans District 12, in cooperation with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA), proposes to construct the median-to-median connector from State Route 241 (SR–241) to the State Route 91 (SR–91) Express Lanes. The proposed median-to-median connector is phase 2 of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) project previously approved in 1994. It will provide improved access between SR–241 and SR–91 and is proposed to be a tolled facility. Caltrans will be the lead agency for the project. The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were identified as cooperating agencies in the corresponding 1991 ETC Draft EIS and 1994 ETC Final EIS.
The SR–241/SR–91 Express Lane Connector was originally evaluated as a SR–241/SR–91 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) direct connector in the 1991 ETC Draft EIS and 1994 ETC Final EIS (both of which studied a broader project area with improvements on SR–133, SR–241 and SR–261). The Systems Management Concept (SMC) for the ETC project proposed that the project would be staged, incorporating general purpose traffic and eventually HOV lanes, to meet the forecasted demand. Under the SMC, ETC construction would be completed in one stage with three or more phases.
To implement Phase 2 of the ETC project, a Supplemental Draft EIS is being prepared to focus on the eastern portion of the original project and to address changes to environmental conditions and regulatory requirements. Various alternatives were studied in the 1991 ETC Draft EIS and 1994 ETC Final EIS; however, the Supplemental Draft EIS will include a No Build and one Build Alternative for the median-to-median connector only.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, cooperating agencies, participating agencies, local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. Environmental Review of the project is anticipated to occur from 2015 through 2017. A public scoping meeting is not scheduled at this time; should you be interested, please let us know in writing. A public hearing will be held in 2016. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The Supplemental Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the Supplemental Draft EIS should be directed to Caltrans at the address provided above.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) petition for an exemption of the X1 multi-purpose vehicle line (MPV) in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43–439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
In a petition dated November 21, 2014, BMW requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the X1 MPV vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. BMW stated that its X1 MPV line will be replacing its X1 passenger car line beginning with MY 2016. In its petition, BMW provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for
BMW stated that the antitheft device is a passive vehicle immobilizer system. BMW further stated that the EWS immobilizer device prevents the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power. BMW further stated that the EWS immobilizer device also fulfills the requirements of the European vehicle insurance companies.
BMW stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is removed from the ignition lock cylinder. Deactivation of the device occurs when the Start/Stop button is pressed and the vehicle starting process begins. BMW stated that deactivation cannot be carried out with a mechanical key, but must occur electronically. Specifically, BMW stated that its transponder sends key data to the EWS/CAS control unit. The correct key data must be recognized by the EWS/CAS control unit in order for the vehicle to start. The transponder contains a chip which is integrated in the key and powered by a battery. The transponder also consists of a transmitter/receiver which communicates with the EWS/CAS control unit. The EWS/CAS control unit provides the interface to the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. The ignition and fuel supply are only released when a correct coded release signal has been sent by the EWS/CAS control unit to deactivate the device and allow the vehicle to start. When the EWS/CAS control unit has sent a correct release signal, and after the initial starting value, the release signal becomes a rolling, ever-changing, random code that is stored in the DME/DDE and EWS/CAS control units. The DME/DDE must identify the release signal and only then will the ignition signal and fuel supply be released.
BMW stated that the vehicle is also equipped with a central-locking system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock only the driver's door, thereby preventing forced entry into the vehicle through the passenger doors. The vehicle can be further secured by locking the doors and hood using either the key lock cylinder on the driver's door or the remote frequency remote control. BMW stated that the frequency for the remote control constantly changes to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by intercepting the signals of its remote control.
BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including the BMW X1 MPV line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. BMW stated that the antitheft device that it intends to install on its X1 MPV line for MY 2016 has been sufficient to grant exemptions for other vehicle lines. Specifically, BMW has installed its antitheft device on its X1 (passenger car), X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as well as its Carline 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, and MINI vehicle lines, all which have been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency. BMW asserts that theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which it proposes to install on the X1 MPV line. BMW also stated that for MY/CY 2011, the agency's data show that theft rates for its lines are: 0.69 (1-series), 0.62 (3-series), 0.63 (5-series), 1.08 (7-series), 0.26 (X3), 0.00 (X5), 0.00 (X6), 0.55 (Z4/M), and 0.35 (MINI). Using an average of 3 MYs data (2010–2012), NHTSA's theft rates for BMW's 1 series, 3 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 series, X3, X5, X6, Z4/M and MINI vehicle lines are 0.5503, 07177, 0.7314, 0.0000, 1.7952, 0.2055, 0.5501, 2.5840, 0.4696 and 0.3770 respectively. Theft data for BMW's X1 (passenger car), X4, and Carline 4 is not available.
BMW's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Part 543.6, BMW provided information on the reliability and durability of its device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, BMW conducted tests and believes that the device is reliable and durable because it complied with its own specific standards and the antitheft device is installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has granted a parts-marking exemption. Further assuring the reliability and durability of the X1 antitheft device, BMW notes that the mechanical keys for the X1 MPV line are unique. Specifically, a special key blank, a special key cutting machine and the vehicle's unique code are needed to duplicate a key. BMW stated that new keys will only be issued to authorized persons, and the guide-ways that are milled in the mechanical keys make the locks almost impossible to pick and the keys impossible to duplicate on the open market.
BMW's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm, therefore, this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. However, in its November 2014 petition, BMW asserted that in a previous
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by BMW, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the BMW X1 MPV line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the X1 MPV line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full BMW's petition for exemption for the MY 2016 X1 MPV line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If BMW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption.
Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.95.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding availability.
This notice of funding availability (NOFA or Notice) details the grant application requirements and submission procedures for obtaining up to $27.8 million in Federal funding, as authorized by sections 1101(a)(18) and 1307 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, Public Law 109–59 (August 10, 2005)), as amended by section 102 of the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, Public Law 110–244 (June 6, 2008), for existing magnetic levitation (maglev) projects located east of the Mississippi River. Pursuant to the Joint Committee statement accompanying the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections Act, three projects are eligible for funding under this Notice: The “Pittsburgh project”, the “Baltimore-Washington project”, and the “Atlanta-Chattanooga project”. FRA previously announced the availability of funds for maglev projects located east of the Mississippi River pursuant to a NOFA issued on October 16, 2008, but one of the selected applicants has decided not to pursue the project for which the funds were allocated resulting in the availability of the funds for this Notice. Funds awarded under this Notice can be used for preconstruction planning activities and capital costs of a viable maglev project.
Applications for funding under this NOFA are due no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, April 20, 2015. Applications for funding received after 5:00 p.m. EST on April 20, 2015, will not be considered. See Section 4 of this Notice for additional information regarding the application process.
Applications must be submitted via Grants.gov. For any required or supporting application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via Grants.gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), an applicant may submit an original and two (2) copies to Renee Cooper, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590. However, due to delays caused by enhanced screening of mail delivered via the U.S. Postal Service, applicants are advised to use other means of conveyance (such as courier service) to assure timely receipt of materials.
For further information regarding this Notice, please contact Renee Cooper, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590; Email:
FRA strongly suggests that applicants read this Notice in its entirety prior to preparing application materials. There are programmatic prerequisites and administrative requirements described herein that applicants must comply with in order to submit an application and be considered for funding.
Section 102 of the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 110–244, June 6, 2008) (the 2008 Act), amended sections 1101(a)(18) and 1307 of SAFETEA–LU and provided $45 million in contract authority for maglev projects located east of the Mississippi River. Of the funding available for projects east of the Mississippi River ($45 million), approximately $27.8 million in funding is available for award under this NOFA.
In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environmental and Public Works, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees accompanying the 2008 Act (the Joint Explanatory Statement), Congress explained that in amending SAFETEA–LU to allow FRA discretion to award funds to “projects” located east of the Mississippi River, “the intent is to limit the eligible projects to three existing
Through this NOFA, FRA will determine whether any of the three eligible projects east of the Mississippi River will receive all or a portion of available funds for maglev projects (based upon a review of submitted applications) and has the discretion to award funds to one or more of those three projects.
FRA will make available up to $27.8 million in funding available under this NOFA. Should additional funds become available after the release of this Notice, FRA
Fund recipients under this NOFA must comply with the requirements outlined in Title 2, CFR (particularly 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), as required by the grant award conditions, and all other applicable Federal and DOT/FRA guidance. The funding provided under this NOFA will be made available in the form of a Cooperative Agreement between FRA and the selected applicant(s). Cooperative agreements allow for greater Federal involvement in carrying out the agreed upon investment, including technical assistance, review of interim work products, and increased program oversight. Funds will be transmitted to selected applicants on a reimbursable basis.
In accordance with the Joint Explanatory Statement, eligible projects are limited to three existing projects east of the Mississippi River: Pittsburgh, PA; Baltimore, MD–Washington, DC; and Atlanta, GA–Chattanooga, TN. Applicants must be a State, States, or an authority designated by one or more States.
If the project proponents propose service in more than one State, a single State or designated State authority should apply on behalf of all participating States. FRA encourages States to submit applications through their respective Departments of Transportation.
Congress established three project eligibility requirements for financial assistance under this program. The project must: (1) Involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground transportation corridor; (2) result in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing service; and (3) be approved by the Secretary based on an application submitted to the Secretary by a State or authority designated by one or more States. With respect to the second criterion, Congress titled section 1307 “Deployment of Magnetic Levitation Transportation Projects” and the funding provided through section 1101(a)(18) of SAFETEA–LU, as amended by the 2008 Act, is made available for the “deployment of magnetic levitation projects.” FRA interprets the statute as a whole as evidencing a Congressional intent that the Federal funds be used to directly advance and result in the construction of a maglev project. Thus, in order to be eligible for funding under this program, an application must include evidence that an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing service will be constructed.
Congress also defined other key terms and program requirements. Maglev is defined to mean “transportation systems employing magnetic levitation that would be capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 240 miles per hour.”
Eligible project costs can include costs for preconstruction planning work and/or capital costs for fixed guideway infrastructure for a maglev project (see SAFETEA–LU section 1307(a)(1) for the complete definition).
These criteria and definitions are prerequisites to FRA evaluating an application and the application materials must include data to support these eligibility requirements. If the criteria are not met to FRA's satisfaction, the project is not eligible for funding.
The Federal share of a selected project or projects shall not exceed 80 percent of the total project cost (based on the final project scope selected for funding by FRA). The grantee(s) is (are) responsible for providing a minimum of 20 percent of the total project cost from non-federal sources.
Complete applications must be submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on April 20, 2015. Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply early to ensure that all materials are received before this deadline.
This NOFA will be available to the public beginning March 19, 2015. To apply for funding through Grants.gov, applicants must be properly registered. Complete instructions on how to register and submit an application can be found at Grants.gov. Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however, it can take up to several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password. FRA recommends that applicants start the registration process as early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude submitting an application package by the application deadline. Under no circumstances will applications be accepted after the due date. Delayed registration is not an acceptable justification for extending the application deadline.
In order to apply for funding under this announcement and to apply for funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are required to complete the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If an applicant experiences difficulties at any point during this process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Center Hotline at 1–800–518–4726, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (closed on Federal holidays).
Required documents for the application package are outlined in the checklist below. Applicants are encouraged to visit the FRA Web site (
Applicants must complete and submit all components of the application package. FRA welcomes the submission of other relevant supporting documentation that may have been developed by the applicant (planning, environmental documentation, engineering and design documentation, letters of support, etc.).
Applicants should submit all application materials through Grants.gov. For any required or supporting application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via Grants.gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), an applicant may submit an original and two (2) copies to Renee Cooper, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590. However, due to delays caused by enhanced screening of mail delivered via the U.S. Postal Service, applicants are advised to use other means of conveyance (such as courier service) to assure timely receipt of materials.
The following points describe the minimum content which will be required in the Project Narrative component of grant applications (additionally, FRA recommends that the Project Narrative generally adhere to the following outline sequence). These requirements must be satisfied through a narrative statement submitted by the applicant, and may be supported by spreadsheet documents, tables, maps, drawings, and other materials, as appropriate. The Project Narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length (including any appendices).
The FRA recommends that applicants read this section carefully and submit all required information:
1. Include a title page that lists the following elements in either a table or formatted list: project title, location (city, State, district), the applicant organization name, the name of any co-applicants, and the amount of Federal funding requested and the proposed non-Federal match.
2. Designate a point of contact for the application and provide his or her name and contact information, including phone number, mailing address, and email address. The point of contact must be an employee of an eligible applicant.
3. Indicate the amount of Federal funding requested, the proposed non-Federal match, and total project cost, including the methodology or practices deployed for accurately estimating costs (such as the best practices cited in the Government Accountability Office's Cost Estimate and Assessment Guide). Additionally, identify any other sources of Federal funds committed to the project, as well as any pending Federal funding requests. Make sure to also note if the requested Federal funding must be obligated or expended by a certain date due to dependencies or relationships with other Federal or non-Federal funding sources, related projects, or other factors. Finally, specify whether Federal funding has ever previously been sought for the project and not secured, and name the Federal program and fiscal year from which the funding was requested.
4. Explain how the applicant meets the respective applicant and project
5. Provide a brief 4–6 sentence summary of the proposed project, capturing the transportation challenges the proposed project aims to address, the market to be served by the new service, as well as the intended outcomes and anticipated benefits that will result from the proposed project.
6. Include a detailed project description that expands upon the brief summary required above. This detailed description should provide, at a minimum, additional background on the transportation challenges the project aims to address, the expected users, beneficiaries, and outcomes of the project, and any other information the applicant deems necessary to justify the proposed project. Be specific regarding the relevance or relationship of the proposed project to other investments in the region along the corridor, as well as the operating changes that are anticipated to result from the introduction and integration of maglev services within existing transportation corridors and assess the major risks (including safety risks) or obstacles to maglev's successful deployment and operation. Provide a detailed summary of all work done to date, including any preliminary engineering work, the project's previous accomplishments and funding history, and a chronology of key documents produced and funding events (
7. Include a thorough discussion of how the project meets all of the selection criteria for the respective project type, as outlined in Section 5 of this notice. In responding to the criteria, applicants are reminded to clearly identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits and costs of proposed projects.
8. Describe proposed project implementation and project management arrangements for the full maglev corridor project, including the activities proposed in this application. Include descriptions of the expected arrangements for project contracting, contract oversight, change-order management, risk management, and conformance to Federal requirements for project progress reporting.
9. Describe the plan to finance any planning, land acquisition, buildout, testing, and implementation of the project, and specify long term financial plans to own, operate and maintain maglev services.
10. Describe anticipated environmental or historic preservation impacts associated with the proposed project, any environmental or historic preservation analyses that have been prepared, and any ongoing progress toward completing environmental documentation or clearance required for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), section 4(f) of the DOT Act, the Clean Water Act, or other applicable Federal or State laws, and provide, as available, timeline associated with the process to complete these actions. Applicants and grantees under FRA's financial assistance programs are encouraged to contact FRA and obtain preliminary direction regarding the appropriate NEPA class of action and required environmental documentation. Generally, projects will be ineligible to receive funding if they have begun construction activities prior to the applicant/grantee receiving written approval from FRA that all environmental and historical analyses have been completed.
Applicants are required to submit a Statement of Work (SOW) that addresses the scope, schedule, and budget for the proposed project if it were to be selected for award. The SOW should contain sufficient detail so that both FRA and the applicant can understand the individual tasks that comprise the project and the expected outcomes of the proposed work to be performed, and monitor progress toward completing project tasks and deliverables during a prospective grant's period of performance.
Across all funding programs, FRA awards funds to projects that achieve the maximum public benefit possible given the amount of funding available for that project. Analysis provided by applicants that quantifies the monetary value (whenever possible) of the anticipated or potential public benefits of the project is relevant to FRA when assessing and evaluating applications for funding.
FRA will review applications and assess them against the following selection criteria:
1. The extent to which the project will address at least one or more serious challenges to the feasibility of integrating maglev systems with conventional rail systems.
2. The extent to which funds awarded under this section will result in investments that are beneficial not only to the maglev project, but also to other current or near-term transportation projects. Applicants should keep in mind, however, that—while project eligibility requires three areas of satisfaction, including the project resulting in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing source—Federal funds may not be used for station construction costs or solely for land acquisition pursuant to securing operation right-of-way.
3. The degree to which the project demonstrates the potential for a public-private partnership for the corridor in which the maglev project is involved, and/or for the project independently. Any corridor exhibiting partnership potential must meet at least the following conditions: (a) Once built and paid for, the corridor will stand alone as a complete, self-sustaining operation; (b) the total, fully allocated operating expenses of the maglev service are projected to be offset by revenues attributable to the service; and (c) the total public benefits of a maglev corridor must equal or exceed its total societal costs.
4. The extent of the demonstrated financial commitment to the construction of the proposed project from both non-Federal public sources and private sources, including any financial contributions or commitment the applicant has secured from non-Federal entities that are expected to benefit from the project. If applicable, also include the extent to which the State or private entities exceed the required 20 percent match.
5. The extent to which the project demonstrates the ability to meet all applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations, and environmental requirements—to include coordination and consistency with any ongoing or completed environmental and planning studies for passenger rail on or connecting to the geographic route segment being proposed for maglev investment (
6. The degree to which the project will demonstrate the variety of maglev operating conditions which are to be expected in the United States. For example, these conditions might include a variety of at-grade, elevated and depressed guideway structures, extreme temperatures, and intermodal connections at terminals.
7. The feasibility of the project meeting a top speed of at least 240 miles per hour (MPH). FRA will also consider
Applications selected for funding will be announced after the application review period. FRA will contact applicants with successful applications after announcement with information and instructions about the award process. Notification of a selected application is not an authorization to begin proposed project activities.
Applicants selected for funding (and any subrecipient(s)) must comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing the grant agreement. A non-exclusive list of administrative and national policy requirements that grantees must follow includes: Procurement standards, compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations, disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE), debarment and suspension, drug-free workplace, FRA's and OMB's Assurances and Certifications, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), labor standards, safety oversight, environmental protection, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and environmental justice. In addition, FRA expects applicants to comply with the Buy America standards in 49 U.S.C. 24405(a). FRA expects this to apply to any capital costs funded under this NOFA for steel, iron, or manufactured goods used in construction of the Maglev project.
The grantee must comply with all post-award implementing, reporting, auditing, monitoring, and close-out requirements, as described in Title 2, CFR (particularly 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), as required by the grant award conditions, and all other applicable Federal and DOT/FRA guidance.
For further information regarding this notice and the grants program, please contact Renee Cooper, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590; Email:
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109–59, August 10, 2005), and the SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 110–244, June 6, 2008.)
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice of Rescheduled Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee (RETAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(2). This meeting was originally scheduled for Thursday, March 5, 2015, 80 FR 8760. However, the meeting was cancelled because of inclement weather in Washington, DC, which ultimately led the Federal Government to close that day.
The rescheduled meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., E.D.T.
The meeting will be held in the Hearing Room on the first floor of the Board's headquarters at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423.
Michael Higgins (202) 245–0284;
RETAC was formed in 2007 to provide advice and guidance to the Board and to serve as a forum for discussion of emerging issues related to the transportation of energy resources by rail, including coal, ethanol, and other biofuels,
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR pt. 102–3; RETAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board's Web site at
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
49 U.S.C. 721, 49 U.S.C. 11101; 49 U.S.C. 11121.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will be held in Seattle, Washington from April 21–23, 2015, at the below times and locations:
On April 21, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Building 100, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, Washington; 1:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., at the Seattle Regional Benefit Office, Jackson Federal Building, 915 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA; from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the Seattle Vet Center, 4735 E. Marginal Way S, Room 1103, Seattle, WA;
On April 22, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., at the Tahoma National Cemetery, 18600 SE 240th St., Kent, WA; from 11:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., at the VA Puget Sound HCS-American Lake Campus, 9600 Veterans Dr., Tacoma, WA; 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., conducting a Town Hall Meeting at Building 9 (Auditorium), VA Puget Sound HCS-American Lake Division, 9600 Veterans Dr., Tacoma, WA; and
On April 23, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., at the VA Puget Sound HCS, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans, to assess the needs of minority Veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation and pension, medical and rehabilitation services, memorial services outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities subsequent to the meeting.
On the morning of April 21 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the Committee will meet in open session with key staff at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges, and successes. From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the VA Medical Center. In the afternoon from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the Committee will reconvene in a closed session in order to protect privacy of claims records as the Committee is briefed by senior Veterans Benefits Administration staff from the Seattle Regional Benefit Office. The Committee will travel to the Seattle Vet Center and will convene a closed session to meet with key staff at the Seattle Vet Center in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the facility.
On the morning of April 22 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the Tahoma National Cemetery followed by a tour of the cemetery. The Committee will meet with key staff to discuss services, benefits, delivery challenges and successes. From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will tour the VA Puget Sound HCS-American Lake Campus. In the afternoon from 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., the Committee will reconvene in open session to be briefed and tour the Native American Sweat Lodge—American Lake. In the evening, the Committee will hold a Veterans Town Hall meeting at Building 9 (Auditorium), VA Puget Sound HCS-American Lake Division, beginning at 4:30 p.m.
On the morning of April 23 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene in open session at the VA Puget Sound HCS to conduct an exit briefing with leadership from the VA Puget Sound HCS, Seattle Regional Benefit Office, and Tahoma National Cemetery. In the afternoon from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., the Committee will work on drafting recommendations for the annual report to the Secretary.
Portions of these visits are closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Exemption 6 permits to Committee to close those portions of a meeting that are likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. During the closed sessions the Committee will discuss VA beneficiary and patient information in which there is a clear unwarranted invasion of the Veteran or beneficiary privacy.
Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on April 23, at 10 a.m. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come first serve basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1–2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official record. The Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda, as well as other issues affecting minority Veterans. Such comments should be sent to Ms. Juanita Mullen, Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), on behalf of SIO and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine geophysical (seismic) survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 2015. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SIO to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, 32 species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 20, 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
A copy of the IHA application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed here (see
A “Draft Environmental Analysis of a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V
Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 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.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS's review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
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 15, 2014, NMFS received an application from SIO, on behalf of SIO and NSF, requesting that NMFS issue an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey as well as heat-flow measurements in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, at three sites off the east coast of New Zealand, during May to June 2015. The sediment coring component of the proposed project, which was described in the IHA application and Draft Environmental Analysis, was not funded and no piston or gravity coring for seafloor samples would be
The research would be conducted by Oregon State University and funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). SIO plan to use one source vessel, the R/V
Acoustic stimuli (
SIO proposes to use one source vessel, the
The
The proposed project and survey sites are located off the southeast coast of North Island and northeast coast of the South Island, New Zealand in selected regions of the Southwest Pacific Ocean. The proposed survey sites are located between approximately 38.5 to 42.5° South and approximately 174 to 180° East off the east coast of New Zealand, in the EEZ of New Zealand and outside of territorial waters (see Figure 1 of the IHA Application). Water depths in the study area are between approximately 200 to 3,000 m (656.2 to 9,842.5 ft). The proposed low-energy seismic survey would be collected in a total of nine grids of intersecting lines of two sizes (see Figure 1 of the IHA application) at exact locations to be determined in the field during May to June 2015. Figure 1 also illustrates the general bathymetry of the proposed study area. The proposed low-energy seismic survey would be within an area of approximately 1,154 km
In support of a research project put forward by Oregon State University (OSU) and to be funded by NSF, SIO proposes to conduct a low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, from May to June 2015. In addition to the low-energy seismic survey, scientific research activities would include conducting a bathymetric profile survey of the seafloor using transducer-based instruments such as a multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler; and heat-flow measurements from the seafloor using various methods and equipment at three sites off the southeast coast of North Island and northeast coast of South Island, New Zealand. Water depths in the survey area are approximately 200 to 3,000 meters (m) (656.2 to 9,842.5 feet [ft]).
The proposed surveys would allow the development of a process-based understanding of the thermal structure of the Hikurangi subduction zone, and the expansion of this understanding by using regional observations of gas hydrate-related bottom simulating reflections. To achieve the proposed project's goals, the Principal Investigators propose to collect low-energy, high-resolution multi-channel system profiles, heat-flow measurements, and sediment cores along transects seaward and landward of the Hikurangi deformation front. Heat-flow measurements would be made in well-characterized sites, increasing the number of publicly available heat-flow and thermal conductivity measurements from this continental margin by two orders of magnitude. Seismic survey data would be used to produce sediment structural maps and seismic velocities to achieve the project objectives. Data from sediment cores would detect and estimate the nature and sources of fluid flow through high permeability pathways in the overriding plate and along the subduction thrust; characterize the hydrocarbon and gas hydrate system to assist with estimates of heat flow from Bottom Simulating Reflectors (BSR)s, their role in slope stability, and fluid source; and elucidate the response of microbes involved in carbon cycling to changes in methane flux.
The low-energy seismic survey would be collected in a total of 9 grids of intersecting lines of two sizes (see Figure 1 of the IHA application) at exact locations to be determined in the field. The water depths would be very similar to those at the nominal survey locations shown in Figure 1 of the IHA application. The northern and middle sites off the North Island would be the primary study areas, and the southern site off the South Island would be a contingency area that would only be surveyed if time permits. SIO's calculations assume that 7 grids at the primary areas and two grids at the southern site would be surveyed. The total trackline distance of the low-energy seismic survey would be approximately 1,250 km (including the two South Island contingency sites), almost all in water depths greater than 1,000 m.
The procedures to be used for the survey would be similar to those used during previous low-energy seismic surveys by SIO and NSF and would use conventional seismic methodology. The proposed survey would involve one source vessel, the
The planned seismic survey (including equipment testing, start-up, line changes, repeat coverage of any areas, and equipment recovery) would consist of approximately 1,250 kilometers (km) (674.9 nautical miles [nmi]) of transect lines (including turns) in the study area in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (see Figures 1 of the IHA application). Approximately 95% of the low-energy seismic survey would occur in water depths greater than 1,000 m. In addition to the operation of the airgun array and heat-flow measurements, a multi-beam echosounder and a sub-bottom profiler would also likely be operated from the
The
The U.S.-flagged vessel, built in 1996, has a length of 83 m (272.3 ft); a beam of 16.0 m (52.5 ft); a maximum draft of 5.2 m (19.5 ft); and a gross tonnage of 3,180. The ship is powered by two 3,000
The vessel also has two observation station locations from which Protected Species Observers (PSO) would watch for marine mammals before and during the proposed airgun operations on the
The
The GI airguns would fire the compressed air volume in unison in “true GI” mode. The GI airguns would be used in “true GI” mode, that is, the volume of the injector chamber (I) (105 in
The Nucleus modeling software used at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (L–DEO) does not include GI airguns as part of its airgun library, however signatures and mitigation models have been obtained for two 45 in
During the low-energy seismic survey, the vessel would attempt to maintain a constant cruise speed of approximately 5 knots. The airguns would operate continuously for no more than approximately 72 hours at a time based on operational constraints. The total duration of the airgun operations would not exceed 135 hours. The relatively short, 48-channel hydrophone streamer would provide operational flexibility to allow the low-energy seismic survey to proceed along the designated cruise tracklines. The design of the seismic equipment is to achieve high-resolution images with the ability to correlate to the ultra-high frequency sub-bottom profiling data and provide cross-sectional views to pair with the seafloor bathymetry.
This section includes a brief explanation of the sound measurements frequently used in the discussions of acoustic effects in this document. Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, and is usually measured in micropascals (μPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. Sound pressure level (SPL) is expressed as the ratio of a measured sound pressure and a reference level. The commonly used reference pressure level in underwater acoustics is 1 μPa, and the units for SPLs are dB re 1 μPa. SPL (in decibels [dB]) = 20 log (pressure/reference pressure).
SPL is an instantaneous measurement and can be expressed as the peak, the peak-to-peak (p-p), or the root mean square (rms). Root mean square, which is the square root of the arithmetic average of the squared instantaneous pressure values, is typically used in discussions of the effects of sounds on vertebrates and all references to SPL in this document refer to the root mean square unless otherwise noted. SPL does not take the duration of a sound into account.
Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water, which creates an air bubble. The pressure signature of an individual airgun consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several positive and negative pressure excursions caused by the oscillation of the resulting air bubble. The oscillation of the air bubble transmits sounds downward through the seafloor, and the amount of sound transmitted in the near horizontal directions is reduced. However, the airgun array also emits sounds that travel horizontally toward non-target areas.
The nominal downward-directed source levels of the airgun arrays used by SIO on the
Accordingly, L–DEO has predicted and modeled the received sound levels in relation to distance and direction from the two GI airgun array. These are the nominal source levels applicable to downward propagation. A detailed description of L–DEO's modeling for this survey's marine seismic source arrays for protected species mitigation is provided in the “Programmatic
To estimate takes and determine mitigation (
Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during the acoustic verification studies conducted by L–DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in 2003 (Tolstoy
Measurements were not made for a two GI airgun array in intermediate and deep water; however, SIO proposes to use the buffer and exclusion zones predicted by L–DEO's model for the proposed GI airgun operations in intermediate and deep water, although they are likely conservative given the empirical results for the other arrays. Using the L–DEO model, Table 2 (below) shows the distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received from the two GI airguns. The 160 dB re 1 μPam (rms) isopleth is the threshold specified by NMFS for potential Level B (behavioral) harassment from impulsive noise for both cetaceans and pinnipeds. The 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPam (rms) isopleths are the thresholds currently used to estimate potential Level A harassment as specified by NMFS (2000) and are applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the predicted distances at which sound levels (160, 180, and 190 dB [rms]) are expected to be received from the two airgun array (each 45 in
Based on the NSF/USGS PEIS and Record of Decision, for situations which incidental take of marine mammals is anticipated, proposed exclusion zones of 100 m for cetaceans and pinnipeds for all low-energy acoustic sources in water depths greater than 100 m would be implemented.
NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from the proposed operation of the two GI airgun array has the potential to harass marine mammals. NMFS does not expect that the movement of the
Along with the low-energy airgun operations, two additional geophysical (detailed swath bathymetry) measurements focused on a specific study area within the Southwest Pacific Ocean would be made using hull-mounted sonar system instruments from the
Multi-Beam Echosounder (Kongsberg EM 122)—The hull-mounted multi-beam sonar would be operated continuously during the cruise to map the ocean floor. This instrument would operate at a frequency of 10.5 to 13 (usually 12) kilohertz (kHz) and would be hull-mounted. The transmitting beamwidth would be 1 or 2° fore to aft and 150° athwartship (cross-track). The estimated maximum source energy level would be 242 dB re 1μPa (rms). Each `ping' of eight (in water greater than 1,000 m or four (in water less than 1,000 m) successive fan-shaped transmissions, each ensonifying a sector that extends 1° fore to aft. Continuous-wave signals increase from 2 to 15 milliseconds (ms) in water depths up to 2,600 m (8,530 ft), and FM chirp signals up to 100 ms long would be used in water greater than 2,600 m. The successive transmission span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 150°, with 2 ms gaps between the pings for successive sectors.
Sub-Bottom Profiler—The
Acoustic Locator (Pinger)—A pinger would be deployed with certain instruments and equipment (
Heat-flow measurements would be made using a “violin-bow” probe with 11 thermistors that provides real time (analog) telemetry of the thermal gradient and in-situ thermal conductivity. The heat-flow probe that would be used on the Revelle consists of a lance 6 centimeter (cm) (2.4 in) in diameter and 3.5 m (11.5 ft) long, a sensor tube housing thermistors and heater wires, and a 560 kg (1,234.6 lb) weight stand. The probe would be lowered to the bottom, and a 12 kHz pinger attached to the wire approximately 50 m (164 ft) above the instrument would monitor the distance between the probe and bottom. The probe would be driven into the sediment by gravity, and temperatures within the sediment would be measured with equally spaced thermistors. On completion of a measurement, the instrument would be hoisted 100 to 500 m (328.1 to 1,640.4 ft) above the sediment, the ship is maneuvered to a new position, and the process is repeated. Heat-flow measurements can generally be made at a rate of 1 to 2 hours per measurement, approximately 15 minutes for the actual measurement and 45 to 90 minutes to reposition the ship and probe. Internal power allows 20 to 24 measurements during a single lowering of the tool, with profiles lasting as long as 48 hours. Proposed heat-flow measurements would have a nominal spacing of 0.5 to 1 km (0.3 to 0.5 nmi), which would be decreased in areas of significant basement relief or of large changes in gradient. Heat flow transect locations are shown in Figure 1 of the IHA application, and details of the probe and its deployment are given in Section (f) of the IHA application. In total, approximately 200 heat-flow measurements would be made.
Few scientific systematic surveys for marine mammals have been conducted in the waters of New Zealand, and these mainly consist of single-species surveys in shallow coastal waters (
New Zealand is considered a “hotspot” for marine mammal species richness (Kaschner
Marine mammal species likely to be encountered in the proposed study area that are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
In addition to the marine mammal species known to occur in the Southwest Pacific Ocean off the east coast of New Zealand, there are 18 species of marine mammals (12 cetacean and 6 pinniped species) with ranges that are known to potentially occur in the waters of the proposed study area, but they are categorized as “vagrant” under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker
Refer to sections 3 and 4 of SIO's IHA application for detailed information regarding the abundance and distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of these marine mammal species and their occurrence in the proposed action area. The IHA application also presents how SIO calculated the estimated densities for the marine mammals in the proposed study area. NMFS has reviewed these data and determined them to be the best available scientific information for the purposes of the proposed IHA.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins,
• Phocid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz;
• Otariid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, 32 marine mammal species (30 cetacean and 2 pinniped species) are likely to occur in the proposed low-energy seismic survey area. Of the 30 cetacean species likely to occur in SIO's proposed action area, 9 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (southern right, pygmy right, humpback, minke, Antarctic minke, Bryde's, sei, fin, and blue whale), 20 are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (sperm, Cuvier's beaked, Shepherd's beaked, southern bottlenose, Andrew's beaked, Blainville's beaked, Gray's beaked, Hector's beaked, spade-toothed beaked, strap-toothed beaked, killer, false killer, long-finned pilot, and short-finned pilot whale, and bottlenose, dusky, Hector's, hourglass, short-beaked common, and southern right whale dolphin), and 1 is classified as high-frequency cetaceans (pygmy sperm whale) (Southall
Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which introduce sound into the marine environment, have the potential to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the proposed study area. The effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson
Richardson
Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers (Nieukirk
The term masking refers to the inability of a subject to recognize the occurrence of an acoustic stimulus as a result of the interference of another acoustic stimulus (Clark
The airguns for the proposed low-energy seismic survey have dominant frequency components of 0 to 188 Hz. This frequency range fully overlaps the lower part of the frequency range of odontocete calls and/or functional hearing (full range about 150 Hz to 180 kHz). Airguns also produce a small portion of their sound at mid and high
Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic airgun pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in some situations, reverberation occurs for much or the entire interval between pulses (
Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their calls can usually be heard between the seismic pulses (
Pinnipeds have the most sensitive hearing and/or produce most of their sounds in frequencies higher than the dominant components of airgun sound, but there is some overlap in the frequencies of the airgun pulses and the calls. However, the intermittent nature of airgun pules presumably reduces the potential for masking.
Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by adjusting their acoustic behavior through shifting call frequencies, increasing call volume, and increasing vocalization rates. For example blue whales are found to increase call rates when exposed to noise from seismic surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 2009). The North Atlantic right whales (
Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction. Some of these significant behavioral modifications include:
• Change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Richardson
Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that seismic pulses with received levels of 160 to 170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed (Malme
Researchers have studied the responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys during migration, feeding during the summer months, breeding while offshore from Angola, and wintering offshore from Brazil. McCauley
Data collected by observers during several seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic showed that sighting rates of humpback whales were significantly greater during non-seismic periods compared with periods when a full array was operating (Moulton and Holst, 2010). In addition, humpback whales were more likely to swim away and less likely to swim towards a vessel during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010).
Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64–L (100 in
Studies have suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel
There are no reactions of right whales to seismic surveys. However, Rolland
Results from bowhead whales show that their responsiveness can be quite variable depending on their activity (migrating versus feeding). Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in particular, are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 20 to 30 km (10.8 to 16.2 nmi) from a medium-sized airgun source (Miller
Bowhead whale calls detected in the presence and absence of airgun sounds have been studied extensively in the Beaufort Sea. Bowheads continue to produce calls of the usual types when exposed to airgun sounds on their summering grounds, although number of calls detected are significantly lower in the presence than in the absence of airgun pulses; Blackwell
A multivariate analysis of factors affecting the distribution of calling bowhead whales during their fall migration in 2009 noted that the southern edge of the distribution of calling whales was significantly closer to shore with increasing levels of airgun sound from a seismic survey a few hundred kms to the east of the study area (
Reactions of migrating and feeding (but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys have been studied. Malme
Various species of
Ship-based monitoring studies of baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales) in the Northwest Atlantic found that overall, this group had lower sighting rates during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Baleen whales as a group were also seen significantly farther from the vessel during seismic compared with non-seismic periods, and they were more often seen to be swimming away from the operating seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Blue and minke whales were initially sighted significantly farther from the vessel during seismic operations compared to non-seismic periods; the same trend was observed for fin whales (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Minke whales were most often observed to be swimming away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway (Moulton and Holst, 2010).
Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of long-term or biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales have continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America with substantial increases in the population over recent years, despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme
Seismic operators and PSOs on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (
Preliminary findings of a monitoring study of narwhals (
Results of porpoises depend on species. The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises (
Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that the sperm whale shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses (
There are increasing indications that some beaked whales tend to strand when naval exercises involving mid-frequency sonar operation are ongoing nearby (
Odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for the more responsive of some mysticetes. However, other data suggest that some odontocete species, including harbor porpoises, may be more responsive than might be expected given their poor low-frequency hearing. Reactions at longer distances may be particularly likely when sound propagation conditions are conducive to transmission of the higher frequency components of airgun sound to the animals' location (DeRuiter
During seismic exploration off Nova Scotia, gray seals (
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift include the amplitude, duration, frequency
The established 180 and 190 dB (rms) criteria are not considered to be the levels above which TTS might occur. Rather, they are the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS before TTS measurements for marine mammals started to become available, one could not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. NMFS also assumes that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may experience Level B harassment.
For toothed whales, researchers have derived TTS information for odontocetes from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga. The experiments show that exposure to a single impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi, peak-to-peak), which is equivalent to 228 dB re 1 Pa (peak-to-peak), resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran
For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are assumed to be lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be higher. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison, 2004). From this, it is suspected that received levels causing TTS onset may also be higher in baleen whales than those of odontocetes (Southall
In pinnipeds, researchers have not measured TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound. Initial evidence from more prolonged (non-pulse) exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak
Additional data are needed to determine the received levels at which small odontocetes would start to incur TTS upon exposure to repeated, low-frequency pulses of airgun sounds with variable received levels. To determine how close an airgun array would need to approach in order to elicit TTS, one would (as a minimum) need to allow for the sequence of distances at which airgun pulses would occur, and for the dependence of received SEL on distance in the region of the airgun operation (Breitzke and Bohlen, 2010; Laws, 2012). At the present state of knowledge, it can be assumed that the effect is directly related to total receive energy, although there is recent evidence that auditory effects in a given animal are not a simple function of received acoustic energy. Frequency, duration of the exposure and occurrence of gaps within the exposure can also influence the auditory effect (Finneran and Schlundt, 2010, 2011, 2013; Finneran
The assumption that, in marine mammals, the occurrence and magnitude of TTS is a function of cumulative acoustic energy (SEL) is probably an oversimplification (Finneran, 2012). Popov
Recent data have shown that the SEL required for TTS onset to occur increases with intermittent exposures, with some auditory recovery during silent periods between (Finneran
Recent studies have also shown that the SEL necessary to elicit TTS can depend substantially on frequency, with susceptibility to TTS increasing with increasing frequency above 3 kHz (Finneran and Schlundt, 2010, 2011; Finneran, 2012). When beluga whales
It is inappropriate to assume that onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all cetaceans (Southall
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals (Southall
In general, very little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds (or other types of strong underwater sounds) to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
There is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large airgun arrays. However, Gray and Van Waerebeek (2011) have suggested a cause-effect relationship between a seismic survey off Liberia in 2009 and the erratic movement, postural instability, and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin based on spatially and temporally close association with the airgun array. Additionally, a few cases of strandings in the general area where a seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings (Castellote and Llorens, 2013).
Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
Over the past 12 years, there have been five stranding events coincident with military mid-frequency active sonar use in which exposure to sonar is believed to have been a contributing factor to strandings: Greece (1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira (2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain (2006). Refer to Cox
Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented, but may include:
(1) Swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water;
(2) A change in behavior (such as a change in diving behavior) that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms of trauma;
(3) A physiological change such as a vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn to tissue damage; and
(4) Tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through acoustically-mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues.
Some of these mechanisms are unlikely to apply in the case of impulse sounds. However, there are indications that gas-bubble disease (analogous to “the bends”), induced in supersaturated tissue by a behavioral response to acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic mechanism for the strandings and mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans exposed to sonar. The evidence for this remains circumstantial and associated with exposure to naval mid-frequency sonar, not seismic surveys (Cox
Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar signals are quite different, and some mechanisms by which sonar sounds have been hypothesized to affect beaked whales are unlikely to apply to airgun pulses. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband impulses with most of the energy below one kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonar emits non-impulse sounds at frequencies of 2 to 10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. A further difference between seismic surveys and naval exercises is that naval exercises can involve sound sources on more than one vessel. Thus, it is not appropriate to expect that the same effects to marine mammals would result from military sonar and seismic surveys. However, evidence that sonar signals can, in special circumstances, lead (at least indirectly) to physical damage and mortality (
There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as a result of exposure to seismic surveys, but a few cases of strandings in the general area where a seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings. Suggestions that there was a link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel
(1) The high likelihood that any beaked whales nearby would avoid the approaching vessel before being exposed to high sound levels, and
(2) Differences between the sound sources to be used in the proposed study and operated by SIO and those involved in the naval exercises associated with strandings.
SIO would operate the Kongsberg EM 122 multi-beam echosounder from the source vessel during the planned study. Sounds from the multi-beam echosounder are very short pulses, occurring for approximately 2 to 15 ms once every 5 to 20 seconds, depending on water depth. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the multi-beam echosounder is at frequencies near 12 kHz (10.5 to 13), and the maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The beam is narrow (1 to 2°) in fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of eight (in water greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (in water less than 1,000 m) consecutive successive fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at different cross-track angles. Any given marine mammal at depth near the trackline would be in the
Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer pulse duration than the Kongsberg EM 122; and (2) are often directed close to horizontally, as well as omnidirectional, versus more downward and narrowly for the multi-beam echosounder. The area of possible influence of the multi-beam echosounder is much smaller—a narrow band below the source vessel. Also, the duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for naval sonar. During SIO's operations, the individual pulses would be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by. Possible effects of a multi-beam echosounder on marine mammals are described below.
Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1 second tonal signals at frequencies similar to those that would be emitted by the multi-beam echosounder used by SIO, and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt
Risch
SIO would operate a sub-bottom profiler (Knudsen 3260) from the source vessel during the proposed study. Sounds from the sub-bottom profiler are very short pulses, occurring for 1 to 4 ms once ever second. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the sub-bottom profiler is at frequencies 3.5 kHz, and the beam is directed downward. The sub-bottom profiler that may be used on the
Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer pulse duration than the Knudsen 3260; and (2) are often directed close to horizontally versus more downward for the sub-bottom profiler. The area of possible influence of the single-beam echosounder is much smaller—a narrow band below the source vessel. Also, the duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for naval sonar. During SIO's operations, the individual pulses would be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by. Possible effects of a sub-bottom profiler on marine mammals are described below.
During heat-flow measurements using a probe, the probe is a passive instrument and no noise is created by the mechanical action of the devices on the seafloor is not expected to be perceived by nearby fish and other marine organisms. Heat-flow measurement activities would be highly localized and short-term in duration and would not be expected to significantly interfere with marine mammal behavior. The potential direct effects include temporary localized disturbance or displacement from associated physical movement/actions of the operations. Additionally, the potential indirect effects may consist of very localized and transitory/short-term disturbance of bottom habitat and associated prey in shallow-water areas as a result of heat-flow probe measurements. NMFS believes that the since the heat-flow probe is a passive instrument and has no mechanical action, it would not likely result in the harassment of marine mammals.
A maximum total of 200 heat-flow measurements would be obtained using these devices and ranging from 1 to 2 hours per measurement (for a total of approximately 320 hours of operations) and it is estimated that the pinger would operate continuously during each heat-flow probe deployment. The vessel would be stationary during heat-flow probe deployment and repositioned to repeat the process, so the likelihood of a collision or entanglement with a marine mammal is very low. For the heat-flow measurements, the lance is 4.5 m and would disturb an area approximately 8 cm x 20 cm (3.1 in x 7.9 in). Assuming approximately 200 heat-flow measurements, the cumulative area of seafloor that could be disturbed during the proposed study would be approximately 32,000 cm
Vessel movement in the vicinity of marine mammals has the potential to result in either a behavioral response or a direct physical interaction. Both scenarios are discussed below in this section.
Behavioral responses to stimuli are complex and influenced to varying degrees by a number of factors, such as species, behavioral contexts, geographical regions, source characteristics (moving or stationary, speed, direction, etc.), prior experience of the animal and physical status of the animal. For example, studies have shown that beluga whales' reaction varied when exposed to vessel noise and traffic. In some cases, beluga whales exhibited rapid swimming from ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (43.2 nmi) away and showed changes in surfacing, breathing, diving, and group composition in the Canadian high Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley
In reviewing more than 25 years of whale observation data, Watkins (1986) concluded that whale reactions to vessel traffic were “modified by their previous experience and current activity: Habituation often occurred rapidly, attention to other stimuli or preoccupation with other activities sometimes overcame their interest or wariness of stimuli.” Watkins noticed that over the years of exposure to ships in the Cape Cod area, minke whales changed from frequent positive interest (
Although the radiated sound from the
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources (civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
SIO's proposed operation of one source vessel for the proposed low-energy seismic survey is relatively small in scale (
As a final point, the
Entanglement can occur if wildlife becomes immobilized in survey lines, cables, nets, or other equipment that is moving through the water column. The proposed low-energy seismic survey would require towing approximately one 600 m cable streamers. While towing this size of an array carries some level of risk of entanglement for marine mammals due to the operational nature of the activity, entanglement is unlikely. Wildlife, especially slow moving individuals, such as large whales, have a low probability of becoming entangled due to slow speed of the survey vessel and onboard monitoring efforts. In May 2011, there was one recorded entrapment of an olive ridley sea turtle (
The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting” sections) which, as noted are designed to effect the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species and stocks.
The proposed low-energy seismic survey is not anticipated to have any permanent impact on habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed study area, including the food sources they use (
The next section discusses the potential impacts of anthropogenic sound sources on common marine mammal prey in the proposed study area (
One reason for the adoption of airguns as the standard energy source for marine seismic surveys is that, unlike explosives, they have not been associated with large-scale fish kills. However, existing information on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish and invertebrate populations is limited. There are three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys: (1) Pathological, (2) physiological, and (3) behavioral. Pathological effects involve lethal and temporary or permanent sub-lethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary and permanent primary and secondary stress responses, such as changes in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to temporary and (if they occur) permanent changes in exhibited behavior (
The specific received sound levels at which permanent adverse effects to fish potentially could occur are little studied and largely unknown. Furthermore, the available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine fish is from studies of individuals or portions of a population; there have been no studies at the population scale. The studies of individual fish have often been on caged fish that were exposed to airgun pulses in situations not representative of an actual seismic survey. Thus, available information provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the ocean or population scale. This makes drawing conclusions about impacts on fish problematic because, ultimately, the most important issues concern effects on marine fish populations, their viability, and their availability to fisheries.
Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper (2009), and Popper and Hastings (2009a,b) provided recent critical reviews of the known effects of sound on fish. The following sections provide a general synopsis of the available information on the effects of exposure to seismic and other anthropogenic sound as relevant to fish. The information comprises results from scientific studies of varying degrees of rigor plus some anecdotal information. Some of the data sources may have serious shortcomings in methods, analysis, interpretation, and reproducibility that must be considered when interpreting their results (see Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential adverse effects of the program's sound sources on marine fish are noted.
Little is known about the mechanisms and characteristics of damage to fish that may be inflicted by exposure to seismic survey sounds. Few data have been presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There are only two known papers with proper experimental methods, controls, and careful pathological investigation implicating sounds produced by actual seismic survey airguns in causing adverse anatomical effects. One such study indicated anatomical damage, and the second indicated TTS in fish hearing. The anatomical case is McCauley
Wardle
An experiment of the effects of a single 700 in
For a proposed seismic survey in Southern California, USGS (1999) conducted a review of the literature on the effects of airguns on fish and fisheries. They reported a 1991 study of the Bay Area Fault system from the continental shelf to the Sacramento River, using a 10 airgun (5,828 in
Some studies have reported, some equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close to seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman
The former Minerals Management Service (MMS, 2005) assessed the effects of a proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. The seismic survey proposed using three vessels, each towing two four-airgun arrays ranging from 24,580.6 to 40,967.7 cm
In general, any adverse effects on fish behavior or fisheries attributable to seismic testing may depend on the species in question and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing method). They may also depend on the age of the fish, its motivational state, its size, and numerous other factors that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at this point, given such limited data on effects of airguns on fish, particularly under realistic at-sea conditions.
The existing body of information on the impacts of seismic survey sound on marine invertebrates is very limited. However, there is some unpublished and very limited evidence of the potential for adverse effects on invertebrates, thereby justifying further discussion and analysis of this issue. The three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys on marine invertebrates are pathological, physiological, and behavioral. Based on the physical structure of their sensory organs, marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to respond to particle displacement components of an impinging sound field and not to the pressure component (Popper
The only information available on the impacts of seismic surveys on marine invertebrates involves studies of individuals; there have been no studies at the population scale. Thus, available information provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the regional or ocean scale. The most important aspect of potential impacts concerns how exposure to seismic survey sound ultimately affects invertebrate populations and their viability, including availability to fisheries.
Literature reviews of the effects of seismic and other underwater sound on invertebrates were provided by Moriyasu
Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited pathological impact on early developmental stages of crustaceans (Pearson
Andre
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
SIO reviewed the following source documents and incorporated a suite of appropriate mitigation measures into the project description.
(1) Protocols used during previous NSF and USGS-funded seismic research cruises as approved by NMFS and detailed in the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey;”
(2) Previous IHA applications and IHAs approved and authorized by NMFS; and
(3) Recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, SIO proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Proposed exclusion zones around the sound source;
(2) Speed and course alterations;
(3) Shut-down procedures; and
(4) Ramp-up procedures.
Received sound levels have been modeled by L–DEO for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45 in
Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during the acoustic verification studies conducted by L–DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003 (Tolstoy
Based on the modeling data, the outputs from the pair of 45 in
Following a shut-down, SIO would not resume airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone, or until the PSO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. SIO would consider the animal to have cleared the exclusion zone if:
• A PSO has visually observed the animal leave the exclusion zone, or
• A PSO has not sighted the animal within the exclusion zone for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (
Although power-down procedures are often standard operating practice for seismic surveys, they are not proposed to be used during this planned low-energy seismic survey because powering down from two airguns to one airgun would make only a small difference in the exclusion zone(s) that probably would not be enough to allow continued one-airgun operations if a marine mammal came within the exclusion zone for two airguns.
Ramp-up would begin with a single GI airgun (45 in
If the complete exclusion zone has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, SIO would not commence the ramp-up. Given these provisions, it is likely that the airgun array would not be ramped-up from a complete shut-down during low light conditions, at night, or in thick fog, (
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and has 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. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
(3) 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 of 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
(3) A reduction in the number of time (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of airguns, 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).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of airguns, or other activities, 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 NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
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 IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that would 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. SIO submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Section 13 of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
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 sound (airguns) 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); and
• 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.
SIO proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the proposed project, in order to implement the proposed mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA. SIO's proposed “Monitoring Plan” is described below this section. The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. SIO is prepared to discuss coordination of their monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is practical and desirable.
PSOs would be based aboard the seismic source vessel and would watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during any ramp-ups of the airguns at night. PSOs would also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations and after an extended shut-down (
During airgun operations in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, at least three PSOs would be based aboard the
The
Standard equipment for PSOs would be reticle binoculars and optical range finders. Night-vision equipment would be available at night and low-light conditions during the cruise. The PSOs would be in communication with ship's officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or seismic source shut-down. During daylight, the PSO(s) would scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (
When a marine mammal is detected within or about to enter the designated exclusion zone, the airguns would immediately be shut-down, unless the vessel's speed and/or course can be changed to avoid having the animal enter the exclusion zone. The PSO(s) would continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the exclusion zone by visual confirmation. Airgun operations would not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the exclusion zone, or is not observed after 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, dwarf and pygmy sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
PSOs would record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data would be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially “taken” by harassment. They would also provide information needed to order a shut-down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the exclusion zone. Observations would also be made during daylight periods when the
When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting would be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or shut-down), sea state, wind force, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare.
The data listed under (2) would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
All observations, as well as information regarding ramp-ups or shut-downs, would be recorded in a standardized format. Data would be entered into an electronic database. The data accuracy would be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database by the PSOs at sea. These procedures would allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and would facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving.
Results from the vessel-based observations would provide the following information:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down).
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without airgun operations.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without airgun operations.
SIO would submit a comprehensive report to NMFS and NSF within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report would describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report submitted to NMFS and NSF would provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report would summarize the dates and locations of airgun operations and all marine mammal sightings (
• Summaries of monitoring effort—total hours, total distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the study period accounting for Beaufort sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
• Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals including Beaufort sea state, number of PSOs, and fog/glare;
• Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammals sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender, and group sizes, and analyses of the effects of airgun operations;
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without airgun operations (and other variables that could affect detectability);
• Initial sighting distances versus airgun operations state;
• Closest point of approach versus airgun operations state;
• Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun operations activity state;
• Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun operations state; and
• Distribution around the source vessel versus airgun operations state.
The report would also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could result in “takes” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. NMFS would review the draft report and provide any comments it may have, and SIO would incorporate NMFS's comments and prepare a final report. After the report is considered final, it would be publicly available on the NMFS Web site at:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SIO to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SIO may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.
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].
Level B harassment is anticipated and proposed to be authorized as a result of the proposed low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand. Acoustic stimuli (
The following sections describe SIO's methods to estimate take by incidental harassment and present the applicant's estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected. The estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be harassed during the approximately 135 hours and 1,250 km of seismic airgun operations with the two GI airgun array to be used.
There are no known systematic aircraft- or ship-based surveys conducted for marine mammals stock assessments and very limited population information available for marine mammals in offshore waters of the Southwest Pacific Ocean off the east coast of New Zealand. For most cetacean species, SIO and NMFS used densities from extensive NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) cruises (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001, 2003; Barlow, 2003, 2010; Forney, 2007) in one province of Longhurst's
For pinnipeds, SIO and NMFS used the densities in Bonnell
The marine mammal species that would be encountered during the proposed low-energy seismic survey would be different from those sighted during surveys off the western U.S. and in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. However, the overall abundances of species groups with generally similar habitat requirements are expected to be roughly similar. Thus, SIO and NMFS used the data described above to estimate the group densities of beaked whales, delphinids, small whales, and mysticetes in the proposed study area. SIO and NMFS then estimated the relative abundance of individual southern species within the species groups using various surveys and other information from areas near the study area, and general information on species' distributions such as latitudinal ranges and group sizes. Group densities from northern species were multiplied by their estimated relative abundance off New Zealand divided by the relative abundance for all species in the species group to derive estimates for the southern species (see Table 3 of the IHA application).
Densities for several cetacean species are available for the Southern Ocean (Butterworth
The densities used for purposes of estimating potential take do not take into account the patchy distributions of marine mammals in an ecosystem, at least on the moderate to fine scales over which they are known to occur. Instead, animals are considered evenly distributed throughout the assessed study area and seasonal movement patterns are not taken into account, as none are available. Although there is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and the assumptions used in the calculations below, the approach used here is believed to be the best available approach, using the best available science.
Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially disturbed are estimated based on the available data about marine mammal distribution and densities in the U.S. west coast and Southern Ocean as a proxy for the proposed study area off the east coast of New Zealand. SIO estimated the number of different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) for seismic airgun operations on one or more occasions by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion and the expected density of marine mammals in the area (in the absence of the low-energy seismic survey). The number of possible exposures can be estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius (the diameter is 400 m multiplied by 2 for deep water depths, the diameter is 600 m multiplied by 2 for intermediate water depths) around the operating airguns, including areas of overlap. The spacing of tracklines is 500 m (1,640.4 ft) in the smaller grids and 1,250 m (4,101.1 ft) in the larger grids. Overlap was measured using GIS and was minimal (area with overlap is equal to 1.13 multiplied by the area without overlap). The take estimates were calculated without overlap. The 160 dB radii are based on acoustic modeling data for the airguns that may be used during the proposed action (see SIO's IHA application). During the proposed low-energy seismic survey, the transect lines are widely spaced relative to the 160 dB distance. As summarized in Table 2 (see Table 1 and Figure 2 of the IHA application), the modeling results for the proposed low-energy seismic airgun array indicate the received levels are dependent on water depth. Since the majority of the proposed airgun operations would be conducted in
The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) from seismic airgun operations was calculated by multiplying:
(1) The expected species density (in number/km
(2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations (excluding overlap).
The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned tracklines into MapInfo GIS using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160 dB (rms) isopleth around each trackline, and then calculating the total area within the isopleth. Applying the approach described above, approximately 1,153.6 km
SIO's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that the proposed low-energy seismic survey would be carried out in full; however, the ensonified areas calculated using the planned number of line-kilometers has been increased by 25% to accommodate lines that may need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore seismic surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions would be likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-kilometers of airgun operations that can be undertaken. The estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160 dB (rms) received levels are precautionary and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that could be involved. These estimates assume that there would be no weather, equipment, or mitigation delays that limit the airgun operations, which is highly unlikely.
Table 5 shows the estimates of the number of different individual marine mammals anticipated to be exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for seismic airgun operations during the low-energy seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. The total proposed take authorization is given in the column that is fourth from the left of Table 5.
SIO and NSF would coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring program associated with the proposed low-energy seismic survey with other parties that express interest in this activity and area. SIO and NSF would coordinate with applicable U.S. agencies (
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires NMFS to determine that the authorization would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action (in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand study area). Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
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 (
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS evaluated factors such as:
(1) The number of anticipated serious injuries and or mortalities;
(2) The number and nature of anticipated injuries;
(3) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of takes by Level B harassment (all of which are relatively limited in this case);
(4) The context in which the takes occur (
(5) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
(6) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
(7) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the specified activities associated with the marine seismic survey are not likely to cause PTS, or other (non-auditory) injury, serious injury, or death, based on the analysis above and the following factors:
(1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2) The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the operation of the airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment;
(3) The potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is relatively low and would likely be avoided through the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures (including shut-down measures); and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained PSOs is high at close proximity to the vessel.
No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of the SIO's planned low-energy seismic survey, and none are proposed to be authorized by NMFS. Table 5 of this document outlines the number of requested Level B harassment takes that are anticipated as a result of these activities. Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described in this notice (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section above), the activity is not expected to impact rates of annual recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock, particularly given NMFS's and the applicant's proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures to minimize impacts to marine mammals. Additionally, the low-energy seismic survey would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 32 species of marine mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were provided in Table 3 and 5 of this document. As shown in those tables, the proposed takes represent small proportions of the overall populations of these marine mammal species where abundance estimates are available (
Of the 32 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that may or are known to likely occur in the study area, six are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA: Southern right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. These species are also considered depleted under the MMPA. None of the other marine mammal species that may be taken are listed as depleted under the MMPA. Of the ESA-listed species, incidental take has been requested to be authorized for six species. As mitigation to reduce impacts to the affected species or stocks, SIO would be required to cease airgun operations if any marine mammal enters designated exclusion zones. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is expected to occur for any of these species, and due to the nature, degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated, and the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival for any of these species.
NMFS has preliminarily determined that, provided that the aforementioned mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, the impact of conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, May to June 2015, may result, at worst, in a modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of certain species of marine mammals.
While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the operation of the airgun(s), may be made by these species to avoid the resultant acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas for species to move to and the short and sporadic duration of the research activities, have led NMFS to preliminary determine that the taking by Level B harassment from the specified activity would have a negligible impact on the affected species in the specified geographic region. Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section above) in this notice, the proposed activity is not expected to impact rates of annual recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock, particularly given the NMFS and applicant's proposal to implement mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize impacts to marine mammals. 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 SIO's proposed low-energy seismic survey would have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 32 species of marine mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were provided in Tables 3 and 5 of this document.
The estimated numbers of individual cetaceans and pinnipeds that could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed low-energy seismic survey (including a 25% contingency) are in Table 5 of this document. Of the cetaceans, 2 southern right, 2 pygmy right, 2 humpback, 2 Antarctic minke, 2 minke, 2 Bryde's, 2 sei, 2 fin, 2 blue, and 10 sperm whales could be taken by Level B harassment during the proposed low-energy seismic survey, which would represent 0.03, unknown, 0.1, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, 0.03, and 0.03% of the affected worldwide or regional populations, respectively. In addition, 5 pygmy sperm, 2 Cuvier's beaked, 3 Shepherd's beaked, 2 southern bottlenose, 2 Andrew's beaked, 2 Blainville's beaked, 2 Gray's beaked,
No known current worldwide or regional population estimates are available for 4 species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could potentially be affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. These species are the pygmy right, pygmy sperm, and false killer whales and southern right whale dolphins. Pygmy right whales have a circumglobal distribution and occur throughout coastal and oceanic waters in the Southern Hemisphere (between 30 to 55° South) (Jefferson
NMFS makes its small numbers determination based on the numbers of marine mammals that would be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks. The proposed take estimates all represent small numbers relative to the affected species or stock size (
Of the species of marine mammals that may occur in the proposed survey area, six are listed as endangered under the ESA: The southern right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF, on behalf of SIO, has initiated formal consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, on this proposed low-energy seismic survey. NMFS's Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division, has initiated formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS's Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, to obtain a Biological Opinion evaluating the effects of issuing the IHA on threatened and endangered marine mammals and, if appropriate, authorizing incidental take. NMFS would conclude formal section 7 consultation prior to making a determination on whether or not to issue the IHA. If the IHA is issued, in addition to the mitigation and monitoring requirements included in the IHA, NSF and SIO would be required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS's Biological Opinion issued to both NSF and SIO, and NMFS's Office of Protected Resources.
With SIO's complete IHA application, NSF and SIO provided NMFS a “Draft Environmental Analysis of a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SIO for conducting the low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued). The proposed IHA language is provided below:
The NMFS hereby authorizes the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 8602 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a low-energy marine geophysical (seismic) survey conducted by the R/V
1.
This Authorization is valid from May 18, 2015 through July 30, 2015.
2.
This Authorization is valid only for SIO's activities associated with low-energy seismic survey, bathymetric profile, and heat-flow probe measurements conducted aboard the
(a) In selected regions of the Southwest Pacific Ocean off the east coast of New Zealand. The survey sites are located in the Exclusive Economic Zone, outside of territorial waters (located between approximately 38.5 and 42.5° South, and between 174 and 180° East). Water depths in the survey area are expected to be approximately 200 to 3,000 m. No airgun operations would occur in shallow (less than 100
3. This Authorization does not permit incidental takes of marine mammals in the territorial sea of foreign nations, as the MMPA does not apply in those waters. The territorial sea extends at the most 22.2 kilometers (km) (12 nautical miles [nmi]) from the baseline of a coastal State.
4.
(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species in the waters of the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) If any marine mammal species are encountered during seismic activities that are not listed in Table 5 (above) for authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for seismic airgun operations, then the SIO must alter speed or course or shut-down the airguns to prevent take.
(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in Condition 4(a) above 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.
5. The sources authorized for taking by Level B harassment are limited to the following acoustic sources, absent an amendment to this Authorization:
A two Generator Injector (GI) airgun array (each with a discharge volume of 45 cubic inches [in
6.
The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), at 301–427–8401.
7.
The SIO is required to implement the following mitigation and related monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species or stocks:
(a) Utilize at least one NMFS-qualified, vessel-based Protected Species Observer (PSO) to visually watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during daylight airgun operations (from nautical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk) and before and during ramp-ups of airguns day or night. Three PSOs shall be based onboard the vessel.
(i) The
(ii) PSOs shall have access to reticle binoculars (7 x 50 Fujinon) equipped with a built-in daylight compass and range reticles, big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), optical range finders, and night-vision devices.
(iii) PSO shifts shall last no longer than 4 hours at a time.
(iv) PSO(s) shall also make observations during daylight periods when the seismic airguns are not operating, when feasible, for comparison of animal abundance and behavior.
(v) PSO(s) shall conduct monitoring while the airgun array and streamer(s) are being deployed or recovered from the water.
(b) PSO(s) shall record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:
(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up or shut-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun glare; and
(iii) The data listed under Condition 7(b)(ii) shall also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
(c) Establish a 160 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms) buffer zone, as well as a180 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms) exclusion zone for cetaceans and a 190 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms) exclusion zone for pinnipeds before the two GI airgun array (90 in
(d) Visually observe the entire extent of the exclusion zone (180 dB re 1 μ Pa [rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μ Pa [rms] for pinnipeds; see Table 2 [above] for distances) using two NMFS-qualified PSOs, for at least 30 minutes prior to starting the airgun array (day or night).
(i) If the PSO(s) sees a marine mammal within the exclusion zone, SIO must delay the seismic survey until the marine mammal(s) has left the area. If the PSO(s) sees a marine mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the PSO(s) shall continue to observe the exclusion zone for 30 minutes, and if the PSO sees no marine mammals during that time, the PSO should assume that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
(ii) If for any reason the entire radius cannot be seen for the entire 30 minutes (
(e) Implement a “ramp-up” procedure, which means starting with a single GI airgun and adding a second GI airgun after five minutes, when starting up at the beginning of seismic operations or anytime after the entire array has been shut-down for more than 15 minutes. During ramp-up, the two PSOs shall monitor the exclusion zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, a shut-down shall be implemented as though the full array (both GI airguns) were operational. Therefore, initiation of ramp-up procedures from shut-down requires that the two PSOs be able to view the full exclusion zone as described in Condition 7(d) (above).
(f) Shut-down the airgun(s) if a marine mammal is detected within, approaches, or enters the relevant exclusion zone (as defined in Table 2, above). A shut-down means all operating airguns are shut-down (
(g) Following a shut-down, the airgun activity shall not resume until the PSO(s) has visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the exclusion zone and determined it is not likely to return, or has not seen the marine mammal within the exclusion zone for 15 minutes, for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, dwarf and pygmy sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
(h) Following a shut-down and subsequent animal departure, airgun operations may resume, following the ramp-up procedures described in Condition 7(e).
(i) Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to enter the relevant exclusion zone. If speed or course alteration is not safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still appears likely to enter the exclusion zone, further mitigation measures, such as a shut-down, shall be taken.
(j) Marine seismic surveying may continue into low-light hours if such segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the entire relevant exclusion zones are visible and can be effectively monitored.
(k) No initiation of airgun array operations is permitted from a shut-down position during low-light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain) when the entire relevant exclusion zone cannot be effectively monitored by the PSO(s) on duty.
(l) To the maximum extent practicable, schedule seismic operations (
8.
SIO are required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all activities and monitoring results to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days of the completion of the
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal sightings;
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity (
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals that: (A) Are known to have been exposed to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (for seismic airgun operations), and/or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds, with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (B) may have been exposed (based on modeled values for the two GI airgun array) to the seismic activity at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (for seismic airgun operations), and/or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds, with a discussion of the nature of the probable consequences of that exposure on the individuals that have been exposed.
(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: (A) Terms and Conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take Statement (ITS) (attached); and (B) mitigation measures of the IHA. For the Biological Opinion, the report shall confirm the implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act-listed marine mammals.
(b) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be considered to be the final report.
8.
(a) (i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
(ii) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; the name and type of vessel involved; the vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident; description of the incident; status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; water depth; environmental conditions (
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SIO to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SIO may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(b) In the event that SIO discover 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 SIO 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 (
9.
(a) SIO is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the ITS corresponding to NMFS's Biological Opinion issued to both NSF and SIO, and NMFS's Office of Protected Resources.
(b) A copy of this Authorization and the ITS must be in the possession of all contractors and PSO(s) operating under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of the proposed IHA for SIO's low-energy seismic survey. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on SIO's request for an MMPA authorization. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule; amendments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the part 60 General Provisions and various new source performance standards (NSPS) subparts in our regulations to require affected facilities to submit specified air emissions data reports to the EPA electronically and to allow affected facilities to maintain electronic records of these reports.
The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will facilitate more accurate and timely development of numerous efforts, including regulation development, emissions factors, emissions inventories, trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments and human exposure modeling.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0174, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Ms. Gerri Garwood, Measurement Policy Group (MPG), Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541–2406; fax number: (919) 541–1039; and email address:
Entities affected by this proposed rule include facilities in all industry groups that are subject to NSPS in part 60 of title 40 of the CFR that require submission of the reports addressed in this rulemaking.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule is available on the Internet through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed rule at the following Web site:
Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to develop technology based standards which apply to specific categories of stationary sources. Additionally, section 129 of the CAA requires that the EPA establish performance standards for solid waste combustors under the CAA section 111 requirements. The CAA section 111 standards, or NSPS, apply to new, modified and reconstructed facilities in specific source categories, and they are codified in 40 CFR part 60. The NSPS typically include source category specific emissions standards and monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and testing requirements. In addition, the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60 (subpart A) include regulatory requirements that automatically apply to all NSPS unless a particular subpart contains specific requirements that replace or augment the General Provisions requirements. Under current part 60 requirements, most facilities must routinely keep records and submit air emissions data reports such as summary reports, excess emission reports, performance test reports and performance evaluation reports in paper format to the EPA and delegated state, local and tribal air agencies (air agencies).
This proposal would require you (the owner or operator or responsible official [as defined in 40 CFR 63.2]) to submit specified reports required under 40 CFR part 60 electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
While the NSPS require several different types of reports, this proposed rule focuses on the submission of electronic reports to the EPA that provide direct measures of air emissions data such as summary reports, excess emission reports, performance test reports and performance evaluation reports. Later in this section, we provide further explanation of reports we are not proposing to include in this rule, although we may require electronic submittal of these reports at a later time. Again, we are not adding new reporting requirements; these reports are already required to be submitted in current 40 CFR part 60 regulations. The part 60 General Provisions specify the timing for submittal and content of the reports. The General Provisions' reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply to all NSPS without change unless a particular NSPS supplements or revises some or all of them to address source category specific needs.
Following is a brief summary of the basic air emissions data reports codified in the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions that we have included in this proposed rule:
• Summary reports and/or excess emissions and monitoring systems performance reports (excess emission reports) are required by 40 CFR 60.7(c) of the General Provisions when an owner or operator is required to install a continuous monitoring system (CMS). The summary report form may be submitted in lieu of the excess emission report when the downtime and excess emissions durations are sufficiently low, meeting thresholds defined in 40 CFR 60.7(d). Section 60.7(d) of the General Provisions specifies the content required in a summary report, which consists of basic excess emissions data (excess emissions duration and causes) and CMS performance data (CMS downtime duration and causes) in summary form.
• Excess emission reports are required by 40 CFR 60.7(c) of the General Provisions if an owner or operator is required to install a CMS and (1) the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total operating time for the reporting period, or (2) the total CMS downtime for the reporting period is 5 percent or greater of the total operating time for the reporting period. Section 60.7(c) specifies the content required, which consists of detailed excess emissions data (magnitude of excess emissions; identification of periods of excess emissions that occur during startups, shutdowns and malfunctions; cause of any malfunction; and the corrective action taken or preventive measures adopted) and CMS performance data (date and time identifying each period when the CMS was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the nature of the system repairs or adjustments).
• Performance test reports required by 40 CFR 60.8(a) of the General Provisions must be submitted after an owner or operator conducts a required performance test to demonstrate compliance with the emissions standard(s) and/or to establish control device operating parameters.
• Performance evaluation reports (also referred to as relative accuracy test audit [RATA] reports) required by 40 CFR 60.13(c) of the General Provisions must be submitted after an owner or operator conducts a required performance evaluation of a CMS to demonstrate the accuracy of the CMS.
Many NSPS require the submission of specific air emissions data reports that are similar to the summary reports and excess emission reports required under the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions. Although similar in purpose and required content, they are called by different names (
The majority of NSPS are potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking either because the specified General Provisions requirements apply or because they are being individually
In addition to the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 includes several subparts that contain requirements for state emission guidelines. In addition to requiring the EPA to establish NSPS for new units, section 129 of the CAA also requires the agency to establish emission guidelines for existing units. Additionally, section 111(d) of the CAA requires the agency to establish emission guidelines for existing units for any pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408(a) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code or emitted from a source category which is regulated under CAA section 112, but to which a standard of performance would apply if such existing source were a new source.
Unlike NSPS, which are federal regulations that apply directly to new, modified or reconstructed sources, emission guidelines do not directly regulate sources. Instead, emission guidelines establish requirements for state plans, which are the vehicle by which states implement the emission guidelines.
Table 2 (in section VI of this preamble) presents the subparts in 40 CFR part 60 that are affected by this proposed rulemaking. We note that not all affected NSPS are specifically amended in this proposed rulemaking. The NSPS that rely solely on the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions are not being specifically amended, but are affected by this proposed rulemaking due to the amendments to the General Provisions. Table 1 presents the subparts in 40 CFR part 60 that are not affected by this proposed rulemaking and the reasons why they are unaffected. The support document in the docket to this proposed rule details the rationale for each of the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60.
In reviewing each NSPS, we purposefully excluded air emissions data that we did not prioritize for reporting to the EPA electronically at this time. While information such as leak detection and repair program reports and individual parametric system performance monitoring data (
Some of the NSPS require owners and operators of affected facilities to submit the results of their performance tests and performance evaluations with their summary and other similar semi-annual or annual air emission reports. In instances where we are requiring owners and operators to submit the results of those performance tests and/or performance evaluations to the EPA's CDX, we have excluded the need to submit these results with the air emission reports because these reports will be readily available and searchable through the EPA's WebFIRE database. Instead, we have revised the applicable air emission report requirements to require identifying information (
Some of the proposed amendments include changes necessary to make the existing NSPS requirements consistent with the proposed electronic reporting requirements. For example, some of the NSPS that currently include requirements to submit electronic reports to the EPA's CDX would be revised to be consistent with today's proposal. Also, in order to streamline requirements to submit information to the EPA, NSPS addressed by today's proposed rulemaking that currently require the submittal of reports to the EPA Regional Offices would be revised so that electronic submittal to the EPA's CDX would suffice. In addition, the General Provisions currently provide for exceptions to certain federal or state reporting requirements in delegation agreements between the EPA and air agencies. We are proposing that information required to be reported to the EPA electronically cannot be exempted in delegation agreements. We do not believe that this proposed change will require submission to the EPA of information beyond what is currently specified by 40 CFR 60.4(b) to be submitted to the EPA. However, we are soliciting comment on whether this assumption is correct, and, if not, how we should factor that into this rulemaking. Finally, in addition to proposing to revise reporting requirements, we are proposing to amend some of the 40 CFR part 60 rules to allow affected facilities to maintain the reports that have been submitted electronically to the EPA in electronic form rather than in hardcopy form. However, any records and reports that are not submitted electronically must continue to be retained in hardcopy form, unless the specific NSPS already allows electronic recordkeeping.
We are not proposing any changes to how facilities interact with their air agencies. Air agencies will continue to receive reports in the format that they currently require unless they specify otherwise to facilities; however, the proposal allows air agencies to elect to opt in to receiving reports electronically using the EPA's system in lieu of continuing to receive them in the format
The proposed rule would be implemented upon the effective date of the final rule, which is 90 days after the date that the final rule is published in the
This proposal would require you (the owner or operator or responsible official) to submit specified reports currently required under 40 CFR part 60 electronically to the EPA's CDX, the point of entry for submission of electronic data to the agency. The CDX provides access to the CEDRI. This is the interface on the CDX that allows you to submit your required electronic reports under 40 CFR part 60 to the EPA.
The EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) creates electronic versions of stationary source sampling test plans and reports of test results that can be submitted to the EPA and air agencies. Note that the proposed requirement to submit performance test reports and performance evaluation reports electronically for the affected NSPS is limited to those reports involving test methods and performance specifications that are supported by the EPA's ERT. For performance tests and evaluations that involve test methods and pollutants that are not supported by the ERT, you must continue to submit the required reports in hardcopy format to your delegated air agency and the EPA Regional Office, as applicable. The test methods and performance specifications currently supported by the ERT are listed in Table 3 (in section VI of this preamble) and on the ERT Web site (
The existing version of CEDRI can accept submissions of performance test reports generated by the ERT, performance evaluation reports generated by the ERT and a limited number of other air emissions reports to the EPA. Facilities can submit reports for multiple NSPS at the same time. This may be desirable for facilities subject to more than one NSPS. We plan to expand CEDRI to allow submittal of additional 40 CFR part 60 summary reports, excess emission reports and other similar reports as described above. In the event CEDRI development does not yet support electronic submittal of reports for a particular NSPS or a specified report on the required submittal date, you would submit the report or reports as otherwise required by the EPA and the delegated air agency. When CEDRI is updated to support electronic submittal of the required report, you would have 90 days from the date of the reporting form's availability in CEDRI to commence electronic reporting to the EPA. Any reports that are required to be submitted prior to the date 90 days from the date the reporting form becomes available must be submitted timely and can be submitted either in hard copy or using the electronic reporting form. Notice will be sent out through the CHIEF Listserv and a notice of availability will be added to the CEDRI Web site (
The CEDRI will also have the ability to automatically import available facility identification information so that the user will not be required to input this information on every form. In most cases, the facility identification information is already part of the EPA Facility Registration System (FRS) and will be obtained from FRS through a Web service using the FRS ID. The FRS is a centrally managed EPA database that identifies facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. Sources without an FRS number will be able to obtain an FRS number when signing on to CEDRI and sources with an FRS number that find that some of the FRS-generated information is incorrect will be able to correct the errors in CEDRI. Finally, the CEDRI reporting tools will include additional fields and an upload area for PDF files to allow you to add information to address state, local or tribal reporting requirements that may be required in addition to the federal requirements. You are only required to submit this additional information if your air agency (1) opts into accepting reports through the EPA's system, (2) allows facilities to submit files of electronically submitted reports by electronic mail or (3) allows facilities to submit hard copies of the files submitted electronically.
The WebFIRE database (WebFIRE) (
If you are a new user, in order to electronically submit the reports subject to this proposed rule, you would first need to visit the CDX homepage (
Once you have selected CEDRI from the Active Program Service List, you must then select a registration role. You may register either as a “preparer” or a “certifier.” The preparer (
The EPA has designed this process to be compliant with the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). The CROMERR (under 40 CFR part 3) provides the legal framework for electronic reporting under all of the EPA's environmental regulations and includes criteria for assuring that the electronic signature is legally associated with an electronic document for the purpose of expressing the same meaning and intention as would a handwritten signature if affixed to an equivalent paper document. In other words, the electronic signature is as equally enforceable as a paper signature. For more information on CROMERR, see the Web site:
The electronic data flow process begins with the report preparation step. In the case of performance test reports and performance evaluation reports, the EPA's ERT would be used to generate electronic performance test report and performance evaluation report files which would then be uploaded to CEDRI. Only the results of performance tests and performance evaluations which use test methods and performance specifications supported by the ERT are required to be submitted electronically to the EPA. Those performance test reports or performance evaluation reports which use test methods and performance specifications not supported by the ERT must continue to be submitted to the Administrator and/or delegated authority as currently required under the affected 40 CFR part 60 rules. The current version of the ERT and test methods and performance specifications supported by the ERT are available at:
Prior to promulgation of this rulemaking, we plan to release an XML (extensible markup language) schema of data elements contained in the ERT to allow the development of alternative report options for performance test reports and performance evaluation reports. Third party software must contain all of the same data elements required by the ERT and must be CROMERR compliant. We will not preapprove third party software. Third party software will be validated through CEDRI submittal; only software that meets the requirements of the XML schema located on the ERT Web site will be accepted by CEDRI. Files developed with software that does meet the requirements of the XML schema located on the ERT Web site will be rejected by CEDRI. If you choose to use third party software, it is your responsibility to ensure that the third party software is acceptable. Use of a third party software that does not meet the requirements of the EPA's XML schema does not relieve you of your responsibility to submit the report by the submittal deadline.
If you choose to use a third party software, you would gather the necessary information required to be input for the performance test report or performance evaluation report and upload the file generated by the third party software to CEDRI. Third party software could be software developed by a third-party for the sole purpose of report submittals. It could also be a delegated air agency's electronic reporting system. We are aware that some air agencies have already developed electronic reporting systems. If the air agency's reporting system can be developed or amended such that it can upload all required data elements to the EPA's CEDRI, the delegated air agency's reporting system could serve as third-party software. In this case, you would submit your performance test or performance evaluation report to the delegated air agency through the delegated air agency's software, and the air agency's system would allow you to
Currently, the EPA's ERT is a Microsoft Access® application, and it is the only available tool to use in preparing performance test reports and performance evaluation reports for submittal to CEDRI. We are evaluating options for the development of a Web-based version of the ERT. We are, therefore, soliciting comment on whether we should develop this alternative ERT format as a reporting tool for performance test reports and performance evaluation reports.
Package preparation for summary reports, excess emission reports and subpart-specific reports that are similar to the summary reports and excess emission reports required by the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions begins when you gather the necessary information required to be input and/or uploaded into the applicable report forms. For subpart-specific reports, we intend to build in the capability for an alternative electronic file to be submitted in lieu of filling in the CEDRI-provided subpart-specific report form. We plan to release the XML schema that is required for third-parties to develop alternative report options for air emissions reports in CEDRI prior to promulgation of this rulemaking. Third party software must contain all of the same data elements required by the report forms in CEDRI and must be CROMERR compliant. We are not approving third party software. Third party software will be validated through CEDRI submittal; only software that meets the requirements of the XML schema located on the CEDRI Web site will be accepted by CEDRI. If you choose to use third party software, it is your responsibility to ensure that the third party software is acceptable. Use of a third party software that does not meet the requirements of the EPA's XML schema does not relieve you of your responsibility to submit the report by the submittal deadline.
Once you prepare your report package in CEDRI, the registered certifier reviews the report(s) and may modify the file(s) or return the file(s) to the preparer to make modifications. When the certifier determines that the files are ready for submission, the certifier will certify the submission with a CROMERR electronic signature and submit the files through CEDRI. Following submission, the certified signature file will be stored with each report contained in the submission package as the CROMERR Copy of Record (COR) in CDX. Within 60 days of submission to CDX,
Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the proposed data flow process for electronic report submissions.
Most of the NSPS require affected facilities to keep records, such as raw data and reports of emissions monitoring and testing, on site. Many of the NSPS require that this information be maintained in hardcopy form. Because those records, data and reports that would be required to be submitted to the EPA electronically would be stored safely and available to all stakeholders at all times, we propose that industry should be allowed to maintain electronic copies of these records, data and reports to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. Thus, in this rulemaking, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain hard copies of records, data and reports when these records, data and reports are submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX. This provision will benefit industry facilities that currently maintain these reports in hardcopy form; the amount of space required to store the reports will be minimized, but
We plan to store records, data and reports submitted to the EPA's CDX electronically in two sites (CDX and WebFIRE), with frequent backups. Upon submission of each report, CEDRI will archive a copy of each submitted report in CDX (this copy becomes the official copy of record). Both WebFIRE and CDX back up their files on a daily basis. The EPA's National Computer Center (where the WebFIRE files are stored) maintains a dual back-up file (one kept on site and the other stored off site). The CDX also employs a dual back-up system to avoid problems in the event of a catastrophe at the location of the servers storing the files. Thus, the EPA has established redundancy into the electronic reporting and storage system to ensure submitted records, data and reports are retained and available.
As noted above, we believe that electronic recordkeeping is an adequate method of record retention that will improve record accessibility and will provide reduced storage benefits to facilities, resulting in a cost savings for industry. The EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed amendment to allow electronic recordkeeping in lieu of hardcopy records.
The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting is in ever-increasing use and is universally considered to be faster, more efficient and more accurate for all parties once the initial systems have been established and start-up costs completed. Under current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review, analyses and sharing. Electronic reporting can eliminate paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public.
By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in this proposed rule, the EPA would be able to access and use the submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher quality and representative of the whole industry sector. In the EPA's new emissions factor development procedures (
Emissions factors are used in the development of emissions inventories. Improved emissions factors means that higher quality inventories will be developed on a much quicker scale as a result of electronic reporting than they would under the current paper reporting requirements. Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and identifying potential sources of emissions for reduction. For example, the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer risk estimates and noncancer hazards from inhaling air toxics. The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of interest for further study to gain a better understanding of risks. Therefore, improving the quality of these inventories and providing updated inventories more quickly are on-going goals for the agency and a benefit to the public, air agencies and the regulated community. Consistent with the goal of improving inventories, the EPA has determined that long-term activity data (
Additionally, by making the records, data and reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community and the public may benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. Because we will already have access to these reports, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of information collection requests (ICRs), the general public benefits from the agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
For example, under section 112 of the CAA, the EPA establishes technology-based standards for listed source categories. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA contains provisions requiring that the EPA periodically revisit these standards every 8 years. As a result of having performance test reports and air emission reports readily accessible, the EPA will have comprehensive data on which to base its review. These data will provide useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source category and across source categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-review process by providing information on improvements to add-on control technology and new control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these data from the EPA Regional Offices or from delegated air agencies or industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the EPA Regional Offices,
Affected facilities could also see reduced costs as a result of the standardization of the electronic reporting system NSPS reporting forms. The forms will contain the data elements specified by the regulations in a step-by-step process. Additionally, the EPA's electronic reporting system will be able to access existing information in previously submitted reports and data stored in other EPA databases. These data can be incorporated into new reports, which will lead to reporting burden reduction through labor savings. Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports.
There are other benefits to standardizing the format of information. Standardizing the reporting format will require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate assessment of data quality. In the past, incomplete test reports have resulted in lower quality emissions factors because the data could not be adequately reviewed to determine representativeness. Imbedded quality assurance checks will perform some of the required method calculations, reducing errors in test reports. The system will perform statistical analyses routines to evaluate below detection limit data and outliers prior to performing the emissions factor calculations. The result will be a factor of the highest quality rating which is most representative for the source category. In addition, because the system relies upon electronically submitted data, it eliminates transcription errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall quality of test data and lead to more accurate emissions factors and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit all users of the data.
Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the performance test data would be readily-available in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the NSPS, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public.
The general public would also benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data because the data would be accessible more quickly and easily. The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to the public and will provide a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder could access.
The proposed electronic reporting of data is also consistent with electronic data trends (
Today's proposal is part of a phased approach to implementing the electronic reporting of air emissions data. This approach builds on advances that have already been made in electronic reporting of air emissions data by adding a more comprehensive group of reports from more facilities while at the same time balancing data collection objectives with the practicalities of building a user-friendly reporting platform.
The first phase included development, testing and refinement of the ERT, and, more recently, CEDRI, for use in selected air program rules and data collection efforts, resulting in the electronic submittal of a subset of performance test reports and performance evaluation reports. In a number of ICRs issued under section 114 of the CAA over the past few years, the EPA has included requirements to report the results of performance tests using ERT generated files. In addition, over two dozen EPA air program rules (in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63) already require electronic submission of performance test, performance evaluation and/or other reports directly to CDX. See
Throughout this first phase, we continued to improve the ERT in response to comments from users who have first-hand experience with the ERT. We have made several changes to the ERT to ensure the completeness of data collected and improve ease in using the tool. For example, we have developed a template that extracts tagged data from a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet and inserts the data into the ERT to assist in making the input of data to the ERT easier and more efficient for those facilities that want to take advantage of this option. A discussion of other recent updates that have been made to the ERT can be found at
We also initiated a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional Integrated Project Team (IPT) during the first phase in the development of the CEDRI. The IPT included EPA personnel from various offices and representatives from air agencies. The objectives of the CEDRI IPT were to gain insight and ideas regarding the data flow process within the CEDRI.
This proposal represents the second phase to implementing electronic reporting of air emissions data. It would expand the number and type of air emissions reports in NSPS rules required to be submitted electronically. In developing the second phase, we considered the extent to which we should expand the number of reports to be submitted to CDX through CEDRI, starting with the 40 CFR part 60 NSPS. We chose reports that are critical to ensuring that rule requirements are met by focusing on reports of air emissions data used by the EPA and other stakeholders to evaluate the emissions and performance of individual affected facilities. Another consideration was the process of developing the CEDRI platform to accommodate user access to upload and review such data. This effort requires resources to develop the platform, and we have chosen to prioritize the data to be collected to ensure that the platform will be effective in handling the reports addressed in this proposal. In the future, we would consider expanding the number and type of reports required to be submitted electronically to facilitate the electronic collection of additional air emissions data.
As a general matter, and consistent with 40 CFR 70.2, any standard or other requirement under section 111 of the CAA is an applicable requirement for title V purposes. Sources subject to the NSPS affected by this proposed rulemaking that have title V operating permits will likely need to seek a revision to their permits once this rule is final or address this when their permit comes up for renewal, consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i). In addition, there may be area sources that also need permit revisions (
The title V implementing regulations found at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, as well as state rules that are a part of state-approved title V programs, require the revision of title V permits to include the types of changes described in this proposed rulemaking. Part 70 of 40 CFR provides three basic procedural mechanisms for amending or modifying title V permits: Administrative permit amendments described at 40 CFR 70.7(d); minor permit modifications described at 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2); and significant modifications described at 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4). Each of these provisions provides criteria regarding the availability of the different mechanisms. The rule changes being proposed today generally involve changes to the method of submittal of information already required to be submitted and reported. The EPA does not expect that the changes being proposed today are likely to involve significant changes to monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping requirements in existing title V permits. As a result, to the extent consistent with applicable state rules and the terms and conditions of the title V permit, we anticipate that permitting authorities would be able to implement the changes being proposed today through a minor modification to existing title V permits. Notably, depending on the timing associated with the permit renewal cycle, these changes could be completed as part of a permit renewal consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(f). The EPA recognizes that permitting authorities may have other suitable mechanisms for making the necessary changes available, such as group processing of certain types of revisions to title V operating permits.
The CAA allows the EPA to delegate the authority to implement and enforce NSPS to air agencies (CAA section 111(c), 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)). Air agencies to which authority to implement and enforce the NSPS has been delegated routinely receive performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, summary reports, excess emission reports and other reports from industry as part of their compliance monitoring, enforcement and oversight responsibilities. In many cases, air agencies have their own rules in place to implement and enforce the federal rules, and these rules may require industry to submit these reports to them in hardcopy form (as is currently the case in the EPA rules). Air agency rules
Air agency delegations and reporting and recordkeeping procedures established by those agencies would be unaffected by this proposed rule as we are not proposing to change how agencies and their affected facilities currently interact. Air agencies will continue to require reports to be submitted in hardcopy form and records to be maintained in hardcopy form as they deem appropriate. However, we anticipate that some air agencies may choose to modify their current report submission requirements to accept those reports that are required to be submitted to the EPA electronically in lieu of the paper reports. In fact, we are aware of at least two air agencies that already require their facilities to use the ERT to electronically submit performance test reports to the air agency. To facilitate air agency access, air agency personnel who register for access to CEDRI will receive notifications when reports and associated data are submitted to the EPA's CEDRI by affected facilities in their delegated areas. Air agencies would have full access to reports and associated data as soon as they are submitted, and would not have to purchase any new software or hardware to access this information.
In general, we anticipate that many air agencies will choose to transition to the use of the electronic reports because of the numerous benefits associated with electronic reporting:
•
•
•
•
We estimate total annualized savings for regulated facilities due to the proposed amendments to be approximately $300,000 per year. The estimate reflects a 7-percent discount rate and a 20-year annualization period. While we know there will also be a savings for air agencies and the EPA based upon the benefits described earlier in this preamble, we have not quantified these savings. The total annualized savings estimate reflects different assumptions for year 1, year 2 and year 3 through year 20. This is because, in some cases, air agencies have their own rules that require hard copies of reports, and it would take time for those air agencies to transition (if they choose to) to the use of the EPA's electronic reporting system for the reports being proposed to be submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX. Thus, we have the transition from paper to electronic reporting drawn out to 3 years for those air agencies that adopt the EPA's electronic reporting requirements, in order to provide the time it would take to update permit requirements and create or change air agency reporting rules, where necessary. We assume that air agencies would continue to require submission of reports in hardcopy form to satisfy air agency reporting requirements in years 1 and 2 because the air agencies would not yet have had time to update reporting requirements. There is an initial cost associated with this rule because hardcopy and electronic reports may both be required during this time period, there is a learning curve associated with the use of our electronic system and data need to be entered initially which will be automatically populated in future reports. We estimate the cost of this rule for regulated facilities to be $6,010,000 for the first year and $4,980,000 for the second year. We assume that beginning in year 3, the air agencies will have had time to update reporting requirements as necessary so that hardcopy reports addressed by this proposal will no longer be required to be submitted to the air agencies for those air agencies that opt to review submitted reports through the EPA's electronic reporting system. Because only electronic reports will be required by this proposed rule, facilities will be familiar with the system, and initial data will already be populated in the system, we estimate that there will be a cost savings of approximately $1,460,000 for every year starting in year 3. For facilities where the air agency is not opting to view reports through the EPA's electronic reporting system, the system is being built such that the report will be able to be printed by the facility. The facility will then be able to mail the printed report to the air agency, if the air agency will accept the printed report in lieu of any otherwise required paper report. While there will be some extra burden associated with printing and mailing the report, we assume that the burden will be equal to or less than the current burden associated with submitting hardcopy reports and, therefore, equal to or less than the savings associated with entering the data electronically.
For each of the three time periods (
To estimate costs and savings associated with annual electronic submittal of source performance test reports, the agency compiled data on the total number of source performance tests required annually by 40 CFR part
To estimate costs and savings associated with periodic reports, we compiled data on the total number of summary report and excess emission report submittals through a review of 40 CFR part 60 ICRs. The estimated number of periodic reports submitted each year is 17,612.
In year 3 through year 20, we assume that written reports are no longer required by approximately 75 percent of the air agencies and that there is labor savings associated with only requiring electronic report submittal. This estimate is based on data collected from the IPT, a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional team that included EPA personnel from various offices and representatives from air agencies. Due to the ability of the electronic reporting system to access existing information in previously submitted reports, we assume that there is a 50-percent labor savings associated with electronically submitting source performance test reports, and we assume a 25-percent labor savings associated with electronically submitting periodic reports.
We aggregated the labor costs and savings and annualized the totals over a 20-year period using a 7-percent discount rate; we estimated total annualized savings for this proposed rule to be approximately $300,000 per year for regulated facilities. We used labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and selected a rate for the Management, Professional and Related Occupations category; we adjusted the rate upward by 67 percent to reflect overhead.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to OMB for review.
An analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action is contained in the
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations being amended with this action and this action does not involve the collection of any new information. Specifically, the purpose of this rule is to require that some targeted reports currently required to be submitted in hardcopy form to both the EPA and the delegated authority be submitted electronically to the EPA. While some delegation agreements have excepted hardcopy reporting to the EPA and this rule will not allow such exceptions for electronic reporting, the reports that would be submitted electronically in response to these proposed amendments contain the same data elements currently required by the affected NSPS to be submitted in hardcopy form to the air agencies. More importantly, these proposed
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. As described in section V of this preamble, implementation of this rule would result in savings of $300,000 per year due to reduced reporting burden. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
State, local or tribal governments will not be required to change the way that they interact with their facilities, unless they choose to do so. The only action required on the part of state, local or tribal governments is to update permitting requirements to reflect the electronic reporting provisions. We expect this to be a minimal burden, as most of these updates can be done during the permit renewal process.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action, the EPA did consult with state and local officials representing air agencies in developing this action. In discussions with personnel in some air agencies and representatives for air agencies such as the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) regarding this proposed rulemaking, they raised the issue of whether this proposal would change their delegated authority to implement and enforce federal air regulations (including NSPS). Specifically, air agencies expressed a concern about how this action would affect how they receive performance test reports and other air emissions data reports targeted by this action.
This action would not affect an air agency's delegated authority, and air agencies would continue to receive reports directly from affected facilities in whatever format they require. The major difference is that air agencies would also have access to reports being proposed to be submitted to the EPA electronically through the EPA's CDX and WebFIRE, and would have the option of not receiving these reports directly from affected facilities. Because the proposed amendments do not interfere with the air agencies' authority or how they currently receive reports, we have addressed the concerns regarding the air agencies' authority and ability to implement and enforce the subject federal air regulations.
We initiated a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional IPT during the development of the CEDRI that included EPA personnel from various offices and representatives from air agencies. The objectives of the CEDRI IPT were to gain insight and ideas regarding the data flow process within the CEDRI.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nonetheless, to promote meaningful involvement, the EPA held a conference call with representatives from tribes on November 29, 2012, to discuss details of the proposed amendments. Further tribal and public input is expected through public comment on the proposed amendments. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed action from tribal officials.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Specifically, requiring the electronic submission of reports that are currently required to be submitted in hardcopy format would not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. On the contrary, we expect electronic reporting to increase complete, accurate and timely submittal of data which will, in turn, improve the protection of public health and the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(a) All requests, reports, applications, submittals, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to this part shall be submitted in duplicate to the appropriate Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the attention of the Director of the Division indicated in the following list of EPA Regional Offices. If a request, report, application, submittal, or other communication is required by this part to be submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) then such submission satisfies the requirements of this paragraph.
(b) Section 111(c) directs the Administrator to delegate to each State, when appropriate, the authority to implement and enforce standards of performance for new stationary sources located in such State. Indian tribes which have obtained treatment in the same manner as a state (TAS) for that purpose may also be delegated such authority. All information required in this part to be submitted to the EPA, must also be submitted in paper format to the appropriate State or Tribal Agency of any State or Tribe to which this authority has been delegated (the delegated authority) unless the delegated authority specifies another format. Information submitted in paper format must be postmarked no later than the date that the report is required to be submitted to the EPA's CDX electronically. Any information required to be submitted electronically by this part via the EPA's CDX may, at the discretion of the delegated authority, satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. Each specific delegation may exempt sources from certain Federal or State reporting requirements under this part, with the exception of Federal electronic reporting requirements under this part. Sources may not be exempted from Federal electronic reporting requirements. If the electronic reporting form for the subpart of interest is not available in the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) at the time that the report is due, the owner or operator must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in this section. The owner or operator must begin submitting reports via CEDRI no later than 90 days after the form becomes available in CEDRI. All reports must be submitted by the deadline specified in the subpart of interest, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. The appropriate mailing address for those States whose delegation requests have been approved is as follows: * * *
(c) Each owner or operator required to install a continuous monitoring device shall submit excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report (excess emissions are defined in applicable subparts) and-or summary report form (see paragraph (d) of this section) to the Administrator semiannually, except when: More frequent reporting is specifically required by an applicable subpart; or the Administrator, on a case-by-case basis, determines that more frequent reporting is necessary to accurately assess the compliance status of the source. Unless otherwise specified by an applicable subpart, each owner or operator shall submit reports required by this paragraph to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section, within 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility, or at such other times specified by this part, and at such other times as may be required by the Administrator under section 114 of the Act, the owner or operator of such facility shall conduct performance test(s) and submit to the Administrator a report of the results of such performance test(s) following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section.
(j) Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart, each owner or operator must submit the results of all performance tests following the procedure specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to the Administrator within 60 days of completion of the performance evaluation a report of the results of the performance evaluation. Unless otherwise provided by an applicable subpart, the results of the performance evaluation shall be submitted following the procedure specified in either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator shall submit two or, upon request, more copies of a written report of the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(b) For the purposes of this part, if an explicit postmark and-or electronic submittal deadline is not specified in an applicable requirement for the submittal of a notification, application, report, or other written communication to the Administrator, the owner or operator shall postmark, when paper submission is required by this part, and electronically submit, when electronic submission is required by this part, the submittal on or before the number of days specified in the applicable requirement. For example, if a notification must be submitted 15 days before a particular event is scheduled to take place, the notification shall be postmarked, when paper submission is required by this part, and electronically submitted, when electronic submission is required by this part, on or before 15 days preceding the event; likewise, if a notification must be submitted 15 days after a particular event takes place, the notification shall be delivered or postmarked, when paper submission is required by this part, and electronically submitted, when electronic submission is required by this part, on or before 15 days following the end of the event. For submittals required to be submitted in paper form, the use of reliable non-Government mail carriers that provide indications of verifiable delivery of information required to be submitted to the Administrator, similar to the postmark provided by the U.S. Postal Service, or alternative means of delivery, including the use of electronic media, agreed to by the permitting authority, is acceptable.
(l) The following authorities shall be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State:
(1) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) Following the initial compliance test as required under §§ 60.8 and 60.58a, the owner or operator of an affected facility located within a large MWC plant shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the results of the initial compliance test data, and shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.13(c)(2), the results of the performance evaluation of the CEMS conducted using the applicable performance specifications in appendix B. The owner or operator shall submit the maximum demonstrated MWC unit load and maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature established during the dioxin/furan compliance test with the report of the results of the initial dioxin/furan compliance test.
(e)(1) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a large MWC plant shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), annual compliance reports for sulfur dioxide,
(2) The owner or operator shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a semiannual report for any pollutant or parameter that does not comply with the pollutant or parameter limits specified in this subpart. Such report shall include the information recorded under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For each of the dates reported, include the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, load level, and particulate matter control device temperature data, as applicable, recorded under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(3) Reports shall be submitted electronically no later than the 30th day following the end of the annual or semiannual period, as applicable.
(f)(1) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a large MWC plant shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), annual compliance reports, as applicable, for opacity. The annual report shall list the percent of the affected facility operating time for the reporting period that the opacity CEMS was operating and collecting valid data. Once the unit is subject to permitting requirements under Title V of the Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these reports semiannually.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a semiannual report for all periods when the 6-minute average levels exceeded the opacity limit under § 60.52a. The semiannual report shall include all information recorded under paragraph (b)(3) of this section which pertains to opacity, and a listing of the 6-minute average opacity levels recorded under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section, which exceeded the opacity limit.
(3) Reports shall be submitted electronically no later than the 30th day following the end of the annual or semiannual period, as applicable.
(g)(1) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a large MWC plant shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), reports of all annual performance tests for particulate matter, dioxin/furan, and hydrogen chloride as recorded under paragraph (b)(7) of this section, as applicable, from the affected facility. For each annual dioxin/furan compliance test, the maximum demonstrated MWC unit load and maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature shall be reported. Such reports shall be submitted when available and in no case later than the date of required submittal of the annual report specified under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, or within six months of the date the test was conducted, whichever is earlier.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of test results which document any particulate matter, dioxin/furan, and hydrogen chloride levels that were above the applicable pollutant limit. The report shall include the performance test results documenting the emission levels and shall include the corrective action taken. Such reports shall be submitted when available and in no case later than the date required for submittal of any semiannual report required in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this section, or within six months of the date the test was conducted, whichever is earlier.
(k) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(n) * * *
(11) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4) through (f)(6) of this section in the initial performance test report. The owner or operator shall submit the report following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j). The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the information specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section following the procedure specified in § 60.13(c)(2).
(g) Following the first year of municipal waste combustor operation, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), an annual report that includes the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section, as applicable, no later than February 1 of each year following the calendar year in which the data were collected. (Once the unit is subject to permitting requirements under title V of the Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these reports semiannually. The reports must be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c).)
(j) All reports specified under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section shall be electronically submitted, when electronic submission is required by this subpart, and postmarked, when paper submission is required by this subpart, on or before the submittal dates specified under these paragraphs, and maintained onsite for a period of 5 years. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(k) All records specified under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section shall be maintained onsite in either paper copy or electronic format.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(i) * * *
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping requirements;
(5) Performance test and data reduction waivers under § 60.8(b); and
(6) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under § 60.56c(b)(1) through (b)(14), as applicable. The owner or operator shall submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j).
(d) An annual report shall be submitted 1 year following the submissions of the information in paragraph (c) of this section and subsequent reports shall be submitted no more than 12 months following the previous report (once the unit is subject to permitting requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these reports semiannually). The report shall include the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. The owner or operator shall submit the reports required by this paragraph to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(5) Any information recorded under paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of this section for the calendar year preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the Administrator with a summary of the performance of the affected facility over a 2-year period. Starting with the second year of submitting these reports electronically, information for the preceding calendar year is not required.
(6) For each performance test conducted during the reporting period, if any performance test is conducted, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the performance test report no later than the date that the annual report is submitted.
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit semiannual reports containing any information recorded under paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of this section no later than 60 days following the reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period ends 6 months following the submission of information in paragraph (c) of this section. Subsequent reports shall be submitted no later than 6 calendar months following the previous report. The owner or operator shall submit the reports required by this paragraph to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(f) All records specified under paragraph (b) of this section shall be maintained onsite in either paper copy or electronic format.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under sections § 60.63(c) through (e) shall submit reports of excess emissions. The content of these reports must comply with § 60.7(c), and the reports must be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of § 60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted semiannually.
(b) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to the provisions of § 60.63(c) through (e) shall submit semiannual reports of the malfunction information required to be recorded by § 60.7(b). These reports shall be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c) and shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.
(c) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic
(d) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see § 60.8) required by this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section. The owner or operator must include the information specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section for PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(3) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (
(e) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation, as defined in § 63.2, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.
(1) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(2) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(b) * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by § 60.65.
(g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The performance test data from the initial and subsequent performance tests must be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j). The data from the performance evaluations of the continuous monitors must be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.13(c)(2).
(b) The following information must be submitted, following the procedure specified in 60.7(c), for each 30 operating day period where you were not in compliance with the emissions standard:
(c) You must also submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), the following whenever they occur:
(e) [Reserved]
(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, you must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a report that contains the following:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) Each owner or operator subject to § 60.104(b) shall submit a report except as provided by paragraph (d) of this section. Each owner or operator shall submit the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section (except for the information required by paragraph (c)(4)(vi) of this section) to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the reports required under this subpart to the Administrator semiannually for each six-month period. All semiannual reports shall be submitted electronically and-or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each six-month period.
(h) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(b) * * *
(3) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of a FCCU or FCU that elects to monitor control device operating parameters according to the requirements in § 60.105a(b), to use bag leak detectors according to the requirements in § 60.105a(c), or to use COMS according to the requirements in § 60.105a(e) shall conduct a PM performance test at least once every 12 months and submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of each test.
(b) * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) If either the seal gap calculated in accord with paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or the measured maximum seal gap exceeds the limitations specified by § 60.112a of this subpart, a report shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of measurements. The report shall identify the vessel and list each reason why the vessel did not meet the specifications of § 60.112a. The report shall also describe the actions necessary to bring the storage vessel into compliance with the specifications of § 60.112a. The owner or operator shall submit this report to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
The revisions and addition read as follows:
The owner or operator of each storage vessel as specified in § 60.112b(a) shall keep records and furnish reports as required by paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section depending upon the control equipment installed to meet the requirements of § 60.112b. The owner or operator shall keep copies of all reports and records required by this section, except for the record required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, for at least 2 years. The record required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be kept for the life of the control equipment. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(a) * * *
(3) If any of the conditions described in § 60.113b(a)(2) are detected during the annual visual inspection required by § 60.113b(a)(2), a report shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (e) of this section, within 30 days of the inspection. Each report shall identify
(b) * * *
(4) After each seal gap measurement that detects gaps exceeding the limitations specified by § 60.113b(b)(4), submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (e) of this section, a report to the Administrator within 30 days of the inspection. The report will identify the vessel and contain the information specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and the date the vessel was emptied or the repairs made and date of repair.
(d) * * *
(3) Semiannual reports of all periods recorded under § 60.115b(d)(2) in which the pilot flame was absent shall be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: §§ 60.111b(f)(4), 60.114b, 60.116b(e)(3)(iii), 60.116b(e)(3)(iv), 60.116b(f)(2)(iii), and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(c) Any owner or operator subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall report, on a semiannual basis, all measurements over any 3-hour period that average more than 10 percent below the average levels maintained during the most recent performance test conducted under § 60.8 in which the affected facility demonstrated compliance with the mass standards under § 60.142(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(2)(i). The accuracy of the respective measurements, not to exceed the values specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, may be taken into consideration when determining the measurement results that must be reported. Each such report of measurements shall be submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section, on a semiannual basis all measurements of exhaust ventilation rates or levels over any 3-hour period that average more than 10 percent below the average rates or levels of exhaust ventilation maintained during the most recent performance test conducted under § 60.8 in which the affected facility demonstrated compliance with the standard under § 60.142a(a)(2). The accuracy of the respective measurements, not to exceed the values specified in paragraph (c) of this section, may be considered when determining the measurement results that must be reported.
(e) If a scrubber primary emission control device is used to collect secondary emissions, the owner or operator shall report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section, on a semiannual basis all measurements of exhaust ventilation rate over any 3-hour period that average more than 10 percent below the average levels maintained during the most recent performance test conducted under § 60.8 in which the affected facility demonstrated compliance with the standard under § 60.142(a)(1).
(f) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(a) The owner or operator of any multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric sludge incinerator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit a report semi-annually to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: § 60.153(e) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(b) Within 30 days of any performance test which reveals emissions which fall between the 1.0 kg/Mg and 1.3 kg/Mg levels in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or between the 0.95 kg/Mg and 1.25 kg/Mg levels in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator shall submit a report indicating whether all necessary control devices were on-line and operating properly during the performance test, describing the operating and maintenance procedures followed, and setting forth any explanation for the excess emissions. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system performance evaluation, as defined in § 63.2, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
(1) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the value established under § 60.274(g) and either operation of control system fan motor amperes at values exceeding ±15 percent of the value established under § 60.274(c) or operation at flow rates lower than those established under § 60.274(c) may be considered by the Administrator to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported semiannually to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) For the purpose of this subpart, the owner or operator shall conduct the demonstration of compliance with § 60.272(a) of this subpart and submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of the performance test. This report shall include the following information:
(f) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Each owner or operator shall submit semi-annually, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i) of this section, a report of exceedances of the control device opacity. For the purposes of these reports, exceedances are defined as all 6-minute periods during which the average opacity is 3 percent or greater.
(c) Operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the value established under § 60.274a(g) and either operation of control system fan motor amperes at values exceeding ±15 percent of the value established under § 60.274a(c) or operation at flow rates lower than those established under § 60.274a(c) may be considered by the Administrator to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported semiannually, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(d) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(f) For the purpose of this subpart, the owner or operator shall conduct the demonstration of compliance with § 60.272a(a) of this subpart and submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of the test. This report shall include the following information:
(i) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(j) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see § 60.8) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation, as defined in § 63.2, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.
(1) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(2) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(d) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, you must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a report that contains the following:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The reporting requirements of § 60.8 apply only to the initial performance test. Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8:
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report every calendar quarter of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOCs emitted to the atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the limit specified under § 60.312. If no such instances have occurred during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), the following:
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, records of all data and calculations used to determine VOC emissions from each affected facility. Where compliance is achieved through the use of thermal incineration, each owner or operator shall maintain, at the source, daily records of the incinerator combustion chamber temperature. If catalytic incineration is used, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the gas temperature, both upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed. Where compliance is achieved through the use of a solvent recovery system, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the amount of solvent recovered by the system for each affected facility. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(j) * * *
(5) All reports required under § 60.7(c) shall be submitted electronically by the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall conduct a performance test and submit a report of the results of the test following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j).
(d) The reports required under paragraph (c) shall be submitted electronically within 30 days following the end of the second and fourth calendar quarters. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the
(e) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report every calendar quarter of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the limit specified under § 60.392. If no such instances have occurred during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. Where compliance is achieved through the use of a capture system and control device, the volume-weighted average after the control device should be reported. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) Where compliance with § 60.392 is achieved through the use of incineration, the owner or operator shall continuously record the incinerator combustion temperature during coating operations for thermal incineration or the gas temperature upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed during coating operations for catalytic incineration. The owner or operator shall submit, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a report of the information defined below.
(f) Any owner or operator subject to the requirements under paragraph (c) of this section shall report, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), all measurement results that are less than 90 percent of the average levels maintained during the most recent performance test conducted under § 60.8 in which the affected facility demonstrated compliance with the standard under § 60.402.
(e) * * *
(6) The owner or operator of the existing facility (or facilities) shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of the emission test.
(a) For all affected facilities subject to compliance with § 60.442, the performance test data and results from the performance test shall be submitted as specified in § 60.8(j) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A).
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of each affected facility shall submit quarterly reports of exceedances of the VOC emission limits specified in § 60.442. If no such exceedances occur during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. These quarterly and semiannual reports shall be submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) The owner or operator of each affected facility shall also submit reports, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), when the incinerator temperature drops as defined under § 60.443(e). If no such periods occur, the owner or operator shall state this in the report.
(d) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The reporting requirements of § 60.8 apply only to the initial performance test. Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8:
(b) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report every calendar quarter of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the limit specified under § 60.452. If no such instances have occurred during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. These quarterly and semiannual reports shall be submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), the following:
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, records of all data and calculations used to determine VOC emissions from each affected facility. Where compliance is achieved through the use of thermal incineration, each owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the incinerator combustion chamber temperature. If catalytic incineration is used, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the gas temperature, both upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed. Where compliance is achieved through the use of a solvent recovery system, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the amount of solvent recovered by the system for each affected facility. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(c) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit a report every calendar quarter of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the local mass of VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per volume of applied coating solids (N) is greater than the limit specified under § 60.462. If no such instances have occurred during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit such quarterly and semiannual reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) The owner or operator of each affected facility shall also submit reports, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), when the incinerator temperature drops as defined under § 60.464(c). If no such periods occur, the owner or operator shall state this in the report.
(e) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, records of all data and calculations used to determine monthly VOC emissions from each affected facility and to determine the monthly emission limit, where applicable. Where compliance is achieved through the use of thermal incineration, each owner or operator shall maintain, at the source, daily records of the incinerator combustion temperature. If catalytic incineration is used, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the gas temperature, both upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this section. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(a) Beginning six months after the initial startup date, each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit semiannual reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(a)(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this section. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(a) Beginning 6 months after the initial startup date, each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit semiannual reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a state under section 111(c) of the CAA, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such state. In that event, affected sources within the state will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the state. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall include the following data in the initial compliance report required under § 60.8.
(b) Following the initial performance test, each owner or operator shall identify, record, and submit quarterly reports of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC per volume of coating solids, after the control device, if capture devices and control systems are used, is greater than the limit specified under § 60.492. If no such instances occur during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted semiannually. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) Following the initial performance test, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall identify, record, and submit, at the frequency and following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), the following:
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, records of all data and calculations used to determine VOC emissions from each affected facility in the initial and monthly performance tests. Where compliance is achieved through the use of thermal incineration, each owner or operator shall maintain, at the source, daily records of the incinerator combustion chamber temperature. If catalytic incineration is used, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the gas temperature, both upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed. Where compliance is achieved through the use of a solvent recovery system, the owner or operator shall maintain at the source daily records of the amount of solvent recovered by the system for each affected facility. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(e) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (j) and
(g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the results of all initial performance tests and the results of the performance tests required under § 60.543(b)(2) and (b)(3). The following data shall be included in the report for each of the above performance tests:
(f) Once every 6 months each owner or operator subject to the provisions of § 60.545 shall report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (k) of this section, as applicable:
(g) The requirements for semiannual reports remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under Section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with these requirements, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(j) The owner or operator of each tread end cementing operation and each green tire spraying (inside and/or outside) operation using water-based sprays containing less than 1.0 percent, by weight, of VOC as described in § 60.543(b)(1) shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (k) of this section, within 60 days initially and annually thereafter, formulation data or Method 24 results to verify the VOC content of the water-based sprays in use. If the spray formulation changes before the end of the 12-month period, formulation data or Method 24 results to verify the VOC content of the spray shall be reported within 30 days of the change.
(k) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States: § 60.543(c)(2)(ii)(B) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep an up-to-date, readily-accessible record of the following information measured during each performance test and include the following information in the report of the initial performance test, submitted following the procedure in § 60.8(j), in addition to the results of such performance tests. Where a control device is used to comply with § 60.562–1(a)(1)(i)(D) only, a report containing performance test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information in § 60.565(a)(11) is required to be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (n) of this section. Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 150 million Btu/hour or greater is used to comply with § 60.562–1(a), a report containing performance test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information in § 60.565(a)(2)(i) is required to be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (n) of this section. The same information specified in this section shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), in the reports of all subsequently required performance tests where either the emission control efficiency of a combustion device or the outlet concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane) is determined.
(b)(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit an engineering report describing in detail the vent system used to vent each affected vent stream to a control device. This report shall include all valves and vent pipes that could vent the stream to the atmosphere, thereby bypassing the control device, and identify which valves are car-sealed opened and which valves are car-sealed closed. Unless the owner or operator submits an initial performance test electronically to the EPA via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) or if the owner or operator is complying with § 60.562–1(a)(1)(i)(D), the engineering report shall be submitted with the initial performance test. If the owner or operator submits an initial performance test electronically to the EPA's CDX or if the owner or operator is complying with § 60.562–1(a)(1)(i)(D), the engineering report shall be submitted as a separate report to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(k) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the requirements of this subpart by complying with the uncontrolled threshold emission rate cutoff provision of §§ 60.560 (d) and (e), the individual stream exemptions of § 60.560(g), or the requirements of § 60.562–1 shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (n) of this section, semiannual reports of the following recorded information, as applicable. The initial report must be submitted within 6 months after the initial start-up date.
(m) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves alternative reporting requirements or means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(n) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(o) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States: § 60.562–2(c) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) For all affected facilities subject to compliance with § 60.582, the performance test data and results from the performance test shall be submitted as specified in § 60.8(j).
(c) The reports required under paragraph (b) of this section shall be submitted electronically within 30 days following the end of the second and fourth calendar quarters. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit reports of the following:
(2) The results of subsequent performance tests that indicate that VOC emissions exceed the standards in § 60.602. These reports shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), quarterly at 3-month intervals after the initial performance test. If no exceedances occur during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section, semiannually.
(b) Solvent-spun synthetic fiber producing facilities exempted from these standards in § 60.600(a) (those producing less than 500 Mg (551 ton) annually) shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section, a report within 30 days whenever extruded fiber for the preceding 12 calendar months exceeds 500 Mg (551 ton).
(c) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternate means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(d) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of the following data measured during each performance test and also include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8. Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used to comply with § 60.612(a), a report containing performance test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information of § 60.615(b)(2)(i) is required to be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (m) of this section. The same data specified in this section shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), in the reports of all subsequently required performance tests where either the emission control efficiency of a control device, outlet concentration of TOC, or the TRE index value of a vent stream from a recovery system is determined.
(j) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the requirements of this subpart by complying with the requirements of § 60.612 shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (m) of this section, semiannual reports of the following information. The initial report shall be submitted within 6 months after the initial start-up-date.
(k) The requirements of § 60.615(j) remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with § 60.615(j), provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(m) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(n) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained electronically.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Records of the calculations and measurements required in § 60.642 (a) and (b) and § 60.646 (a) through (g) must be retained for at least 2 years following the date of the measurements by owners and operators subject to this subpart. This requirement is included under § 60.7(d) of the General Provisions. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(b) Each owner or operator shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.7(c), a report of excess emissions semiannually. For the purpose of these reports, excess emissions are defined as:
(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of obligation to comply with paragraph (b) of this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the following data measured during each performance test, and also include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8. Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used to comply with § 60.662(a), a report containing performance test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information in § 60.665(b)(2)(i) is required to be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (q) of this section. The same data specified in this section shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), in the reports of all subsequently required performance tests where either the emission control efficiency of a control device, outlet concentration of TOC, or the TRE index value of a vent stream from a recovery system is determined.
(l) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the requirements of this subpart by complying with the requirements of § 60.660 (c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) or § 60.662 shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (q) of this section, semiannual reports of the following recorded information. The initial report shall be submitted within 6 months after the initial start-up date.
(m) The requirements of § 60.665(l) remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with § 60.665(l), provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(q) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(r) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained electronically.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: § 60.663(e) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall be submitted electronically within 30 days following the end of the second and
(f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in § 60.672 of this subpart, including reports of opacity observations made using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) to demonstrate compliance with § 60.672(b), (e) and (f).
(j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of this section, provided that they comply with requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(k) Except for the reports required to be electronically submitted to the EPA's CDX, as identified in this section, notifications and reports required under this subpart and under subpart A of this part to demonstrate compliance with this subpart need only to be sent to the EPA Region or the State which has been delegated authority according to § 60.4(b). Reports required to be electronically submitted to the EPA's CDX may not be exempted from Federal electronic reporting requirements.
(l) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained electronically.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) Each owner or operator shall submit semiannual reports of exceedances of control device operating parameters required to be monitored by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and documentation of, and a report of corrective maintenance required as a result of, quarterly calibrations of the monitoring devices required in § 60.683(c). For the purpose of these reports, exceedances are defined as any monitoring data that are less than 70 percent of the lowest value or greater than 130 percent of the highest value of each operating parameter recorded during the most recent performance test. Each owner or operator shall submit such reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(e) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(f) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained electronically.
(a) Each owner or operator of a facility subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this section. All records shall be retained for a period of 2 years
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)(1) Within 60 days after initial startup, each owner or operator of a facility subject to this subpart shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section, a certification that the equipment necessary to comply with these standards has been installed and that the required initial inspections or tests of process drains, sewer lines, junction boxes, oil-water separators, and closed vent systems and control devices have been carried out in accordance with these standards. Thereafter, the owner or operator shall submit semiannually, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section, a certification that all of the required inspections have been carried out in accordance with these standards.
(c) A report that summarizes all inspections when a water seal was dry or otherwise breached, when a drain cap or plug was missing or improperly installed, or when cracks, gaps, or other problems were identified that could result in VOC emissions, including information about the repairs or corrective action taken, shall be submitted initially and semiannually thereafter, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) As applicable, a report shall be submitted semiannually, following the procedure specified in paragraph (f) of this section, that indicates:
(f) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the following data measured during each performance test, and also include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8. Where a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used or where the reactor process vent stream is introduced as the primary fuel to any size boiler or process heater to comply with § 60.702(a), a report containing performance test data need not be submitted, but a report containing the information in § 60.705(b)(2)(i) is required to be submitted following the procedure specified in paragraph (u) of this section. The same data specified in this section shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), in the reports of all subsequently required performance tests where either the emission control efficiency of a combustion device, outlet concentration of TOC, or the TRE index value of a vent stream from a recovery system is determined.
(l) Each owner or operator that seeks to comply with the requirements of this subpart by complying with the requirements of § 60.700 (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) or § 60.702 shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (u) of this section, semiannual reports of the following recorded information. The initial report shall be submitted within 6 months after the initial start-up date.
(m) The requirements of § 60.705(l) remain in force until and unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with § 60.705(l), provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(p) Each owner or operator that seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.700(c)(8) must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), an initial report including a concentration measurement using the test method specified in § 60.704.
(u) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(v) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained electronically.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: § 60.703(e) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) For all affected coating operations subject to § 60.712(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) and all affected coating mix preparation equipment subject to § 60.712(c), the performance test data and results shall be submitted following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A). In addition, the average values of the monitored parameters measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the period of the performance test shall be submitted with the results of all performance tests.
(c) Each owner or operator of an affected coating operation initially utilizing less than the applicable volume of solvent specified in § 60.710(b) per calendar year shall report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, the first calendar year in which actual annual solvent use exceeds the applicable volume.
(d) Each owner or operator of an affected coating operation, or affected coating mix preparation equipment subject to § 60.712(c), shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, semiannual reports documenting the following:
(e) Each owner or operator of an affected coating operation, or affected coating mix preparation equipment subject to § 60.712(c), not required to submit reports under § 60.717(d) because no reportable periods have occurred shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, semiannual reports so affirming.
(h) The reports required under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section shall be submitted electronically within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.
(i) The requirements of this subsection remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In this event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(j) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The reporting requirements of § 60.8 apply only to the initial performance test. Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall include the following data in the report of the initial performance test required under § 60.8:
(b) Following the initial report, each owner or operator must submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(c) These reports shall be submitted electronically not later than 10 days after the end of the periods specified in § 60.724(b)(1) and § 60.724(b)(2).
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain at the source, for a period of at least 2 years, records of all data and calculations used to determine monthly VOC emissions from each coating operation for each affected facility as specified in 40 CFR 60.7(d). Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to the States:
Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Records of the measurements required in § 60.734 of this subpart shall be retained for at least 2 years. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(c) Semiannually, each owner or operator shall submit reports of exceedances of control device operating parameters required to be monitored by § 60.734 of this subpart to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this section provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The additions read as follows:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) For each affected facility subject to the requirements of § 60.742(b) and (c), the owner or operator shall submit the performance test data and results as specified in § 60.8(j) of this part. In addition, the average values of the monitored parameters measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the period of the performance test shall be submitted with the results of all performance tests.
(c) * * *
(2) Report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, the first semiannual estimate in which projected annual VOC use exceeds the applicable cutoff; and
(3) Report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, the first 12-month period in which the actual VOC use exceeds the applicable cutoff.
(d) Each owner or operator of an affected facility demonstrating compliance by the methods described in § 60.743(a)(1), (2), (4), (b), or (c) shall maintain records and submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, quarterly reports documenting the following:
(e) Each owner or operator of an affected coating operation, demonstrating compliance by the test methods described in § 60.743(a)(3) (liquid-liquid material balance) shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, the following:
(g) The reports required under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section shall be submitted electronically and-or postmarked within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.
(h) Records required in § 60.747 must be retained for at least 2 years. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
(i) The requirements of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In this event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with this subsection, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.
(j) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Authorities that will not be delegated to States: §§ 60.743(a)(3)(v) (A) and (B); 60.743(e); 60.745(a); 60.746; and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(b) The following authorities shall be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to the State: § 60.754(a)(5) and approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section, an NMOC emission rate report initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.
(1) * * *
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate report shall be submitted no later than indicated in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the annual report to the Administrator is less than 50 megagrams per year in each of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or operator may elect to submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section, an estimate of the NMOC emission rate for the next 5-year period in lieu of the annual report. This estimate shall include the current amount of solid waste-in-place and the estimated waste acceptance rate for each year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission rate is estimated. All data and calculations upon which this estimate is based shall be provided to the Administrator. This estimate shall be revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste acceptance rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate in any year reported in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-year estimate shall be submitted to the Administrator. The revised estimate shall cover the 5-year period beginning with the year in which the actual waste acceptance rate exceeded the estimated waste acceptance rate.
(c) * * *
(1) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as provided in § 60.754(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 50 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting shall be resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section, within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance of 50 megagrams per year.
(2) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC emission rate after determining a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k), as provided in Tier 3 in § 60.754(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 50 Mg/yr, annual periodic reporting shall be resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) shall be used in the emission rate calculation until such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the provisions of § 60.754(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section, within 1 year of the first calculated emission rate exceeding 50 megagrams per year.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating that the 15 year minimum control period has expired, unless the report of the results of the performance test has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). In the equipment removal report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu of the performance test report if the report has been previously submitted to the EPA's CDX; and
(iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 50 megagrams or greater of NMOC per year, unless the NMOC emission rate reports have been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. If the NMOC emission rate reports have been previously submitted to the EPA's CDX, a statement that the NMOC emission rate reports have been submitted electronically and the dates that the reports were submitted to the EPA's CDX may be submitted in the equipment removal report in lieu of the NMOC emission rate reports.
(f) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with § 60.752(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in accordance with § 60.752(b)(2)(ii) shall submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section, annual reports of the recorded information in (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this paragraph. The initial annual report shall be submitted within 180 days of installation and start-up of the collection and control system. The initial annual report shall include the following information pertaining to the initial performance test report required under § 60.8: the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. The initial performance test report shall be submitted, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), no later than the date that the initial annual report is submitted. For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable exceedances are defined under § 60.758(c).
(h) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(g) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) may be maintained in electronic format.
Yes, the Administrator can delegate all authorities in all sections of this subpart, except approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart, to the State for direct State enforcement.
(a) Submit an initial report and annual reports, plus semiannual reports for any emission or parameter level that does not meet the limits specified in this subpart. Submit initial, annual and semiannual reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) Submit all reports electronically on or before the submittal dates in §§ 60.1395, 60.1405, and 60.1420.
(c) Keep a copy of all reports required by §§ 60.1400, 60.1410, and 60.1425 onsite for 5 years. Records for any report that is submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained in electronic format.
(c) For each initial performance test conducted during the reporting period, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the results of the initial performance test (including supporting calculations) required by this subpart no later than the date that you submit the initial report.
(d) For the initial performance evaluation of your continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), the process unit where the CEMS is installed, the pollutant the CEMS measures, and the date that the performance evaluation was conducted. Use the applicable performance specifications in appendix B of this part in conducting the evaluation. Submit the results of the initial performance evaluation of your CEMS, following the procedure specified in § 60.13(c)(2), no later than the date that you submit the initial report.
(b) If the results of your annual stack tests (as recorded in § 60.1360(a)) show emissions above the limits specified in table 1 of this subpart for dioxins/furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. You must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the performance test report that documents the emission levels and your corrective actions no later than the date that you submit the semiannual report.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section are retained by the EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(7) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
(h) For each performance test conducted during the reporting period, if any performance test is conducted, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the performance test report no later than the date that you submit the annual report.
(d) A copy of the operating limit monitoring data during each deviation and for any test report that documents the emission levels, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), the performance test report no later than the
Submit initial reports electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due date, to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4. Submit annual and deviation reports electronically on or before the submittal due dates to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) * * *
(3) Submit the annual report to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(d) Owners and operators of stationary SI ICE that are subject to performance testing must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of each performance test conducted following the procedure specified in § 60.4244 within 60 days after the test has been completed.
(e) * * *
(3) Submit the annual report to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) For each affected unit that performs annual performance tests in accordance with § 60.4340(a), you must submit, following the procedure specified in § 60.8(j), a report of the results of each performance test before the close of business on the 60th day following the completion of the performance test.
All reports required under § 60.7(c) must be submitted electronically by the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this section.
(9) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site in either electronic format (that can be printed upon request) or paper copy format.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c)
(4) For the initial performance test conducted using the test methods specified in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that the initial performance test was conducted. Submit the initial performance test results, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no later than the date that you submit the initial compliance report.
(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system (CMS) was conducted, the process unit where the CMS is installed, the parameter measured by the CMS, and the date that the performance evaluation is conducted. Submit the initial performance evaluation results, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, no later than the date that you submit the initial compliance report.
(d)
(4) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, the performance test report no later than the date that you submit the annual report.
(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system (CMS) was conducted, the process unit where the CMS is installed, the parameter measured by the CMS, and the date that the performance evaluation is conducted. Submit, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, the results of that performance evaluation no later than the date that you submit the annual compliance report. If new operating limits were established during the performance evaluation, include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
(e) * * *
(2) The deviation report must be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, by August 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31).
(3) * * *
(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each deviation and for any test report that documents the emission levels, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested and the date that the performance test was conducted. Submit the performance test report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no later than the date that you submit the deviation report.
(4) * * *
(vii) For any performance test report that showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested and the date that the performance test was conducted. Submit the performance test report, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no later than the date that you submit the deviation report.
(i) * * *
(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically on or before the submittal due dates to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see § 60.8) conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified in either paragraph (i)(3)(i) or (i)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
(7) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see § 60.8) required by this subpart, except testing conducted by the manufacturer as specified in § 60.5413(d), you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (b)(7)(i) or (b)(7)(ii) of this section.
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(9) If you are required to submit reports in the manner specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(c)
(a) You must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section in addition to the requirements of § 60.487a(a), (b), (c)(2)(i) through (iv), and (c)(2)(vii) through (viii). As required by § 60.487a(a), you must submit semiannual reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(b) You must submit a report of excess emissions with your annual report if you had excess emissions during the reporting period. The excess emissions report must be submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section remain in force until and unless the EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a state under section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such state. In that event, affected sources within the state will be relieved of obligation to comply with paragraph (b) of this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the state. Electronic reporting to the EPA cannot be waived, and as such, the provisions of this paragraph do not relieve owners or operators of affected facilities of the requirement to submit the electronic reports required in this section to the EPA.