Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Royalty Board
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
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 Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; annual update to fee schedule.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this notice of the annual update to the fee schedule in Appendix A to Part 11, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective January 20, 2015 and updates Appendix A to Part 11 with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015 (Fiscal Year 2015).
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.
This Final Rule is effective January 20, 2015. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This Final Rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Appendix A to Part 11, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Sabula Railroad Drawbridge across the Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula, Iowa. This deviation is necessary for scheduled maintenance on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given.
This deviation is effective from 4 p.m. January 9, 2015, until 9 a.m. March 1, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2015-0008) is available at
If you have questions on this temporary
The Canadian Pacific Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula, Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given for 51 days from 4 p.m., January 9, 2015, to 9 a.m., March 1, 2015 for scheduled maintenance on the bridge. The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridge shall open on signal.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.
Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 12 (Mile 556.7 UMR) and Lock No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) from 7:30 a.m. December 15, 2015 until 11 a.m., March 4, 2015 will preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening.
The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 18.1 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
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.
Department of Education.
Final regulations.
On August 13, 2013, the Department of Education (the Department) published final regulations in the
These regulations are effective February 19, 2015.
Allison Moss, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-7726 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In this document, we amend EDGAR to standardize a term and improve the consistency and clarity of our regulations.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The Department revises EDGAR to include a definition for “What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards,” provide the Secretary the flexibility to establish a separate competition for or award competitive preference to discretionary grant applications supported by evidence of promise, and revise certain definitions to improve clarity.
The Department adds a definition of “What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards” to 34 CFR part 77. This definition incorporates the most recent version of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook (WWC Handbook), Version 3.0, which was made public in March 2014. Instead of continuing to separately cite the WWC Handbook in various provisions of parts 75 and 77, we add, to part 77, a single definition of the WWC Evidence Standards that incorporates the current version of the WWC Handbook, and then include that defined term, as applicable, throughout parts 75 and 77.
The WWC Handbook, first published in 2008, documents the systematic review process and the standards by which the WWC reviews studies. Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook significantly expands the examples used to illustrate how the WWC Evidence Standards are applied in various contexts. Although previous versions of the WWC Handbook focused on only one WWC product—the intervention report—Version 3.0 includes information on several additional WWC products, including practice guides, single-study reviews, and quick reviews.
By adding a definition of “WWC Evidence Standards” and updating the applicable references throughout 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 to incorporate the most recent version of the WWC Handbook, the Department will provide more effective guidance to applicants and grantees as they design and implement rigorous evaluations of their projects.
These final regulations amend § 75.266 and redesignate it as § 75.226. Previously, this section provided that the Secretary may give special consideration, through establishing a separate competition or awarding competitive preference, to discretionary grant applications supported by strong evidence of effectiveness or moderate evidence of effectiveness. In our experience using evidence in discretionary grant competitions, we have learned it is beneficial to also include in 34 CFR 75.266 (which we have redesignated as 34 CFR 75.226) a provision for giving special consideration to applications supported by evidence of promise, which is a less rigorous standard, because evidence of effectiveness in the education field continues to develop. By including evidence of promise in newly redesignated 34 CFR 75.226, we allow more flexibility to discretionary grant programs oriented towards supporting evidence-based projects.
We amend the definition of “evidence of promise” to replace the reference to “quasi-experimental study” with
The Department modifies the definition of “large sample” in 34 CFR part 77 to remove the requirement that analysis units be randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. In implementing our discretionary grant programs, we discovered a discrepancy between the existing definition, specifically its references to random assignment of students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or other single analysis units to treatment or control groups, and the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1. Under the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness,” a quasi-experimental design study (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that includes a large sample could meet the standard, but many such studies do not randomly assign units of analysis to treatment or control groups. We revise the definition of “large sample” to eliminate the random assignment of analysis units into treatment or control groups as a mandatory element. Therefore, for instance, a quasi-experimental design study with a sample of 350 or more students (or other single analysis units), or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools) that contains 10 or more students, could meet the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1.
There are no differences between the NPRM and these final regulations.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
These regulations affect direct grant programs of the Department, some of which are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs—education, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education, Grant programs—education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75 and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations.
(a) As used in this section, “strong evidence of effectiveness” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(b) As used in this section, “moderate evidence of effectiveness” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(c) As used in this section, “evidence of promise” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c); and
(d) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of promise is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), for applications supported by:
(1) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in paragraph (a) of the definition of “strong evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(2) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of “strong evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(3) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness;” or
(4) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise.”
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(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 (i) 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.
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.
(ii) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the studies or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions respectively concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum refinery coking operations, and sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule is effective on March 23, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0781, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 244-1810,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On May 5, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD, Rule 1114, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD, Rule 54, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There is not an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 1114. We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 54 into the SIP on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 20913).
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1114 addresses petroleum refinery coking operations and is designed to minimize VOC emissions generated during the delayed coking process. It requires that coke drums be depressurized to less than two psig prior to venting to atmosphere.
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to sulfur dioxide (SO
40 CFR part 81 describes SCAQMD as regulating a non-attainment area classified as extreme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. VCAPCD is currently designated as being “better than the national standards” for the 1971 NAAQS for SO
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990”, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations”, EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. 40 CFR 60.103a, “Work Practice Standards”, EPA, July 1, 2011 edition.
5.
6. 40 CFR 50.17, “National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide), EPA, June 22, 2010.
7. Method 100.1, “Source Test Protocol for Determining Oxygen Corrected Pollutant Concentrations from Combustion Sources with High Stack Oxygen Content Based on Carbon Dioxide Emissions”, SCAQMD, March 3, 2011.
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The respective TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
We have no recommendations for SCAQMD Rule 1114 at this time. Our TSD for Rule 54 describes an additional revision that we recommend for the next time VCAPCD modifies the rule.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 23, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(441) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(442) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency.
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the November 20, 2014, direct final rule to approve North Carolina's January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions pertaining to changes to the North Carolina Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program. EPA will address the adverse comments in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on November 20, 2014. As stated in the proposal, EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
The direct final rule published at 79 FR 69051 on November 20, 2014, is withdrawn as of January 20, 2015.
Nacosta Ward, Air Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone number: (404) 562-9140; Email:
On November 20, 2014 (79 FR 69051), EPA published a direct final rulemaking to approve North Carolina's January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, SIP submissions that pertain to changes to the North Carolina I/M program. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by December 22, 2014, EPA would publish a notice in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason trip limit adjustment.
This action reduces the possession limit for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the remainder of the 2014 fishing year. Federal regulations allow NMFS to adjust the trip limit, if necessary, to help ensure that a common pool quota is not exceeded. The common pool has caught 79 percent of its Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder quota. This action is intended to prevent the overharvest of the common pool's 2014 fishing year allocation of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder.
This action is effective January 20, 2015, through April 30, 2015.
Brett Alger, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-2153.
Regulations governing the Northeast (NE) multispecies fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator (RA) to adjust the possession limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. The fishing year 2014 (May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015) common pool sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder is 102.0 mt. Based on the most recent data and information, which includes vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, and vessel monitoring system (VMS) information, we have determined that 79 percent of the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-ACL has been caught. Recent analysis shows that the common pool would likely exceed its allocation for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder if the trip limit is not reduced to the limits specified in this action. To address a potential overharvest, the trip limit for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder is reduced to 250 lb (113.4 kg) per day-at-sea (DAS) up to 500 lb (226.8 kg) per trip. The trip limit adjustment is effective January 20, 2015, through April 30, 2015, and applies to all common pool vessels.
Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at:
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the reasons stated below. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the same reasons.
The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the RA to adjust the NE multispecies trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. The catch data used as the basis for this action only recently became available. The available analysis indicates that if the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder trip limit is not reduced quickly, the common pool fishery will likely exceed its 2014 fishing year allocation for this stock. Any overages of the common pool quota any stock would undermine conservation objectives and trigger the implementation of accountability measures that would have negative economic impacts on common pool vessels. This action reduces the probability of the common pool fishery exceeding its allocations for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. As a result, the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent NMFS from implementing the necessary trip limit adjustment in a timely manner, which could undermine conservation objectives of the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, we, or our) proposes to amend existing regulations related to mergers and consolidations of Farm Credit System (System) banks and associations to clarify the merger review and approval process and incorporate existing practices in the regulations. The proposed rule would identify when the statutory 60-day review period begins, require that only independent tabulators be authorized to validate ballots and tabulate stockholder votes on mergers or consolidations, require institutions to hold informational meetings on proposed mergers or consolidations if circumstances warrant, explain the reconsideration petition process and specify the voting record date list to be provided to stockholders who wish to file a reconsideration petition. The proposed rule would update cross-references in the existing regulations, incorporate cross references to stockholder voting rules contained elsewhere in part 611, and clarify or update terminology to enhance transparency.
You may send comments on or before April 20, 2015.
We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's Web site. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we do not accept comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Email: Send us an email at
• FCA Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Barry F. Mardock, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090.
You may review copies of all comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at
Shirley Hixson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4318, TTY (703) 883-4056, or Laura McFarland, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4056.
The objectives of the proposed rule are to:
• Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the reconsideration petition process for the stockholder and provide clarity to System banks and associations on how they must provide a stockholder list to a stockholder when requested for the purpose of filing a petition;
• Improve security and confidentiality over the voting process on mergers and consolidations through the use of independent third-party tabulators;
• Clarify the FCA's review and approval process related to proposed plans of mergers or consolidation in order to facilitate an efficient and timely response; and
• Enhance existing regulations by updating terminology and making other grammatical changes.
The FCA issued subparts F and G of part 611 to address the procedures and stockholder disclosure requirements for Farm Credit banks and associations proposed plans of merger or consolidation (collectively, merger(s)), and charter amendments.
The FCA is committed to using plain language in its rulemaking to facilitate understanding and compliance with requirements that we administer or enforce. Therefore, we propose updating certain terminology and making grammatical changes in subparts F and G to make our regulations more clear, concise, and well organized.
To be consistent and avoid confusion in how we use certain terms in our regulations, we propose replacing the varied references to “funding bank”, “supervisory bank”, and “district bank” with “funding bank” where used in subparts F and G. Existing regulations in these subparts currently use the terms
We propose adding “agricultural credit associations” to the list of institutions subject to the merger provisions in existing § 611.1120(c). This change would update our rules to recognize that System associations may be organized and chartered as agricultural credit associations and operate as cooperatives within the System. Similarly, we propose identifying service corporations in existing §§ 611.1000(c) and 611.1120(c) to recognize their potential existence in merging associations and banks. Also, we propose replacing the term “bank” in subparts F and G with “Farm Credit bank” to reconcile the term's usage with the definition in § 619.9140.
We also propose updating § 611.1010(d) on Farm Credit bank charter amendment votes to recognize different voting structures among Farm Credit banks. The proposal is to add language to the existing rule on bank charter amendments to recognize that agricultural credit banks have different voting procedures from Farm Credit banks.
We propose adding the term “association” to the section headings for §§ 611.1121, 611.1122, and 611.1123 for clarity. We also propose substituting the phrase “Farm Credit institution” for “bank or association” when discussing prohibited conduct in § 611.1122, to cover all chartered institutions, as well as implement the terminology used in § 619.9146.
We propose general language changes to subparts F and G to enhance readability. The proposed language changes include:
• Replacing the word “shall” throughout subparts F and G with “must”, “will”, “does”, “may”, or “is”, as appropriate and consistent with the manner in which “shall” is currently used. The word “shall” would remain in §§ 611.1122(c)(1) and 611.1124(f)(1).
• Removing the introductory language of existing §§ 611.1121 and 611.1122 due to redundancy and the definitions for “consolidation” and “merger” in § 611.1122, which are already addressed in existing §§ 619.9110 and 619.9210.
• Revising § 611.1121(d) to combine the existing two sentences into one cohesive sentence explaining that charter amendment approvals will include the amended charter.
• Bifurcating the two provisions in existing § 611.1122(a)(7) into two distinct paragraphs (a)(7) and (8). The proposed rule would amend § 611.1122(a)(7) to include the existing provision that the requesting associations may include any additional information or documents that they wish to submit in support of their request to merge. New § 611.1122(a)(8) would include the other existing provision that the funding bank or the FCA may request additional information.
• Adding the word “granted” in the last sentence of new § 611.1122(c)(2) to clarify that merger approvals are granted according to our rules.
• Adding the word “stockholder” in revised § 611.1122(d) and (e) to clarify that the meetings discussed in these paragraphs are stockholder meetings.
• Adding the phrase “in person” to § 611.1122(d) to clarify and ensure that stockholder voting on a proposed plan of merger is permitted only by voting in person or by proxy. We propose the change in response to inquiries we received on whether or not mail balloting was permitted under existing regulations. The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, (Act) limits stockholder voting methods on proposed plans of mergers to in-person voting and voting by proxy ballots.
• Adding the reference of “constituent associations” to existing § 611.1123(b) to clarify that all associations subject to the proposed plan of merger are required to discuss the proposed changes to their respective bylaws that will result from the proposed merger.
As with the other grammatical changes, we intend no change in the meaning of the affected regulatory provisions.
We propose adding three new definitions to § 611.100 that would apply to all of part 611, unless otherwise stated in the regulations. First, we propose adding as new paragraph (b) the term “FCA” in order to allow for the use of the “FCA” acronym throughout part 611 instead of the full agency name. We then propose the conforming change of replacing “Farm Credit Administration” with “FCA” in subparts F and G where used. The use of the acronym would enhance readability of the regulation.
Next, we propose adding as new paragraph (i) a definition of “voting record date” or “record date.” Several regulatory provisions in part 611 reference a voting record date but do not define the term. We propose defining “voting record date” as the date set by each institution before a voting event on which a stockholder must own voting stock in order to vote at the event. We recognize there is a practical need for System institutions to identify eligible voting stockholders as of the voting record date set for each stockholder voting event and believe the term must be used consistently throughout the System. We would expect System institutions set a voting record date that is not too far removed from the voting event. Due to changes in the make-up of the stockholder base that may occur between the voting record date and the date the vote is held, the stockholders permitted to vote on the event may not fully reflect the stockholders that will be affected by the long-term results of the voting action if the voting record date is too far removed from the voting event.
Lastly, we propose adding as new § 611.100(j) the term “voting record date list” or “record date list.” The proposed rule would define a “voting record date list” as a list of the names and addresses of borrowers holding voting stock as of the voting record date and who are eligible to cast a vote for a particular event (
We propose relocating in new § 611.1122(i) the existing provisions on prohibited acts in connection with a merger or consolidation, currently located in existing §§ 611.1020(c) and 611.1122(f) and (h). This is intended to improve the readability of our rule and ensure institutions are fully aware of the requirement that stockholders be provided with information that is complete, accurate and not misleading. Also, the differences in the existing provisions would be reconciled. Additionally, we propose adding “agents” and other parties participating in the affairs of the institution to the existing list of those covered by the prohibitions. Adding these persons is intended to provide consistency with similar prohibitions elsewhere in our rules and reduce the potential for using third-parties agents to circumvent the prohibitions. We also propose the conforming change of adding “agents” and other parties participating in the affairs of the institution to the list of those covered by prohibited conduct under our regulations on territorial adjustments at existing § 611.1124(g) and (i).
The proposed rule would also clarify the FCA's existing authority to require that Farm Credit banks and associations issue a corrected stockholder disclosure document to replace the document originally issued in connection with a stockholder vote on a proposed merger. The proposed clarification would add language to existing §§ 611.1020(c) and 611.1122(h) explaining our authority to require reissuance of the document if we determine that the stockholder disclosure document is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. Complete and accurate information is necessary to stockholders' understanding of the action on which they will vote and is critical to their making an informed decision. We also propose a conforming change to our regulations on territorial adjustments to add a new § 611.1124(j) containing the same language.
We propose updating § 611.1020 to clarify that proposed bank mergers are generally subject to the same merger requirements as associations. Existing § 611.1020(b) references certain association merger provisions related to document submission that Farm Credit banks must follow. We propose updating § 611.1020(b) to clarify that Farm Credit banks seeking to merge must follow requirements for association mergers, including the FCA review process, stockholder voting, and reconsideration petition requirements. However, given that bank mergers may result in processing considerations that differ from associations, we also propose adding an exemption to § 611.1020(b) that would relieve banks from complying with association merger provisions, if determined appropriate by the FCA.
As a conforming change, we propose removing § 611.1020(d). The provisions in this paragraph are contained in the association merger rules at § 611.1122 and would be incorporated by reference under the above proposed change to § 611.1020(b).
We propose rearranging existing provisions within § 611.1122 to consolidate like provisions and to improve transparency of requirements. The organizational changes we propose are:
• Incorporating paragraph (i) on the timing of the notice and accompanying information of stockholder meetings into paragraph (e), which addresses the content of notices. We also propose a conforming change to paragraph (i) by removing the reference to paragraph (e).
• Moving and redesignating paragraph (j) on the mergers of more than two institutions as new paragraph (f). The proposed change would place the exemptions to the requirements of paragraph (e) immediately after paragraph (e).
• Bifurcating paragraph (g) into two paragraphs—one addressing effective dates and the other addressing notice of stockholder votes on a proposed merger. Specifically, we propose keeping those parts of paragraph (g) that address effective dates as part of new paragraph (g) and moving the provision in paragraph (g) requiring notice of the stockholder vote into new paragraph (h).
• Moving and redesignating paragraph (k) on the effective date of mergers to new paragraphs (g)(1) and (2). As proposed, the new paragraph (g)(1) would contain the existing provisions on effective dates when reconsideration petitions are filed and the new paragraph (g)(2) would contain the existing provision on effective dates when no reconsideration petition is filed.
The proposed rule would clarify the FCA review process. We believe the proposed changes will aid institutions in managing expectations, setting merger effective dates, and scheduling the stockholder vote on a merger proposal. As proposed, new § 611.1122(c) and (h) would:
• Break existing § 611.1122(c) into paragraphs for ease of use;
• Specify the need for a complete application before the commencement of the statutory 60-day review period;
• Require the FCA to notify the requesting associations when the statutory 60-day review period begins;
• Restate the existing authority of FCA to require additional information to supplement an application; and
• Reiterate the existing authority under sections 5.17(a) and 5.25(a) of the Act regarding the FCA's authority to impose in writing and enforce conditions of approval.
The statutory review process performed by the FCA is a serious undertaking during which we seek to determine the potential impact of the merger on the safety and soundness of the constituent institutions and their stockholders, as well as the System as a whole. In order to conduct a thoughtful and comprehensive review, it is imperative that we be provided all the necessary documentation and information to begin our review. The FCA evaluates the initial merger submissions to determine if they are complete, recognizing that each proposed merger may have unique facts and circumstances. Under this practice, if additional information is required, we would explain to the associations that until the information is received, the statutory 60-day review period will not begin. This is to ensure our review gives full consideration of the relevant and unique facts and circumstances applicable to each proposed merger, such as size, complexity, geographic territory, and other relevant factors necessary to considering whether or not to approve or deny the request to merge. The proposed rule would incorporate this practice into our regulations to enhance the understanding of the FCA's
We propose conforming changes to our regulations on territorial adjustments in § 611.1124(d) to add language on supplemental information and conditions of approval.
We propose changes to the requirements regarding stockholder votes on proposed plans of merger. The proposed rule would separate the existing provisions of § 611.1122(d) into paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) for ease of use and clarity. As proposed, new paragraph (d)(1) would contain the existing requirement that the constituent associations to a proposed plan of merger call a meeting on written notice to each of its voting stockholders entitled to vote on the proposed plan of merger. New paragraph (d)(3) would contain the existing requirement that the voting be in person or by proxy.
Proposed new paragraph (d)(2) would clarify that merger voting procedures must follow the existing confidentiality and security in voting procedures contained in § 611.340. This change is made to clearly state that the confidentiality and security in voting requirements of § 611.340 are applicable to stockholder votes on proposed mergers. Based on the inquiries we received from System banks and associations, we consider it appropriate to clarify in § 611.1122(d) that an institution's policies and procedures for a stockholder vote on a proposed merger must comply with existing confidentiality and security in voting rules at § 611.340.
We propose that only an independent third party be authorized to validate ballots and tabulate stockholder votes on a merger or consolidation. Existing regulations at § 611.340 provide that System banks and associations may use either an independent third party or a tellers committee (which consists of voting stockholders) to validate ballots and tabulate voting results. The use of an independent third party for mergers would provide added security and confidentiality over the voting process on an issue that is not routinely presented to stockholders for a vote and that may have long-lasting effects on stockholders. Also, we believe that due to the time constraints imposed on certain phases of the merger process, using an independent third party to validate ballots and tabulate votes will facilitate the process and allow voting stockholders to focus solely on the merger vote itself. We propose a conforming change in new § 611.1122(h) to recognize the proposed rule limiting the responsibility for validating ballots and proxies and tabulating voting results on proposed mergers to only independent third parties.
We also propose adding language to § 611.1122(d) to clarify that FCA may require that the constituent banks or associations hold informational meetings with their respective stockholders prior to putting the proposed plan of merger to a vote. Depending on the complexity, geography, specific facts and circumstances, or stockholder inquiry relevant to a proposed plan of merger, we believe there may be instances where a question and answer forum would benefit stockholder understanding of the transaction and its consequences to them, and contribute to a more informed stockholder decision. In those instances, we believe stockholders would benefit from an open discussion with the board of directors and management of the constituent institutions where all views may be expressed and heard by all interested parties. We believe holding informational meetings with stockholders prior to the meeting held for the merger vote would enhance communication and stockholder understanding of an action that will have long-term effects for the stockholders.
Bank and association voting stockholders have the right to reconsider the approval of a merger by filing a reconsideration petition with the FCA, provided that certain provisions of our regulations are met. In order to make it easier to review those provisions, we propose moving them from § 611.1123(c), which sets forth our requirements on merger agreements, to new § 611.1126. Also, we propose clarifying that only voting stockholders have the right to file a reconsideration petition.
We also propose the following changes to the reconsideration petition regulations:
We propose adding a new provision to address the process by which stockholders wishing to file a petition obtain a list of stockholders from their bank or association. Stockholders have a statutory right to obtain a list of stockholders in their institution.
We have received requests for clarification from both System institutions and their stockholders regarding the date that the FCA considers a reconsideration petition to be filed with the Agency and how the petition may be filed. We propose adding new § 611.1126(c) to explain that there are various means of filing a reconsideration petition (
• The FCA headquarters office in McLean, Virginia;
• Any FCA office, including the most local FCA office; or
• Delivered in-person during normal business hours to any FCA employee who is in official duty status at the time.
We would expect that if a reconsideration petition is filed by in-person delivery to an FCA employee, then the delivery should be followed up with notice of the delivery to the Secretary to the FCA Board. We believe that proposing various means for a stockholder to file a petition with the FCA will aid the stockholder in working within the 35-day time constraint for filing a petition, and will make the petition process less burdensome on the stockholder. Also, we propose clarifying that the date of postmark, ship date, or the timestamp reflected in the metadata of electronic transmissions will be used to determine the date the petition is considered filed with the FCA.
The Act requires reconsideration petitions to be “presented” to FCA within 30 days after the date that stockholders receive notification of the final results of the stockholder vote on the proposed plan of merger.
We also propose that petitions contain contact information on the stockholder filing the petition. Having contact information on the stockholder filing the petition would enable the FCA to readily contact that individual, if necessary.
We propose to clarify and enhance the existing rule on the notice process used by the FCA when a reconsideration petition is filed. In new § 611.1126(d), we propose that if a petition is received in a timely manner, notice that a reconsideration petition has been filed be sent to the relevant institutions. We believe all parties should be notified that a reconsideration petition was timely and appropriately filed with the FCA since institution action on a petition will be required.
We further propose to clarify in new § 611.1126(d) that institutions have no expectation of receiving a copy of the petition. We believe the rule should be clear regarding access to the names on the petition. By necessity, one or more stockholder will identify themselves to the institution in order to obtain the list of stockholders. However, there is no legitimate business purpose for the institutions to have the names of stockholders signing the petition. We do not believe Congress intended the institutions to have this information, or they would not have required that the petition be filed with the FCA, rather than the institution. Also, providing the names of stockholders signing a petition to their respective institutions may allow the institution to infer how that stockholder voted on the proposed plan of merger and impact the statutory right to confidential voting.
We propose to clarify in new § 611.1126(e) the existing rule on the voting process after a reconsideration petition is filed. We propose clarifying that reconsideration votes are only cast in person or by proxy, similar to merger votes, and, just as merger votes, must follow the voting and confidentiality provisions of existing § 611.340, but without use of a tellers committee. This is to ensure the reconsideration voting process is the same as that used for the original merger vote.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 611 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
Secs. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.12, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.21, 4.3A, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28A, 5.9, 5.17, 5.25, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2020, 2021, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2091, 2092, 2093, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2142, 2154a, 2183, 2184, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2243, 2252, 2261, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; sec. 414 of Pub. L. 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1004.
(b)
(i)
(j)
(a) An amendment to a Farm Credit bank charter may relate to any provision that is properly the subject of a charter, including, but not limited to, the name of the bank, the location of its offices, or the territory served.
(b) The FCA may make changes in the charter of a Farm Credit bank as may be requested by that bank and approved by the FCA pursuant to § 611.1010.
(c) The FCA may, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, make changes
(a) A Farm Credit bank may recommend a charter amendment to accomplish any of the following actions—
(1) A merger or consolidation with any other Farm Credit bank or banks operating under title I or III of the Act.
(2) A transfer of territory with any other Farm Credit bank operating under the same title of the Act.
(3) A change to its name or location.
(4) Any other change that is properly the subject of a Farm Credit bank charter.
(b) Upon approval of an appropriate resolution by the Farm Credit bank board, the certified resolution, together with supporting documentation, must be submitted to the FCA for preliminary or final approval, as the case may be.
(c) The FCA will review the material submitted and either approve or disapprove the request. The FCA may require submission of any supplemental information and analysis it deems appropriate. If the request is for merger, consolidation, or transfer of territory, the approval of the FCA will be preliminary only, with final approval subject to a vote of the Farm Credit bank's stockholders.
(d) Following receipt of the FCA's written preliminary approval, the proposal must be submitted for approval to the voting stockholders of the Farm Credit bank. A proposal will be considered approved if agreed to by a majority of the voting stockholders of each Farm Credit bank voting, in person or by proxy, at a duly authorized stockholder meeting with each stockholder-association entitled to cast a number of votes equal to the number of the association's voting shareholders, unless another voting scheme has been approved by the FCA.
(e) Upon approval by the stockholders of the Farm Credit bank, the request for final approval and issuance of the appropriate charter or amendments to charter for the Farm Credit banks involved must be submitted to the FCA.
(a) As authorized under sections 7.0 and 7.12 of the Act, a Farm Credit bank may merge or consolidate with one or more Farm Credit banks operating under the same or different titles of the Act.
(b) The plan to merge or consolidate two or more Farm Credit banks is subject to the requirements of §§ 611.1122, 611.1123, and 611.1126 of this part, unless otherwise instructed by the FCA. In interpreting those sections, the phrase “Farm Credit bank(s)” will be read for the word “association(s)” and references to “funding bank” are to be ignored.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) The FCA may, on its own initiative, make changes in the charter of an agricultural credit association, Federal land bank association, or a production credit association, and any chartered service corporation thereof, where the FCA determines that the change is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.
(a) An association which proposes to amend its charter must submit a request to its funding bank containing the following information:
(1) A statement of the provision(s) of the charter that the association proposes to amend and the proposed amendment(s);
(2) A statement of the reasons for the proposed amendment(s), the impact of the amendment(s) on the association and its stockholders, and the requested effective date of the amendment(s);
(3) A certified copy of the resolution of the board of directors of the association approving the amendment(s); and
(4) Any additional information or documents that the association wishes to submit in support of the request or that may be requested by the funding bank.
(b) Upon receipt of a proposed amendment from an association, the funding bank must review the materials submitted and provide the association with its analysis of the proposal within a reasonable period of time. Concurrently, the funding bank must communicate its recommendation on the proposal to the FCA, including the reasons for the recommendation, and any analysis the bank believes appropriate. Following review by the bank, the association must transmit the proposed amendment with attachments to the FCA.
(c) Upon receipt of an association's request for a charter amendment, the FCA will review the materials submitted and either approve or disapprove the request. The FCA may require submission of any supplemental information and analysis it deems appropriate.
(d) The FCA will notify the association of its approval or disapproval of the amendment request, including a copy of the amended charter with the approval notification, and provide a copy of such communication to the funding bank.
(a) Where two or more associations plan to merge or consolidate, or where the funding bank board has adopted a reorganization plan for the associations in the district, the associations involved must jointly submit a request to the funding bank containing the following:
(1) In the case of a merger, a copy of the charter of the continuing association reflecting any proposed amendments. In the case of consolidation, a copy of the proposed charter of the new association;
(2) A statement of the reasons for the proposed merger or consolidation, the impact of the proposed transaction on the associations and their stockholders, and the planned effective date of the merger or consolidation;
(3)(i) A certified copy of the resolution of the board of directors of each association recommending approval of the merger or consolidation; or
(ii) In the case of a district reorganization plan, a certified copy of the resolution of the board of directors of each association recommending either approval or disapproval of the proposal;
(4) A copy of the agreement of merger or consolidation;
(5) Two signed copies of the continuing or proposed Articles of Association;
(6) All of the information specified in paragraph (e) of this section;
(7) Any additional information or documents each association wishes to submit in support of the request; and
(8) All additional information and documentation that the funding bank or the FCA requests.
(b) Upon receipt of a request for approval of an association merger or consolidation, the funding bank must review the materials submitted to determine whether they comply with the requirements of these regulations and must communicate with the associations concerning any deficiency. When the bank approves the request to merge or consolidate it must notify the associations. The bank must also notify the FCA of its approval together with the reasons for its approval and any supporting analysis. The associations must jointly submit the proposal together with required documentation to the FCA for preliminary approval.
(c) Upon receipt of a complete association merger or consolidation request, the FCA will review the request and either deny or give its written preliminary approval to the request within 60 days. The FCA will notify the requesting associations when the 60-day preliminary approval review period begins. The FCA may require submission of any supplemental information and analysis it deems appropriate for its consideration of the merger or consolidation request.
(1) When a request is denied, written notice stating the reasons for the denial will be transmitted to the associations and a copy provided to the funding bank(s).
(2) When a request is preliminarily approved, written notice of the preliminary approval will be given to the associations and a copy provided to the funding bank(s). Preliminary approval by the FCA does not constitute approval of the merger or consolidation. Approval of a merger or consolidation is only issued pursuant to this subpart. In connection with granting preliminary approval, the FCA may impose conditions in writing.
(d) Upon receipt of preliminary approval by the FCA of a merger or consolidation request, each constituent association must call a meeting of its voting stockholders. The FCA may also require the associations to hold informational meetings before a stockholder vote. The stockholder meeting to vote on a merger or consolidation must:
(1) Be called on written notice to each stockholder entitled to vote on the transaction as of the record date and be held in accordance with the terms of each association's bylaws.
(2) Follow the voting procedures of § 611.340, except associations may not use tellers committees to validate ballots and tabulate votes on the merger or consolidation.
(3) Require the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting stockholders of each association present and voting, either in person or by written proxy, at a meeting at which a quorum is present to constitute stockholder approval of a merger or consolidation proposal.
(e) Notice of the stockholder meeting to consider and act upon a proposed merger or consolidation must be accompanied by the information required under this paragraph. The notice and accompanying information must not be sent to stockholders until preliminary approval of the merger or consolidation has been given by the FCA.
(1) A statement either on the first page of the materials or on the notice of the stockholders' meeting, in capital letters and bold face type, that:
(2) A description of the material provisions of the agreement of merger or consolidation and the effect of the proposed merger or consolidation on the associations, their stockholders, the new or continuing board of directors, and the territory to be served. In addition, a copy of the agreement must be furnished with the notice to stockholders.
(3) A summary of the provisions of the charter and bylaws of the continuing or new association that differ materially from the existing charter or bylaw provisions of the constituent associations.
(4) A brief statement by the boards of directors of the constituent associations setting forth the basis for the boards' recommendation on the merger or consolidation.
(5) A description of any agreement or arrangement between a constituent association and any of its officers relating to employment or termination of employment and arising from the merger or consolidation.
(6) A presentation of the following financial data:
(i) A balance sheet and income statement for each constituent association for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.
(ii) A balance sheet for each constituent association as of a date within 90 days of the date the request for preliminary approval is forwarded to the FCA presented on a comparative basis with the corresponding period of the prior fiscal year.
(iii) An income statement for the interim period between the end of the last fiscal year and the date of the required balance sheet presented on a comparative basis with the corresponding period of the preceding fiscal year. The balance sheet and income statement format must be that contained in the association's annual report to stockholders; must contain any significant changes in accounting policies that differ from those in the latest association annual report to stockholders; and must contain appropriate footnote disclosures, including data relating to high-risk assets and other property owned, and allowance for loan losses, including net chargeoffs as required in paragraph (e)(10) of this section.
(7) The financial statements (balance sheet and income statement) must be in sufficient detail to show separately all significant categories of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and the income or expense accrued thereon.
(8) Attached to the financial statements for each constituent association, either:
(i) A statement signed by the chief executive officer and each member of the board of directors of the association that the various financial statements are unaudited, but have been prepared in all material respects in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (except as otherwise disclosed therein) and are, to the best of the knowledge of the board, a fair and accurate presentation of the financial condition of the association; or
(ii) A signed opinion by an independent certified public accountant that the various financial statements have been examined in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as were considered necessary in the circumstances, and, as of the date of the statements, present fairly the financial position of the association in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis, except as otherwise noted thereon.
(9) A presentation for each constituent association regarding its policy on accounting for loan performance, together with the number and dollar amount of loans in all performance categories, including those categorized as high-risk assets.
(10) Information of each constituent association concerning the amount of loans charged off in each of the 2 fiscal years preceding the date of the balance sheet, the current year-to-date net chargeoff amount, and the balance in the allowance for loan losses account and a statement regarding whether, in the opinion of management, the allowance for loan losses is adequate to absorb the risk currently existing in the loan portfolio. This information may be appropriately included in the footnotes to the financial statements.
(11) A management discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of operation for the past 2 fiscal years for each constituent institution. This requirement can be satisfied by including the materials contained in the management discussion and analysis of each institution's most recent annual report.
(12) A discussion of any material changes in financial condition of each constituent institution from the end of the last fiscal year to the date of the interim balance sheet provided.
(13) A discussion of any material changes in the results of operations of each constituent institution with respect to the most recent fiscal-year-to-date period for which an income statement is provided.
(14) A discussion of any change in the tax status of the new institution from those of the constituent institutions as a result of merger or consolidation. A statement on any adverse tax consequences to the stockholders of the institution as a result of the change in tax status.
(15) A statement on the proposed institution's relationship with an independent public accountant, including any change that may occur as a result of the merger or consolidation.
(16) A pro forma balance sheet of the continuing or consolidated association presented as if the merger or consolidation had occurred as of the date on the balance sheets required in paragraph (e)(6) of this section, as recommended to the stockholders. A pro forma summary of earnings for the continuing or consolidated association presented as if the merger or consolidation had been effective at the beginning of the interim period between the end of the last fiscal year and the date of the balance sheets.
(17) A description of the type and dollar amount of any financial assistance that has been provided during the past year or will be provided by the funding bank or other party to assist the constituent or the continuing or new association(s), the conditions on which financial assistance has been or will be extended, the terms of repayment or retirement, if any, and the impact of the assistance on the subject association(s) or the stockholders.
(18) A presentation for each constituent association of interest rate comparisons for the last 2 fiscal years preceding the date of the balance sheet, together with a statement of the continuing or new association's proposed interest rate and fee programs, interest collection policies, capitalization rates, dividends or patronage refunds, and other factors that would affect a borrower's cost of doing business with the continuing or new association. Where agreement has not been reached on such matters, current related information must be presented for each constituent association.
(19) A description for each constituent association of any event subsequent to the date of the financial statements, but prior to the merger or consolidation vote, that would have a material impact on the financial condition of the constituent or continuing or new association(s).
(20) A statement of any other material fact or circumstance that a stockholder would need in order to make an informed decision on the merger or consolidation proposal, or that is necessary to make the required disclosures not misleading.
(21) Where proxies are to be solicited, a form of written proxy, together with instructions on the purpose and authority for its use, and the proper method for signature by the stockholder.
(f) Where a proposed merger or consolidation will involve more than three associations, the FCA may require the supplementation, or allow the condensation or omission of any information required under paragraph (e) of this section in furtherance of meaningful disclosure to stockholders. Any waiver sought under this paragraph must be obtained before preparation of the financial statements and accompanying schedules required under paragraph (e) of this section.
(g) The effective date of a merger or consolidation may not be less than 35 days after the date of mailing of the notification to stockholders of the results of the stockholder vote, or 15 days after the date of submission to the FCA of all required documents for the FCA's consideration of final approval, whichever occurs later.
(1) The constituent institutions must agree on a second effective date to be used in the event the merger or consolidation is approved on reconsideration. The second effective date may not be less than 60 days after stockholder notification of the results of the first vote, or 15 days after the date of the reconsideration vote, whichever occurs later.
(2) If no reconsideration petition is filed with the FCA, upon final approval by the FCA, the merger or consolidation will be effective on the date specified in the merger agreement or at such later date as may be required by the FCA.
(h) Each constituent association must notify its stockholders not later than 30 days after the stockholder vote of the final results of the vote. Upon approval of a proposed merger or consolidation by the stockholders of the constituent associations, each association must submit to the FCA a certified copy of the stockholders' resolution on which the stockholders cast their votes and a certification of the stockholder vote from the independent third party(s) used to tally the vote. After the time for submitting reconsideration petitions has expired, and if no petition is filed, the FCA will make a final approval decision on the merger or consolidation, imposing conditions as appropriate. The FCA will send written notice of the final FCA approval decision to the associations and provide a copy to the affiliated funding bank(s).
(i) No Farm Credit institution, or any director, officer, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs thereof, may make any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact, or fail to disclose any material fact necessary under the circumstances to make statements made not misleading, to a stockholder of any association in connection with an association merger or consolidation.
(1) No Farm Credit institution or any director, officer, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of a Farm Credit institution may make an oral or written representation to any person that a preliminary or final approval by the FCA of a merger or consolidation constitutes, directly or indirectly, either a recommendation on the merits of the transaction or an assurance concerning the adequacy or accuracy of any information provided to any association's stockholders in connection therewith.
(2) When a Farm Credit institution, or any of its employees, officers, directors, agents, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs thereof, make disclosures or representations in connection with an association merger or consolidation that, in the judgment of the FCA, are incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading, whether or not such disclosure or representation is made in disclosure statements required by this subpart, such institution must make
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Associations operating under the same title of the Act may merge or consolidate voluntarily, but only pursuant to a written agreement. The agreement must set forth all of the terms of the transaction, including, but not limited to, the following:
(b) As an attachment to the agreement, the constituent associations must set forth those provisions of the charter and bylaws of the continuing or consolidated association which differ from the existing charter or bylaw provisions of the constituent associations.
This section applies to any request submitted to the FCA to modify association charters for the purpose of transferring territory from one association to another.
(a) Territorial adjustments, except as specified in paragraph (m) of this section, require approval of a majority of the voting stockholders of each association present and voting or voting by written proxy at a duly authorized meeting at which a quorum is present.
(b) When two or more associations agree to transfer territory, each association must submit a proposal to the funding bank containing the following:
(1) A statement of the reasons for the proposed transfer and the impact the transfer will have on its stockholders and holders of participation certificates;
(2) A certified copy of the resolution of the board of directors of each association approving the proposed territory transfer;
(3) A copy of the agreement to transfer territory that contains the following information:
(i) A description of the territory to be transferred;
(ii) Transferor association's plan to transfer loans and the types of loans to be transferred;
(iii) Transferor association's plan to retire and transferee association's plan to issue equities held by holders of stock, participation certificates, and allocated equities, if any, and a statement by each association that the book value of its equities is at least equal to par;
(iv) An inventory of the assets to be sold by the transferor association and purchased by the transferee association;
(v) An inventory of the liabilities to be assumed from the transferor association by the transferee association;
(vi) A statement that the holders of stock and participation certificates whose loans are subject to transfer have 60 days from the effective date of the territory transfer to inform the transferor association of their decision to remain with the transferor association for normal servicing until the current loan is paid;
(vii) A statement that the transfer is conditioned upon the approval of the stockholders of each constituent association; and
(viii) The effective date of the proposed territory transfer.
(4) A copy of the stockholder disclosure statement provided for in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(5) Any additional relevant information or documents that the association wishes to submit in support of its request or that may be required by the FCA.
(c) Upon receipt of documents supporting a proposed territory transfer, the funding bank must review the materials submitted and provide the associations with its analysis of the proposal within a reasonable period of time. The funding bank must concurrently advise the FCA of its recommendation regarding the proposed territory transfer. Following review by the bank, the associations must transmit the proposal to the FCA together with all required documents.
(d) Upon receipt of an association's request to transfer territory, the FCA will review the request and either deny or grant preliminary approval to the request. The FCA may require submission of any supplemental information and analysis it deems appropriate for its consideration of the request to transfer territory.
(1) When a request is denied, written notice stating the reasons for the denial will be transmitted to the associations, and a copy provided to the funding bank.
(2) When a request is preliminarily approved, written notice of the preliminary approval will be transmitted to the associations, and a copy provided to the funding bank. Preliminary approval by the FCA does not constitute approval of the territory transfer. Final approval is granted only in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section. In connection with granting preliminary approval, the FCA may impose conditions in writing.
(e) Upon receipt of preliminary approval by the FCA, each constituent association must, by written notice, and in accordance with its bylaws, call a meeting of its voting stockholders. The affirmative vote of a majority of the voting stockholders of each association present and voting or voting by written proxy at a meeting at which a quorum is present is required for stockholder approval of a territory transfer.
(f) Notice of the meeting to consider and act upon a proposed territory transfer must be accompanied by the following information covering each constituent association:
(1) A statement either on the first page of the materials or on the notice of the stockholders' meeting, in capital letters and bold face type, that:
(2) A copy of the Agreement to Transfer Territory and a summary of the major provisions of the Agreement;
(3) The reason the territory transfer is proposed;
(4) A map of the association's territory as it would look after the transfer;
(5) A summary of the differences, if any, between the transferor and transferee associations' interest rates, interest rate policies, collection policies, service fees, bylaws, and any other items of interest that would impact a borrower's lending relationship with the institution;
(6) A statement that all loans of the transferor association that finance operations located in the transferred territory will be transferred to the transferee association except as otherwise provided for in this section or in accordance with agreements between the associations as provided for in § 614.4070;
(7) Where proxies are to be solicited, a form of written proxy, together with instructions on the purpose and authority for its use, and the proper method for signature by the stockholders; and
(8) A statement that the associations' bylaws, financial statements for the previous 3 years, and any financial information prepared by the associations concerning the proposed transfer of territory are available on request to the stockholders of any association involved in the transaction.
(g) No Farm Credit institution, or director, officer, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs thereof, may make any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact, or fail to disclose any material fact necessary under the circumstances to make statements made not misleading, to a stockholder of any Farm Credit institution in connection with a territory transfer.
(h) Upon approval of a proposed territory transfer by the stockholders of the constituent associations, a certified copy of the stockholders' resolution for each constituent association and one executed Agreement to Transfer Territory must be forwarded to the FCA. The territory transfer will be effective when thereafter finally approved and on the date as specified by the FCA. Notice of final approval will be transmitted to the associations and a copy provided to the bank.
(i) No director, officer, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of a Farm Credit institution may make an oral or written representation to any person that a preliminary or final approval by the FCA of a territory transfer constitutes, directly or indirectly, a recommendation on the merits of the transaction or an assurance concerning the adequacy or accuracy of any information provided to any association's stockholders in connection therewith.
(j) When a Farm Credit institution, or any of its employees, officers, directors, agents, or other persons participating in the conduct of the affairs thereof, make disclosures or representations that, in the judgment of the FCA, are incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading in connection with a territory transfer, whether or not such disclosure or representation is made in disclosure statements required by this subpart, such institution must make such additional or corrective disclosure as directed by the FCA and as is necessary to provide stockholders and the general public with full and fair disclosure.
(k) The notice and accompanying information required under paragraph (f) of this section may not be sent to stockholders until preliminary approval of the territory transfer has been granted by the FCA.
(l) Where a territory transfer is proposed simultaneously with a merger or consolidation, both transactions may be voted on by stockholders at the same meeting. Only stockholders of a transferee or transferor association may vote on a territory transfer.
(m) Each borrower whose real estate or operations is located in a territory that will be transferred must be provided with a written Notice of Territory Transfer immediately after the FCA has granted final approval of the territory transfer. The Notice must inform the borrower of the transfer of the borrower's loan to the transferee association and the exchange of related equities for equities of like kinds and amounts in the transferee association. If a like kind of equity is not available in the transferee association, similar equities must be offered that will not adversely affect the interest of the owner. The Notice must give the borrower 60 days from the effective date of the territory transfer to notify the transferor association in writing if the borrower decides to stay with the transferor association for normal servicing until the current loan is paid. Any application by the borrower for renewal or for additional credit must be made to the transferee association, except as otherwise provided for by an agreement between associations in accordance with § 614.4070.
(n) This section does not apply to territory transfers initiated by order of the FCA or to territory transfers due to the liquidation of the transferor association.
(o) Where a proposed action involves the transfer of a portion of an association's territory to an association operating in a different district, such proposal must comply with the provisions of this section and section 5.17(a) of the Act.
(a) Voting stockholders have the right to reconsider their approval of a merger or consolidation, provided that a petition is filed with the FCA. The petition must be signed by 15 percent of the stockholders (who were eligible to vote on the merger or consolidation proposal) of one or more of the constituent associations. The reconsideration petition must be filed with the FCA within 35 days after the date when the association mailed the notification of the final results of the stockholder vote pursuant to § 611.1122(h).
(b) Voting stockholders that intend to file a reconsideration petition have a right to obtain from the association of which they are a voting stockholder the voting record date list used by that association for the merger or consolidation vote. The association must provide the voting record date list as soon as possible, but not later than 7 days after receipt of the request. The list must be provided pursuant to the provisions of § 618.8310(b).
(c) A reconsideration petition must be addressed to the Secretary of the FCA Board and filed with the FCA on or before the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section. Reconsideration petitions must identify a contact person and provide contact information for that person.
(1) Filing of a reconsideration petition may only be accomplished through in-person delivery during normal business hours to any FCA employee in official duty status or by sending the petition by mail, facsimile, electronic transmission, carrier delivery, or other similar means to an FCA office.
(2) The FCA will use the postmark, ship date, electronic stamp, or similar evidence as the date of filing the reconsideration petition.
(d) The FCA will notify the named contact on the reconsideration petition whether the petition was filed on time. On the timely receipt of a reconsideration petition, the FCA will review the petition to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 7.9 of the Act. Following a determination that the petition was timely filed and complies with applicable requirements, the FCA will give notice to the associations involved in the merger or consolidation for which the reconsideration petition was filed. The associations are not entitled to either a copy of the petition or the names of the petitioners.
(e) Following FCA notification that a reconsideration petition has been properly filed, a special stockholders meeting must be called by the association(s) to reconsider the merger or consolidation vote. The reconsideration vote must be conducted according to the merger and consolidation voting requirements of § 611.1122(d). If a majority of the stockholders voting, in person or by proxy, at a duly authorized stockholders' meeting from any one of the constituent associations vote against the merger or consolidation under the reconsideration vote, the merger or consolidation will not take place. In the event that the merger or consolidation is approved on reconsideration, the constituent associations must use the second effective date developed under § 611.1122(g)(1).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains proposed regulations concerning the application of section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which provides a credit for increasing research activities. The proposed regulations provide guidance on computer software that is developed by (or for the benefit of) the taxpayer primarily for internal use by the taxpayer (internal use software) under section 41(d)(4)(E). These proposed regulations also include examples to illustrate the application of the process of experimentation requirement to computer software under section 41(d)(1)(C). The regulations will affect taxpayers engaged in research activities involving computer software. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations and withdraws the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on January 2, 2004.
Written or electronic comments must be received by March 23, 2015. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for April 17, 2015, must be received by March 23, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-153656-03), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.
Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-153656-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC; or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Martha Garcia, (202) 317-6853; concerning submission of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, call Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
This document amends 26 CFR part 1 to provide rules relating to the credit for increasing research activities (research credit) under section 41 of the Code. On January 2, 1997, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-209494-90, referred to in this preamble as the 1997 proposed regulations) in the
Concurrently with the 2004 final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (2004 ANPRM) (published in the
Section 41(d)(4)(E) provides that, except to the extent provided by regulations, research with respect to computer software that is developed by (or for the benefit of) the taxpayer primarily for internal use by the taxpayer is excluded from the definition of qualified research under section 41(d). Software that is developed for use in an activity that constitutes qualified research and software that is developed for use in a production process with respect to which the general credit eligibility requirements are satisfied are not excluded as internal use software under section 41(d)(4)(E).
The legislative history of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2085 (1986)) (1986 Act), states that “the costs of developing software are not eligible for the credit where the software is used internally, for example, in general and administrative functions (such as payroll, bookkeeping, or personnel management) or in providing noncomputer services (such as accounting, consulting, or banking services) except to the extent permitted by Treasury regulations.” See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 841, at II-73 (1986 legislative history). The 1986 legislative history further states that Congress intended that regulations would make the costs of new or improved internal use software eligible for the credit only if the research satisfies, in addition to the general requirements for credit eligibility, an additional three-part high threshold of innovation test (that is, that the software is innovative, that the software development involves significant economic risk, and that the software is not commercially available for use by the taxpayer).
Congress extended the research credit a number of times since the 1986 Act, but has not made any changes to the statutory definition of qualified research or to the statutory exclusion from that definition for internal use software in section 41(d)(4)(E). When Congress extended the research credit in the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, (Pub. L. 106-170, 113 Stat. 1860 (1999)), however, the legislative history stated the following with respect to internal use software:
The conferees further note the rapid pace of technological advance, especially in service-related industries, and urge the Secretary to consider carefully the comments he has and may receive in promulgating regulations in connection with what constitutes “internal use” with regard to software expenditures. The conferees also wish to observe that software research, that otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 41, which is undertaken to support the provision of a service, should not be deemed “internal use” solely because the business component involves the provision of a service.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-478, at 132 (1999).
As discussed in the 2004 ANPRM, prior regulatory guidance generally reflects three approaches to the definition of internal use software. The 1997 proposed regulations closely followed the language contained in the 1986 legislative history and required an evaluation of “all relevant facts and circumstances” to determine whether software was primarily for internal use. The 1997 proposed regulations referenced the 1986 legislative history's identification of software used in general and administrative functions or used in providing noncomputer services as generally not eligible for the research credit. The 1997 proposed regulations also incorporated the legislative history's three-part high threshold of innovation test. The 2001 final regulations provided greater specificity than the 1997 proposed regulations regarding the definition of internal use software by distinguishing between computer services and noncomputer services and providing a rule that the development of internal use software used to deliver noncomputer services to customers with new features that are not yet offered by a taxpayer's competitors is deemed to satisfy the three-part high threshold of innovation test. The 2001 final regulations continued to provide a general definition of internal use software that incorporated the 1986 legislative history's examples of general and administrative functions and noncomputer services, but modified the application of the three-part high threshold of innovation test to require a comparison of “the intended result with software that is within the common knowledge of skilled professionals” to determine if internal use software is innovative or the development involves significant economic risk. Finally, the 2001 proposed regulations continued to distinguish between software that provides computer services and software that provides noncomputer services, but did not include the rule provided in the 2001 final regulations that the development of internal use software used to deliver noncomputer services to customers with new features that are not yet offered by a taxpayer's competitors was deemed to satisfy the three-part high threshold of innovation test. Instead, the 2001 proposed regulations departed from the language used in the 1986 legislative history and provided a bright-line presumption that software is developed primarily for internal use unless the software is developed to be commercially sold, leased, licensed, or otherwise marketed for separately stated consideration to unrelated third parties. The 2001 proposed regulations also modified the innovation component of the three-part high threshold of innovation test to state that software is innovative if intended to be unique or novel and differ in a significant and inventive way from prior software implementations or methods.
These proposed regulations provide a definition of software developed primarily for internal use and describe software not developed primarily for internal use. These proposed regulations also provide that certain internal use software is eligible for the research credit if the software satisfies the high threshold of innovation test. These proposed regulations provide rules for computer software that is developed for both internal use and non-internal use (dual function computer software), including a safe harbor for determining if any of the expenditures with respect to dual function computer software are qualified research expenditures. These proposed regulations include examples to illustrate application of the proposed regulations for internal use software. Finally, these proposed regulations include examples under § 1.41-4 to illustrate the application of the process of experimentation requirement to computer software under section 41(d)(1)(C).
The 2004 ANPRM requested comments concerning an appropriate definition of internal use software that reflects the statute and legislative intent, can be readily applied by taxpayers and readily administered by the IRS, and is flexible enough to provide continuing application into the future. In submitting comments, commenters were invited to address any of the definitions included in prior guidance as well as other definitions that have been proposed to the Treasury Department and the IRS.
Commenters suggested that the definition of internal use software should closely follow the general and administrative examples from the 1986 legislative history. Commenters stated that characterizing services provided to customers as “computer” or “noncomputer” will result in disparate treatment. Commenters recommended that the definition should be based on the function provided by the software and not the overall nature of the end product or service provided to third parties. Commenters noted that a facts and circumstances functionality rule may be more difficult to administer, but it is preferable to a bright-line separately stated consideration rule. In addition, commenters asserted that today's highly integrated nature of software development will not prevent taxpayers from being able to separate software development into functions.
Although the 1986 legislative history indicates that Congress intended internal use software to include software used in noncomputer services, the 1999 legislative history requests that Treasury note the rapid pace of technological advance, especially in service-related industries, when providing rules for internal use software. The role that computer software plays in business activities is very different today than it was when the exclusion for internal use software was enacted in 1986. Today, computer software is used in all aspects of business activity, especially in providing goods and services to third parties, and such software has played a vital role in increasing the productivity of the U.S. economy and in making the U.S. more competitive globally.
Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide that software is developed by (or for the benefit of) the taxpayer primarily for internal use if the software is developed by the taxpayer for use in general and administrative functions that facilitate or support the conduct of the taxpayer's trade or business. Similarly, software that the taxpayer develops primarily for a related party's internal use will be considered internal use software. A related party is any corporation, trade or business, or other person that is treated as a single taxpayer with the taxpayer pursuant to section 41(f). Furthermore, these proposed regulations eliminate the distinction between software developed to deliver computer and noncomputer services.
Under these proposed regulations, general and administrative functions are limited to financial management functions, human resource management functions, and support services functions. Financial management functions are functions that involve the financial management of the taxpayer and the supporting recordkeeping. Human resource management functions are functions that manage the taxpayer's workforce. Support services functions are functions that support the day-to-day operations of the taxpayer, such as data processing or facilities services.
This list of functions that constitute general and administrative functions is intended to target the back-office functions of a taxpayer that most taxpayers would have regardless of the taxpayer's industry. The benefits of software developed by the taxpayer for use in general and administrative functions are likely to be captured only by the taxpayer developing it and therefore exclusion from credit eligibility is more consistent with the purposes for which Congress created the credit. However, the characterization of a function as back-office may depend upon the taxpayer's industry. For example, tax software in the tax services industry is not used by the taxpayer in a general and administrative function, but for taxpayers that do not provide tax services, tax software is used by the taxpayer in a general and administrative function.
Some commenters, addressing the 2001 proposed regulations' definition of internal use software, suggested that software that is not developed to be commercially sold, leased, licensed, or otherwise marketed for separately stated consideration should not be presumed to be internal use software. Some commenters also questioned whether the exception for software developed to be commercially sold, leased, or licensed is appropriate given the purposes of the research credit. These commenters suggested that such criteria may not further the purposes of the statute because whether software is held for sale may not be indicative of the software's function. These proposed regulations do not contain a presumption for software that is not developed to be commercially sold, leased, licensed, or otherwise marketed for separately stated consideration, but they do treat software that is developed to be commercially sold, leased, licensed, or otherwise marketed as software not developed primarily for internal use.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the purpose of the software's development can be indicative of the software's function. In this way, the inquiry of whether software is developed for commercial sale, lease, or license looks to the purpose of the software and serves as an additional test separate from a pure functionality test. This approach to identifying software not developed primarily for internal use furthers the underlying purpose of the statute because the benefits from software held for commercial sale, lease, or license are likely to be captured by persons other than the taxpayer developing the software. Accordingly, it should be eligible for the research credit provided the other requirements of section 41 are met. Similarly, software that enables a taxpayer to interact with third parties or allows third parties to initiate functions or review data on the taxpayer's system does not solely benefit the taxpayer developing the software, and therefore it is appropriate to exclude such software from the definition of internal use software.
Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide that software is not developed primarily for internal use if it is developed to be commercially sold, leased, licensed, or otherwise marketed to third parties, or if it is developed to enable a taxpayer to interact with third parties or to allow third parties to initiate functions or review data on the taxpayer's system. Examples of software developed to enable a taxpayer to interact with third parties or to allow third parties to initiate functions or review data include software developed for third parties to execute banking transactions, track the progress of a delivery of goods, search a taxpayer's inventory for goods, store and retrieve a third party's digital files, purchase tickets for transportation or entertainment, and receive services over the internet. For purposes of these rules, third parties do not include any persons that use the software to support a taxpayer's general and administrative functions that facilitate or support the conduct of the taxpayer's trade or business.
Whether software is not developed primarily for internal use depends upon the intent of the taxpayer and the facts and circumstances at the beginning of the software development. If a taxpayer originally develops software primarily for internal use but later makes improvements to the software with the intent to hold the improved software for commercial sale, lease, or license or to allow third parties to initiate functions or review data, the improvements will be considered separate from the existing software and will not be considered to be for internal use. Likewise, if a taxpayer originally develops software for commercial sale, lease, or license or to interact with third parties or to allow
The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize the need to provide guidance on whether computer software is developed “primarily” for internal use if a taxpayer develops software that serves both general and administrative and non-general and administrative functions. These proposed regulations balance administrative and compliance concerns with the need to provide substantive rules appropriate to the purposes of the research credit. To further these objectives, the proposed regulations provide that dual function computer software is presumed to be developed primarily for a taxpayer's internal use. However, this presumption is inapplicable to the extent that a taxpayer can identify a subset of elements of dual function computer software that only enables a taxpayer to interact with third parties or to allow third parties to initiate functions or review data (third party subset). The proposed regulations provide that if the taxpayer can identify the third party subset, the portion of research expenditures allocable to a third party subset of the dual function computer software may be eligible for the research credit, provided all the other applicable requirements are met.
Moreover, the proposed regulations provide taxpayers with a safe harbor to apply to dual function computer software if a third party subset cannot be identified or to the remaining subset of dual function computer software after the third party subset has been identified (dual function subset). The safe harbor allows a taxpayer to include 25 percent of the qualified research expenditures of the dual function subset in computing the amount of the taxpayer's credit, provided that the taxpayer's research activities related to the dual function subset constitute qualified research and the use of the dual function subset by third parties or by the taxpayer to interact with third parties is reasonably anticipated to constitute at least 10 percent of the dual function subset's use. The proposed regulations provide that taxpayers must use an objective, reasonable method to estimate the computer software's use by third parties or by the taxpayer to interact with third parties and such use of the dual function computer software is estimated at the beginning of software development. The proposed regulations contain a facts and circumstances approach to determine a taxpayer's intent at the beginning of computer software development and provide several examples illustrating these rules. In the Request for Public Comments section of this preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the administrability of certain objective, reasonable methods of measuring third parties' reasonably anticipated use as well as other appropriate, objective standards that can be used to measure third parties' reasonably anticipated use.
Based upon the 1986 legislative history, these proposed regulations retain the exception for computer software and hardware developed as a single product and provide that internal use software does not include a new or improved package of computer software and hardware developed together by the taxpayer as a single product that is used directly by the taxpayer in providing services in the taxpayer's trade or business. These proposed regulations provide an example illustrating this rule.
Several commenters asserted that computer software supporting the delivery of goods or services to third parties is not internal use software because the software is part of a production process within the meaning of section 41(d)(4)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, computer software that is used to track a taxpayer's inventory of goods would not be internal use software because the tracking of inventory supports the taxpayer's ability to deliver goods to third parties, which is a final step in the taxpayer's production process.
The Treasury Department and the IRS do not agree that computer software supporting the delivery of goods or services to third parties is part of a production process within the meaning of section 41(d)(4)(E)(ii). To the contrary, the delivery of goods and services to third parties is a post-production activity. Nonetheless, under rules provided in these proposed regulations and described previously in this preamble, computer software supporting the delivery of goods or services to third parties may not be within the definition of software developed primarily for internal use to the extent that the software enables a taxpayer to interact with third parties or allows third parties to initiate functions or review data.
The high threshold of innovation test is derived from the legislative history of section 41(d)(4)(E). The Conference Report states:
The conferees intend that these regulations will make the costs of new or improved internal-use software eligible for the credit only if the taxpayer can establish, in addition to satisfying the general requirements for credit eligibility, (1) that the software is innovative (as where the software results in a reduction in cost, or improvement in speed, that is substantial and economically significant); (2) that the software development involves significant economic risk (as where the taxpayer commits substantial resources to the development and also there is substantial uncertainty, because of technical risk, that such resources would be recovered within a reasonable period); and (3) that the software is not commercially available for use by the taxpayer (as where the software cannot be purchased, leased, or licensed and used for the intended purpose without modifications that would satisfy the first two requirements just stated).
See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 841, at II-73.
Prior guidance reflects the 1986 legislative history by requiring that, in addition to satisfying the general requirements for the research credit, internal use software must meet the high threshold of innovation test to qualify for the credit. The high threshold of innovation test, described in this section of the preamble, is intended to limit credit eligibility of software developed primarily for internal use to software development that meets a higher standard than other business components. At the same time, it is clear that Congress intended that some software developed primarily for internal use would meet the high threshold of innovation test. Accordingly, the requirements should not be so restrictive as to make the test impossible to meet. The proposed regulations provide rules of application with respect to the high threshold of innovation test that reflect this purpose.
The 1986 legislative history requires that the software result in a reduction in
Consistent with the 1986 legislative history, these proposed regulations provide that software is innovative if the software would result in a reduction in cost or improvement in speed or other measurable improvement, that is substantial and economically significant, if the development is or would have been successful. The innovativeness test does not require that the software development actually be successful, but assuming the software development would have been successful, the test requires that it would have resulted in such an improvement. This approach is measurable and objective, and should reduce the potential for controversy.
These proposed regulations, consistent with the 1986 legislative history, require that the software development involve significant economic risk, which exists if the taxpayer commits substantial resources to the development and there is substantial uncertainty, because of technical risk, that such resources would be recovered within a reasonable period. These proposed regulations do not incorporate the “common knowledge of skilled professionals” comparative assessment of uncertainty and technical risk that was adopted in the 2001 final regulations. As provided in these proposed regulations, the significant economic risk test is applied to the level of uncertainty involved at the outset of the development rather than the degree of innovation represented by the end result.
Section 1.41-4(a)(3) of the current regulations, which establishes the criteria for establishing whether research is undertaken for the purpose of discovering information, provides that “uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the business component or the appropriate design of the business component.” Under § 1.41-4(a)(3), uncertainty must relate to the capability or method for developing or improving the business component, or the appropriate design of the business component. For purposes of defining “substantial uncertainty” to determine if there is significant economic risk with respect to the high threshold of innovation test, the use of the word “substantial” indicates a higher threshold of uncertainty than that required for business components that are not internal use software.
Therefore, these proposed regulations provide that substantial uncertainty exists if, at the beginning of the taxpayer's activities, the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the software. Internal use software research activities that involve only uncertainty related to appropriate design, and not capability or methodology, do not qualify as having substantial uncertainty for purposes of the high threshold of innovation test. The requirement that the uncertainty relate to the capability or method, but not the appropriate design of the business component creates the higher threshold for eligibility that Congress intended for certain internal use software, while creating a logical relationship with the general requirements under § 1.41-4(a)(3). Additionally, the reference to known, previously defined terms reduces potential controversy arising from the use of new undefined terms.
There has been some controversy regarding whether the significant economic risk test concerns technical risk or economic risk. The Treasury Department and the IRS interpret the significant economic risk test to require both technical and economic risk. It requires technical risk because there must be uncertainty that is technological in nature, as defined in § 1.41-4(a)(4) of the current regulations. However, it also requires economic risk because the taxpayer must devote substantial resources to the development and, by virtue of the technical risk, there must be uncertainty regarding whether the final result can be achieved within a timeframe that will allow those resources to be recovered within a reasonable period.
The proposed regulations reflect the 1986 legislative history and are consistent with all prior regulations regarding the commercially available for use standard. The proposed regulations provide that internal use software may only satisfy the high threshold of innovation standard if the software is not commercially available for use by the taxpayer in that the software cannot be purchased, leased, or licensed and used for the intended purpose without modifications that would satisfy the innovation and significant economic risk requirements.
The 2004 final regulations provide that experimentation with respect to technological uncertainty qualifies as a process of experimentation under section 41(d)(1)(C). However, none of the examples in the 2004 final regulations involved the development of computer software. These proposed regulations provide examples of how the process of experimentation test is applied to computer software. The examples also illustrate that certain types of web design and the installation of enterprise resource planning software generally do not qualify as a process of experimentation under the 2004 final regulations. Additionally, these proposed regulations illustrate computer software development that does qualify as a process of experimentation, and in particular, software development in which the taxpayer has technological uncertainty regarding the appropriate design.
Comments are requested on all aspects of these proposed regulations. Specifically, the Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments that provide information on:
1. The appropriate definition and treatment of connectivity software that allows multiple processes running on one or more machines to interact across a network, sometimes referred to as bridging software, integration software, or middleware,
2. For purposes of the dual function computer software safe harbor, the administrability of measuring the reasonably anticipated use of software by taxpayers to interact with third parties and by third parties to initiate functions or review data based on reasonable methods, such as processing time, amount of data transfer, number of
3. Facts and circumstances, other than those factors enumerated in the legislative history, to be considered in determining whether internal use software satisfies the three prongs of the high threshold of innovation test.
The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments in the 2004 ANPRM on whether final regulations relating to internal use software should be effective retroactively. Some commenters requested that the rules apply retroactively back to 1986, while other commenters requested that the regulations be prospective only. After careful consideration, and in light of the length of time that has passed since 1986, as well as the developments with respect to computer software, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided that these proposed regulations, once finalized, will be prospective only. The rules contained in these regulations are proposed to apply to taxable years ending on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
The rules in these proposed regulations are not, and should not be viewed as, an interpretation of prior regulatory guidance or of the 1986 legislative history. For example, software not developed for internal use under these proposed regulations, such as software developed to enable a taxpayer to interact with third parties, may or may not have been internal use software under prior law.
The 2004 ANPRM provides that with respect to internal use software for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1985, and until further guidance is published, taxpayers may continue to rely upon all of the provisions in the 2001 proposed regulations, or alternatively, all of the provisions in the 2001 final regulations. As a consequence of the publication of these proposed regulations, and to provide guidance with respect to the application of internal use software rules contained in regulations issued prior to these proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS withdraw the 2004 ANPRM effective for taxable years beginning on or after the date of issuance of these proposed regulations. For taxable years ending before the date these proposed regulations are published in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Additionally, this notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose a collection of information.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 603. The analysis is set forth under the heading “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.” Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
These proposed regulations affect taxpayers engaged in research activities involving computer software. The reasons for promulgation of these regulations, and their legal basis, are set forth in this preamble under the heading “Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions.” Section 41(d)(4)(E) provides that, except to the extent provided by regulations, research with respect to computer software that is developed by (or for the benefit of) the taxpayer primarily for internal use by the taxpayer is excluded from the definition of qualified research under section 41(d). The objective of these proposed regulations is to provide a narrower exclusion of software from qualified research than provided in prior regulatory guidance.
The types of small entities to which these regulations may apply are small corporations and partnerships, and other small businesses, covering all areas of industry. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these proposed regulations will have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because these proposed regulations provide a narrower definition of internal use software, the research credit will be available to a greater number of small entities than was previously available under prior guidance. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these proposed regulations will have a positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These proposed regulations do not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements aside from the record keeping requirements under § 1.6001-1 that are generally applicable to all persons subject to tax. Section 1.6001-1 requires the keeping of records “sufficient to establish the amount of * * * credits * * * required to be shown * * * in any return of such tax * * *.” The Treasury Department and the IRS determined that the rules generally applicable under section 6001 provide sufficient detail about required documentary substantiation for purposes of the research credit, and thus no additional record keeping or reporting is required.
Comments are requested on the nature and extent of the economic burden imposed on small entities by these proposed regulations and on alternatives that would be less burdensome to small entities.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are not aware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. Comments are requested on all aspects of these proposed regulations. All comments will be available at
A public hearing has been scheduled for April 17, 2015, beginning at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight (8) copies) by March 23, 2015. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of these regulations is Martha M. Garcia, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.41-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 41(d)(4)(E). * * *
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(c) * * *
(6)
(A) The software satisfies the requirements of section 41(d)(1);
(B) The software is not otherwise excluded under section 41(d)(4) (other than section 41(d)(4)(E)); and
(C) One of the following conditions is met—
(
(
(
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(
(
(
(iv)
(
(
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(D)
(v)
(
(
(
(B)
(C)
(D)
(vi)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from delayed coking units used in petroleum refining, and sulfur dioxide primary emissions from fossil fuel combustion. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 19, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0781 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213) 244-1810,
This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD Rule 1114, Petroleum Refinery Coking Operations, and VCAPCD Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of proposed rule; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) training activities conducted in Virginia and North Carolina, from June 2015 through June 2020. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue regulations and a five-year Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the Navy to incidentally harass marine mammals.
Comments and information must be received no later than February 19, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0004, by either of the following methods:
•
• Hand delivery of mailing of paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments 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.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Work, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
A copy of the Navy's application may be obtained by visiting the internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
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.”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographic region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA: “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].”
On August 20, 2014, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting a letter of authorization (LOA) for the take of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to the Navy's JLOTS training activities in nearshore waters at the Joint Expeditionary Base (JEB) Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The Navy is requesting regulations that would establish a process for authorizing take, via a 5-year LOA, of marine mammals incidental to training activities. These activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may result in take of marine mammals from noise from temporary pier construction associated with the JLOTS training activities. The Navy requests to take bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins by Level B harassment.
JLOTS training is the movement of cargo and personnel from ships to shore in areas that do not have existing fixed port facilities. Among the several coordinated exercises of the JLOTS training, the only activity that has the potential to harass marine mammals is the construction of the Elevated Causeway System, Modular [ELCAS (M)] by introducing noise into the water.
The ELCAS (M) is a temporary pier constructed from the beach into the water past the surf zone. It provides a means of delivering containers, vehicles, and bulk cargo ashore without lighterage craft having to enter the surf
To build the pier, piles are driven into the sand with a diesel-powered impact hammer. The piles used typically are hollow, half-inch steel uncapped piles, 24 inches (0.5 m) in diameter, and can be of various lengths (38 ft. [11.6 m], 57 ft. [17.4 m], or 76 ft. [23.2 m]) depending on local bathymetry. The depth to which the piles are driven is between 30 and 40 ft. (9.1 to 12.2 m) and installation takes approximately 15 minutes per pile. Typically, 6 piles would be installed in a day. Two pile drivers are generally used, but not simultaneously: while one is driving a pile, the other is being re-positioned for the next pile. Construction may take up to 20 days. A pier length of 1,500 ft (457 m) is typical for training, with approximately 119 supporting piles.
Once the ELCAS (M) is constructed, offloading operations are similar to those of a conventional pier. Container-handling operations consist primarily of transferring containers from lighterage vessels (
The ELCAS (M) is dismantled by removing the pontoon sections and extracting the piles with a vibratory hammer, which takes approximately 6 minutes per pile, over the course of 10 days. Typically, 12 piles are removed in a day. On the beach, the modified area is re-graded to its original elevation.
The JLOTS training areas are in nearshore waters at the JEB Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The primary activity area consists of nearshore waters where the ELCAS (M) training exercises would take place.
There are six marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with possible or known occurrence in the Navy's JLOTS training area at the JEB Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, as indicated in Table 1. Four marine mammal species are listed under the Endangered Species Act: North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and fin whale.
NMFS has reviewed the information complied by the Navy on the abundance, status, and distribution of marine mammal species in the waters of the JLOTS training areas of the North Atlantic coast, which was derived from peer reviewed literature, the Navy Marine Resource Assessments, and NMFS Stock Assessment Reports. NMFS considers this information to be the best available science with which we can conduct the analyses necessary to propose these regulations and a five-year LOA. This information may be viewed in the Navy's LOA application and the Navy's Draft EA (
Fin whales, North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, and sei whale are considered rare in the JLOTS training areas. These mysticete whales tend to be distributed in relatively deeper waters outwards to the offshore environment. Occurrences of these species in the shallow nearshore waters off JEB Little Creek-Fort Story or Camp Lejeune are expected to be rare. Due to their extremely rare occurrence within the training areas, the Navy and NMFS do not anticipate any take of fin, North Atlantic right, humpback, or sei whales. Therefore, these species are not addressed further in this proposed rule.
Along the U.S. east coast, the bottlenose dolphin stock structure is well studied. Of the management stocks identified by NMFS, three may occur in the JLOTS activity area: The Northern North Carolina Estuarine System stock, the Southern North Carolina Estuarine System stock, and the Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stock. The bottlenose dolphin occurs in tropical to temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean as well as inshore, nearshore, and offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. east coast. They occur in most enclosed or semi-enclosed seas in habitats ranging from shallow, murky, estuarine waters to deep, clear offshore waters in oceanic regions (Jefferson
Bottlenose dolphins typically occur in groups of 2-15 individuals, but significantly larger groups have also been reported (Shane
An Unusual Mortality Event (UME) was declared for bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic coast in June 2013 and is ongoing to date. An increased number of strandings have occurred from New York to Florida, with 345 taking place in Virginia and 181 in North Carolina. Off JEB Little Creek-Fort Story and Camp Lejeune, 32 and 10 bottlenose dolphin strandings have occurred, respectively, since the declaration of the UME. The UME is being tentatively attributed to cetacean morbilivirus, but further research is ongoing (National Marine Fisheries Service 2014).
This species is found in nearshore tropical to warm-temperate waters, predominantly over the continental shelf and upper slope. In the western Atlantic, this species is distributed from New England to Brazil and is found in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Caribbean Sea (Perrin 2008). Atlantic spotted dolphin sightings have been concentrated in the slope waters north of Cape Hatteras, but in the shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras sightings extend into the deeper slope and offshore waters of the mid-Atlantic.
Atlantic spotted dolphins are highly gregarious, and are frequently observed in mixed-aged groups numbering up to several hundred individuals. Smaller subgroups, this species can be age and sex segregated to a small degree. Tightly bonded mother and calf pairs are typical to the age of 3 (Herzing n.d.).
The Atlantic spotted dolphin regularly occurs in the nearshore waters south of Chesapeake Bay and near the continental shelf edge and continental slope waters north of this region, usually at least 4.9 to 12.4 miles (8 to 20 km) offshore (Payne
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. From this, 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 between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, only bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin are likely to occur in the proposed JLOTS training areas. Both of these two species are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (Southall
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the reduction of hearing sensitivity in the frequency ranges of the sound source (Kastak
Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (
Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Since noise generated from in-water pile removal and driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have little effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, the lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect the detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds, such as surf and prey noise. The noises may also affect communication signals when those signals occur near the noise band, and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at community, population, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels in the world's oceans have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times, in terms of SPL) from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and pile removal and driving, contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensifying masking.
Nevertheless, the sum of noise from the Navy's proposed JLOTS training activities is confined to a limited area and is temporary and intermittent; therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean ambient noise. In addition, due to shallow water depths in the training area, underwater sound propagation of low-frequency sound (which is the major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.
Finally, in addition to TS and masking, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (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. Some of these types of significant behavioral modifications include:
• Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale strandings due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Extended habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Extended 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 therefore difficult to predict (Southall
The proposed training areas are not a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor are they considered areas frequented by marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with the Navy's JLOTS training activities are expected to affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent and limited basis.
No permanent impacts to marine mammal habitat are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed training activities. The Navy's proposed JLOTS training activities would not modify the existing habitat. Therefore, no restoration of the habitat would be necessary. A temporary, small-scale loss of foraging habitat may occur for marine mammals, if the marine mammals leave the area during pile extraction and driving activities.
Acoustic energy created during pile driving and removal work would have the potential to disturb fish within the vicinity of the training areas. As a result, the affected areas could temporarily lose foraging value to marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may exclude fish from the vicinity of the pile driving. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to avoid areas of damaging noise energy. If fish leave the area of disturbance, the affected area may have a temporarily decreased foraging value during impact hammering and vibratory removal of piles.
The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely small portion of the total foraging range of marine mammals that may be present in and around the project area.
Because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or marine mammal populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the “permissible methods of
NMFS reviewed the proposed activities and the proposed mitigation measures as described in the Navy's LOA application to determine if they would result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammals, which includes a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity.” Included below are standard operating procedures and the mitigation measures the Navy proposed in its LOA application.
Soft starts are performed during impact installation each day. During a soft start, an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy are performed before it is able to be operated at full power and speed. The energy reduction of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because they vary by individual drivers. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced energy because raising the hammer at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the pile resulting in multiple “strikes”. A benefit of a soft start is that marine species in the vicinity are provided a “warning”, giving them an opportunity to leave the area at the first occurrence of the noise, prior to full capacity operation. This may result in reducing exposures to underwater noise levels that could cause behavioral disturbance or injury.
The Navy will establish a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven. Visual observation will be conducted starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the exercise within the mitigation zone. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp patties) are observed in the mitigation zone.
Pile driving will cease if a marine mammal is visually detected within the mitigation zone. Pile driving will re‐commence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
Consistent with current requirements, all personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, and Lookouts will successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The Marine Species Awareness Training is designed to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for marine resources, including marine mammals. The training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures.
Vessels will avoid approaching marine mammals head on and will maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yards (457 m) around observed whales and 200 yards (183 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so.
A North Atlantic right whale migratory route is located off the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States. This mitigation area applies from November 1 through April 30 and is defined as follows:
• Block Island Sound: The area bounded by 40°51′53.7″ N/070°36′44.9″ W; 41°20′14.1″ N/070°49′44.1″ W; 41°4′16.7″ N/071°51′21″ W; 41°35′56.5″ N/071°38′26.1″ W; then back to first set of coordinates.
• New York and New Jersey: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 40°29′42.2″ N/073°55′57.6″ W.
• Delaware Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 38°52′27.4″ North/075°01′32.1″ West.
• Chesapeake Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 37°00′36.9″ North/075°57′50.5″ West.
• Morehead City, North Carolina: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 34°41′32.0″ North/076°40′08.3″ West.
• Wilmington, North Carolina, through South Carolina, and to Brunswick, Georgia: Within a continuous area 20 nautical miles from shore and west back to shore bounded by 34°10′30″ North/077°49′12″ West; 33°56′42″ North/077°31′30″ West; 33°36′30″ North/077°47′06″ West; 33°28′24″ North/078°32′30″ West; 32°59′06″ North/078°50′18″ West; 31°50′00″ North/080°33′12″ West; 31°27′00″ North/080°51′36″ West.
When transiting within the migration corridor, the Navy will practice increased vigilance, exercise extreme caution, and proceed at the slowest speed that is consistent with safety, mission, and training objectives.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals.
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned.
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
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 in-water pile driving and pile removal, 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 in-water pile driving and pile removal, 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
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 Navy'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, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) 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 LOAs 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.
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 in-water pile driving and pile removal 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.
Ships operated by or for the Navy shall have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water (underway). Watch personnel shall undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on-the-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Watch personnel are composed of officers, enlisted men and women, and civilian equivalents. Their duties may be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch, personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices.
A primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Because watch personnel are primarily posted for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions, they are not normally posted while ships are moored to a pier. When anchored or moored to a buoy, a watch team is still maintained but with fewer personnel than when underway. When moored or at anchor, watch personnel may maintain security and safety of the ship by scanning the water for any indications of a threat (as described above).
While underway, Navy ships (with the exception of submarines) greater than 65 ft. (20 m) in length have at least two watch personnel; Navy ships less than 65 ft. (20 m) in length, surfaced submarines, and contractor ships have at least one watch person. While underway, watch personnel are alert at all times and have access to binoculars. Due to limited manning and space limitations, small boats and some craft transferring cargo from ship to shore do not have dedicated watch personnel, and the boat crew is responsible for maintaining the safety of the boat and surrounding environment.
All vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a “safe speed” so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
Lookouts perform similar duties to standard watch personnel, and are also responsible for satisfying mitigation requirements. The Navy will have one Lookout positioned on the platform (which could include a small boat, the elevated causeway, or the shore) that will maximize the potential for sightings during pile driving and pile removal.
The Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore will be dedicated solely to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. They will have multiple observation objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zone, and monitoring for equipment and personnel safety concerns. Due to small boat manning and space restrictions, a Lookout positioned on a small boat may include a member of the boat crew, and may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of the water (
Lookouts will also perform visual observation starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the exercise within a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven.
The Navy will use the existing Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) and its new “study-based” approach to satisfy monitoring requirements for the JLOTS MMPA authorization. To ensure efficient implementation of the program and maintain consistency with how the program is currently being implemented for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) MMPA authorization, Navy recommends the same AFTT adaptive management process and reporting deadlines be used for the JLOTS authorization.
The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions where the Navy trains and tests and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort for each range complex (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010). Originally, the Navy monitoring program was composed of a collection of “range-specific” monitoring plans, each developed individually as part of Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act compliance processes as environmental documentation was completed. These individual plans established specific monitoring requirements for each range complex and were collectively intended to address the ICMP top-level goals.
A 2010 Navy-sponsored monitoring meeting in Arlington, Virginia, initiated a process to critically evaluate the Navy monitoring plans and begin development of revisions and updates to both the region-specific plans as well as the ICMP. Discussions at that meeting as well as the following Navy and NMFS annual adaptive management meeting established a way ahead for continued refinement of the Navy's monitoring program. This process included establishing a Scientific Advisory Group of leading marine mammal scientists with the initial task of developing recommendations that would serve as the basis for a Strategic Planning Process for Navy monitoring. The Strategic Plan is intended to be a primary component of the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and provide a “vision” for Navy monitoring across geographic regions—serving as guidance for determining how to most efficiently and effectively invest the marine species monitoring resources to address ICMP top-level goals and satisfy MMPA regulatory requirements.
The objective of the Strategic Planning Process is to continue the evolution of Navy marine species monitoring towards a single integrated program, incorporating Scientific Advisory Group recommendations, and establishing a more transparent framework for soliciting, evaluation, and implementing monitoring work across the range complexes and testing ranges. The Strategic Planning Process must consider a range of factors in addition to the scientific recommendations including logistic, operational, and funding considerations and will be revised regularly as part of the annual adaptive management process.
NMFS has not issued regulations nor incidental take authorizations to the Navy concerning its JLOTS training on the Atlantic coast. Therefore, no past and current monitoring is available.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Some of the reporting requirements are still in development and the final rule may contain additional details not contained in the proposed rule. Additionally, proposed reporting requirements may be modified, eliminated, or added based on information or comments received during the public comment period. Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be posted to the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring web portal as they become available. Currently, there are several specific reporting requirements pursuant to these proposed regulations:
Navy personnel would ensure that NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise. The Navy would provide NMFS with species identification or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available).
As noted above, reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects would be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal as they become available. Progress and results from all monitoring activity conducted within the JLOTS training area would be summarized in an annual report. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
Draft reports should be combined with the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing exercise and monitoring reports and submitted to NMFS for review by February 13 (for exercises) and April 1 (for monitoring) each year. NMFS would review the report and provide comments for incorporation within 3 months.
In the potential effects section, NMFS' analysis identified a variety of impacts that could potentially result from exposure to noise during the Navy's JLOTS training activities. In this section, we will relate the potential effects to marine mammals from these sound sources to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B Harassment and attempt to quantify the effects that might occur from the specific training activities that the Navy proposes in the JLOTS training areas.
As mentioned previously, with respect to military readiness activities, section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving (vibratory and
Currently, NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 µPa and 160 dB re 1 µPa at the received levels for the onset of Level B harassment from non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile driving) underwater, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.
The methods for estimating the number and types of exposure are described in the sections below, followed by the method for quantifying exposures of marine mammals to sources of energy exceeding those threshold values. Exposure of each was determined by:
• The potential of each species to be impacted by the acoustic sources as determined by acoustic criteria for marine mammals.
• The potential presence of each species and their estimated density inside the range to effect.
• The range to effect for impact installation and vibratory extraction (estimated by taking into account the source levels, propagation loss, and thresholds at which each acoustic criterion is met).
Potential exposures were calculated by multiplying the density of each marine mammal species potentially present by the total impacted area for each threshold value, rounding the result to the closest integer, and then multiplying that result by the potential number of days of pile driving.
Sound levels produced by pile driving are greatly influenced by factors including pile type, driving method, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. A number of studies have examined sound pressure levels recorded from underwater pile driving projects in California and Washington, creating a large body of data for impact driving of steel pipe piles.
To determine the most appropriate sound pressure levels for this project, data from studies which met the following parameters were considered:
• Pile size and type: 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles
• Installation and removal method: vibratory and/or impact hammer
• Physical environment: water depth, sediment type
Details of the physical characteristics of the waters and substrate off the proposed JLOTS locations were taken into consideration for determining the size of ensonified zones. Source levels were selected from NAVFAC Atlantic's comprehensive dataset based on similarity to site conditions at JEB Little Creek-Fort Story (sand with shell debris sediments, average depth 1-5 meters), and Camp Lejeune (lower sedimentation with hard-bottom in some areas, depth around 7 meters), equipment (
Modeling sound propagation is useful in evaluating noise levels to determine distance from the pile driving activity that certain sound levels may travel. The decrease in acoustic intensity as a sound wave propagates outward from a source is known as transmission loss (TL). The formula for transmission loss is:
The amount of linear loss (C) is proportional to the frequency of a sound. Due to the low frequencies of sound generated by impact and vibratory pile driving, this factor was assumed to be zero for all calculations in this assessment and transmission loss was calculated using only logarithmic spreading. Therefore, using practical spreading (B = 15), the revised formula for transmission loss is TL = 15 log
The practical spreading loss model (TL =15 log
Impact driving of each pile is expected to last no more than 15 minutes. Typically, 6 piles would be installed each day, for up to 20 days. Generally, two pile drivers are used, but not simultaneously: While one is installing a pile, the other is being repositioned for the next pile. For
The range to effects (Table 4) for underwater noise is assumed to take a circular shape around the notional pile bring driven at the furthest offshore point of the ELCAS (M) (approximately 1,500 ft. [457 m] from shore). Zones with radii larger than 1,500 ft. (457 m) will be truncated by the shoreline, and were modeled as semicircles extending to the west, north, and east in the case of JEB Little Creek-Fort Story; and north, east, and south at Camp Lejeune since the beaches at each of the locations would represent the boundary for underwater propagation. The calculated ranges assume no obstructions, and sounds will attenuate as they encounter land or other solid obstacles. As a result, the distances calculated may not actually be attained at the two installations.
Based on the size of the areas in which pile driving and extraction may exceed established thresholds, the Navy applied estimated densities for the bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin and the number of active pile driving days. The result shows that approximately 110 bottlenose dolphins and 50 Atlantic spotted dolphins could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment annually, with a total of 550 bottlenose dolphins and 250 Atlantic spotted dolphins taken by Level B behavioral harassment during the five-year period of the rule (Table 5). The annual percentage of takes of these species/stock is less than 6% of the population.
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 (
The Navy's proposed JLOTS training activity would involve pile driving and removal activities during the training exercise. Elevated noise levels are expected to be generated as a result of these activities. However, the source levels generated by the pile driving and removal activities are expected be low due to the low-power hammer being used. In addition, given the standard operating procedure of soft starts and required mitigation and monitoring such as shutdown measures when marine mammals are sighted approaching the mitigation zone, no injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of the Navy's proposed JLOTS training activities, and none are proposed to be authorized. In addition, as described above, marine mammals in the area would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in hearing impairment (TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects.
In-water construction activities would occur in nearshore shallow waters at the JEB Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The proposed training areas are not considered significant habitat for marine mammals. Marine mammals approaching the action area would likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. There are no rookeries or major
Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by noise from pile driving and pile removal activities. These low intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modifications by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area during in-water construction because animals generally move away from active sound sources, thereby reducing exposure and impacts. In addition, through soft starts, a standard operating procedure, marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious, and detection of marine mammals by lookouts would enable the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality. In-water pile driving and pile removal are expected to occur for about 20 days and 10 days total annually at each location, respectively. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.
Based on the application and subsequent analysis, the impact of the described in-water pile driving activities may result in, at most, short-term modification of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is expected to occur and due to the nature, degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated, the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival.
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 finds preliminarily that the total marine mammal take from the Navy's JLOTS training activity will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
NMFS has participated as a cooperating agency on the JLOTS draft EA, which is scheduled to be published on January 6, 2015. The JLOTS draft EA will be posted on NMFS' Web site:
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Navy, a federal agency, is the sole entity that will be affected by this rulemaking. It is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated five-year LOA to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would only directly affect the Navy, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs within the JLOTS training areas, which is in nearshore shallow waters at the Joint Expeditionary Base (JEB) Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs incidental to the JLOTS training activities in the activity areas any time of year, but no more than once annually at JEB Little Creek-Fort Story, and once annually at Camp Lejeune.
(a) Regulations are effective [
(a) Under Letters of Authorization (LOAs) issued pursuant to § 218.17, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 218.10, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations and the appropriate LOA.
(b) The activities identified in § 218.10(c) must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities identified in § 218.10(c) is limited to JLOTS training activities, by Level B behavioral harassment:
(1) Bottlenose dolphin (
(2) Bottlenose dolphin (
(3) Atlantic spotted dolphin (
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.12 and authorized by an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.10 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.12(c);
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.12(c) other than by incidental take as specified in § 218.12(c);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.12(c) if such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17.
(a) When conducting training and testing activities, as identified in § 218.10, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17 must be implemented. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(1)
(ii) Visual observation will be conducted starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the ELCAS (M) exercise within the mitigation zone. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp patties) are observed in the mitigation zone.
(2)
(ii) During a soft start, an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy are performed before it is able to be operated at full power and speed.
(3)
(ii) Pile driving may re‐commence if any one of the following conditions is met:
(A) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone,
(B) The animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or
(C) The mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
(b)
(2) The Marine Species Awareness Training shall be designed to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for marine resources, including marine mammals.
(3) The training shall provide information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures.
(c)
(d)
(1) Block Island Sound: The area bounded by 40°51′53.7″ N/070°36′44.9″ W; 41°20′14.1″ N/070°49′44.1″ W; 41°4′16.7″ N/071°51′21″ W; 41°35′56.5″ N/071°38′26.1″ W; then back to first set of coordinates.
(2) New York and New Jersey: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 40°29′42.2″ N/073°55′57.6″ W.
(3) Delaware Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 38°52′27.4″ North/075°01′32.1″ West.
(4) Chesapeake Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 37°00′36.9″ North/075°57′50.5″ West.
(5) Morehead City, North Carolina: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 34°41′32.0″ North/076°40′08.3″ West.
(6) Wilmington, North Carolina, through South Carolina, and to Brunswick, Georgia: Within a continuous area 20 nautical miles from shore and west back to shore bounded by 34°10′30″ North/077°49′12″ West; 33°56′42″ North/077°31′30″ West; 33°36′30″ North/077°47′06″ West;
(a)
(ii) Watch personnel shall undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on-the-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects).
(iii) While on watch, watch personnel shall employ visual search techniques, including the use of binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent.
(iv) After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel shall employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices.
(v) A primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance.
(vi) Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Because watch personnel are primarily posted for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions, they are not normally posted while ships are moored to a pier.
(vii) When anchored or moored to a buoy, a watch team is still maintained but with fewer personnel than when underway.
(viii) When moored or at anchor, watch personnel may maintain security and safety of the ship by scanning the water for any indications of a threat.
(ix) While underway, Navy ships (with the exception of submarines) greater than 65 ft. (20 m) in length have at least two watch personnel; Navy ships less than 65 ft. (20 m) in length, surfaced submarines, and contractor ships have at least one watch person. While underway, watch personnel are alert at all times and have access to binoculars. Due to limited manning and space limitations, small boats and some craft transferring cargo from ship to shore do not have dedicated watch personnel, and the boat crew is responsible for maintaining the safety of the boat and surrounding environment.
(x) All vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a “safe speed” so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
(2)
(ii) The Navy will have one Lookout positioned on the platform (which could include a small boat, the elevated causeway, or the shore) that will maximize the potential for sightings during pile driving and pile removal.
(iii) The Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore shall be dedicated solely to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. They shall have multiple observation objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zone, and monitoring for equipment and personnel safety concerns.
(iv) A Lookout positioned on a small boat may include a member of the boat crew, and may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of the water (
(v) Lookouts shall also perform visual observation starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the exercise within a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven.
(3)
(b)
(ii) The Navy shall provide NMFS with species identification or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available).
(2)
(ii) Progress and results from all monitoring activity conducted within the JLOTS training area shall be summarized in an annual report. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.
(iii) Draft reports should be combined with the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing exercise and monitoring reports and submitted to NMFS for review by February 13 (for exercises) and April 1 (for monitoring) each year. NMFS would review the report and provide comments for incorporation within 3 months.
To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by § 216.106 of this chapter) conducting the activity identified in § 218.10(c) (the U.S. Navy) must apply for and obtain either an initial LOA in accordance with § 218.17 or a renewal under § 218.18.
(a) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, will be valid for a period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this subpart.
(b) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses (
(3) Requirements for mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the LOA will be based on a determination that the total number of marine mammals
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17 for the activity identified in § 218.10(c) will be renewed based upon:
(1) Notification to NMFS that the activity described in the application submitted under § 218.18 will be undertaken and that there will not be a substantial modification to the described work, mitigation, or monitoring undertaken during the upcoming period of validity;
(2) Timely receipt (by the dates indicated in these regulations) of the monitoring reports required under § 218.15(b); and
(3) A determination by the NMFS that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under § 218.14 and the LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17, were undertaken and will be undertaken during the upcoming period of validity of a renewed Letter of Authorization.
(b) If a request for a renewal of an LOA issued under this § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17 indicates that a substantial modification, as determined by NMFS, to the described work, mitigation or monitoring undertaken during the upcoming season will occur, NMFS will provide the public a period of 30 days for review and comment on the request. Review and comment on renewals of LOAs are restricted to:
(1) New cited information and data indicating that the determinations made in this document are in need of reconsideration; and
(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation and monitoring requirements contained in these regulations or in the current LOA.
(c) A notice of issuance or denial of an LOA renewal will be published in the
(d) NMFS, in response to new information and in consultation with the Navy, may modify the mitigation or monitoring measures in subsequent LOAs if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of mitigation and monitoring. Below are some of the possible sources of new data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures:
(1) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year (either from the JLOTS training areas or other locations).
(2) Compiled results of Navy-funded research and development (R&D) studies (presented pursuant to the ICMP (§ 218.15(d)).
(3) Results from specific stranding investigations (either from the JLOTS training areas or other locations, and involving coincident mid- or high-frequency active sonar or explosives training or not involving coincident use).
(4) Results from the Long Term Prospective Study.
(5) Results from general marine mammal and sound research (funded by the Navy (or otherwise).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no substantive modification (including withdrawal or suspension) to the LOA by NMFS, issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17 and subject to the provisions of this subpart shall be made until after notification and an opportunity for public comment has been provided. For purposes of this paragraph, a renewal of an LOA under § 218.18, without modification (except for the period of validity), is not considered a substantive modification.
(b) If the Assistant Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in § 218.12(c), an LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17 may be substantively modified without prior notification and an opportunity for public comment. Notification will be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This proposed rule would implement Draft Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Management measures in this proposed rulemaking are designed to respond to the problems facing Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, such as commercial landings that exceed the quotas, declining numbers of fishing permits since limited access was implemented, complex regulations, derby fishing conditions due to small quotas and short seasons, increasing numbers of regulatory discards, and declining market prices. The primary goal of Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 6) is to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and ending overfishing. Specifically, this action proposes: Adjusting the large coastal sharks (LCS) retention limit for shark directed Limited Access Permit (LAP) holders; creating sub-regional quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions for LCS and small coastal sharks (SCS); modifying the LCS and SCS quota linkages; establishing total allowable catches (TACs) and adjusting quotas for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions based on the results of the 2013 stock assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks; and modifying upgrading restrictions for shark permit holders. The proposed measures could affect commercial shark fishermen fishing in the Atlantic Ocean including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
Written comments must be received on or before April 3, 2015. NMFS will hold 4 public hearings on Draft Amendment 6 and this implementing proposed rule on February 17, February 18, February 23, and February 26, 2015. NMFS will also hold an operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar for this proposed rule on March 25, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. For specific locations, dates and times see the
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2010-0188, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will hold 4 public hearings and 1 conference call on this proposed rule. NMFS will hold public hearings in St. Petersburg, FL; Melbourne, FL; Belle Chasse, FL; and Manteo, NC; and via a public conference call. For specific locations, dates and times see the
Copies of the supporting documents, including the draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP are available from the HMS Web site at
LeAnn Hogan, Guý DuBeck, Alexis Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-427-8503, or by fax: 301-713-1917.
Atlantic sharks are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the authority to issue regulations has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the
NMFS began considering management measures for Amendment 6 in 2010 with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (75 FR 57235; September 10, 2010). The 2010 ANPR solicited public comments on potential adjustments to regulations governing the Atlantic shark fisheries to address several specific issues affecting the management of those fisheries. In the ANPR, NMFS discussed that since management of sharks began in 1993, there have been many changes to the regulations and major rules, either through FMP amendments or regulatory amendments, to respond to results of stock assessments, changes in stock status, and other fishery fluctuations. Despite modifications to the regulations and Amendments to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP to respond to these issues, the Atlantic shark fisheries continue to be faced with problems, such as commercial landings that exceed the quotas, declining numbers of fishing permits since limited access was implemented, complex regulations, derby fishing conditions due to small quotas and short seasons, increasing numbers of regulatory discards, and declining market prices. Rather than continuing to react to these issues every year with a new regulation, or every other year with a new FMP amendment, NMFS stated that it wanted the regulations to be more proactive in management and explore methods to establish more flexible regulations that would consider the changing needs of the fisheries. More specifically, the ANPR explored management ideas related to quota structure, permit structure, and catch shares. NMFS held several public meetings regarding the ANPR and received many comments.
Based on the comments received on the ANPR, on September 16, 2011, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) (76 FR 57709) to prepare an FMP Amendment that would consider catch shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries. The NOI also established a control date for eligibility to participate in a catch share program and announced the availability of a white paper that explored potential design elements of a shark catch share program. NMFS held several public meetings and received many comments regarding the NOI.
In addition to the changes in Federal regulations, while NMFS has been considering comments on the ANPR and the NOI, there have also been changes in state shark management. Since 2010, several states have passed legislation banning the possession, sale, trade, and distribution of shark fins. In addition, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) recently made changes to the Atlantic state shark management measures. The ASMFC Coastal Shark Board made the decision to amend the Interstate Coastal Shark FMP to be consistent with NMFS' recent changes in Amendment 5a, and they have expressed their preference for NMFS to open the LCS management group in the Atlantic region after July 1 each year. The Shark Board also approved measures for each Atlantic state to implement a 12 percent fin-to-carcass ratio for smooth dogfish, consistent with the 12 percent fin-to-carcass ratio specified in the smooth dogfish-specific provisions of the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-348) (the SCA).
In addition to these state measures, there have been international efforts to prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as campaigns targeted at the shark fin soup markets. All of these efforts, including the U.S. state shark fin possession bans, have impacted the market and demand for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has seen a steady decline in ex-vessel prices for shark fins in all regions since 2010.
In April 2014, NMFS released a Predraft for Amendment 6, providing NMFS with the opportunity to obtain additional information and input from HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members and HMS Consulting Parties (Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, Marine Fisheries Commissions, U.S. Coast Guard, and other State and Federal Agency representatives) on potential alternatives prior to development of the formal FMP Amendment and proposed rule. The Predraft explored potential management options for the future management of the Atlantic shark fisheries, taking into consideration comments received on the ANPR and NOI.
Since issuing the ANPR, NOI, and Predraft, and after reviewing the comments received, NMFS has continued to consider various ways to address recurring issues and provide managers and fishermen with increased flexibility, while maintaining conservation measures. Additionally, there have continued to be changes in Federal and state management of the Atlantic shark fisheries that have affected the fishery and its communities. On May, 27 2014, NMFS published another NOI announcing (1) its intent to prepare an Environmental
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks were both previously assessed in 2007 as part of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process. At that time, the statuses of both species were determined to be not overfished, with no overfishing occurring. These species were assessed again in 2013 using “standard” assessments as part of SEDAR 34. Standard assessments generally update previous benchmark assessments with additional years of data and do not allow for major changes; standard assessments typically can be completed in approximately a year. On the first day of the face-to-face assessment workshop meeting held for both species, the scientists determined that the genetic information clearly indicated both species should be split into a Gulf of Mexico stock and an Atlantic stock. However, because the assessments had been scheduled as standard assessments as opposed to benchmark assessments, the assessment process and timing would not allow the scientists to make this change. Making such a change would have required four benchmark assessments rather than two standard assessments. It would have also required additional changes to the format and structure of the data that had not been anticipated and allowed for in the overall SEDAR schedule. Based on a request from fishery managers to continue with the standard assessments at that time, given that the previous assessments were over 5 years old and updated scientific advice was needed, the scientists agreed to continue with the standard assessment of both species as single stocks in order to provide management advice on the potential status of the stocks.
Based on the results of SEDAR 34, NMFS decided to split the Atlantic sharpnose shark species into two stocks—an Atlantic stock and a Gulf of Mexico stock—and determined, based on the overall data for the species as a whole, that the status of both stocks is not overfished and no overfishing is occurring (79 FR 53024; September 5, 2014). With regards to bonnethead sharks, NMFS also decided to split this stock into an Atlantic stock and a Gulf of Mexico stock, and determined, based on the overall data for the species as a whole, that the status of both bonnethead stocks is unknown (Id.). In this rulemaking, NMFS considers implementing total allowable catches (TAC) and commercial quotas for non-blacknose SCS (which is the management group that both Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks are managed in) in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions based on the results of the SEDAR 34 assessment and while considering the results of the 2007 finetooth stock assessment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA, RIR, and IRFA to present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of each alternative contained in this proposed rule. A summary of the alternatives considered and related analyses are provided below. The complete list of alternatives and related analyses are provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS considered permit stacking in the 2010 ANPR and requested public comments on this potential change to the shark permit structure. A permit stacking system would allow commercial fishermen with multiple shark LAPs to use them concurrently on one vessel, resulting in aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits.
After analyzing the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the permit stacking alternatives in the shark fishery, NMFS currently prefers the No Action alternative (Alternative A1) in this proposed rule. The No Action alterative would maintain the current shark directed LAP structure and would not implement permit stacking for these permit holders. Under this preferred alternative, NMFS would continue to allow only one directed LAP per vessel and thus one retention limit. In the short- and long-term, this preferred alternative is expected to have neutral direct ecological impacts on LCS stocks. Shark fishermen would continue to be limited by the current retention limit of 36 LCS per trip. By leaving the current permit structure in place under this alternative, and because the LCS quotas are not being modified in this action, it is likely that the No Action alternative would have neutral short- and long-term ecological impacts to the LCS stocks. With regards to socioeconomic impacts, the preferred alternative would result in potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. Because current LCS quotas are being maintained, NMFS anticipates neutral direct socioeconomic impacts in the short-term and possibly minor adverse socioeconomic impacts in the long-term, because if fishermen are unable to retain an increased number of LCS per trip by stacking permits, the profitability of each trip could decline over time, due to declining prices for shark products and increasing prices for gas, bait and other associated costs. NMFS believes that while permit stacking may have beneficial socioeconomic impacts for those fishermen that already have multiple directed shark LAPs or that could afford to buy additional permits, permit stacking could possibly disadvantage those fishermen that are unable to buy additional permits. Because the majority of fishermen in the shark fishery have only one permit (in the Atlantic region, 130 of the 136 shark directed permits have different owners; in the Gulf of Mexico region, 73 of the 83 shark directed permits have different owners), permit stacking would not benefit most shark fishermen in the short-term, and it could possibly lead to inequity among directed shark LAP holders. NMFS believes that an increase in LCS retention limits for all directed LAP holders, as described in the Commercial Retention Limits section below, would have greater socioeconomic benefits across the entire shark fishery as a whole. Therefore, after considering the impacts of the permit stacking alternatives, NMFS prefers the No Action alternative to continue to allow only one directed LAP per vessel and thus one retention limit in this proposed rulemaking.
NMFS also analyzed two other permit stacking alternatives in the Draft EA. The first, Alternative A2, would allow fishermen to use a maximum of 2 shark directed LAPs concurrently on one vessel, which would result in aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits. Under the current LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that a vessel with 2 stacked permits would have a LCS retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. Alternative A3 considers allowing fishermen to use a maximum of 3 shark directed LAPs concurrently on one vessel, which would result in aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits. Under the current LCS retention
The current retention limit of 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks was established in Amendment 2 as part of the rebuilding plan for sandbar sharks. As described in Amendment 2, the retention limit was established by considering, among other things, how many sandbar sharks would be discarded dead from the number of shark trips that were expected to interact with sandbar sharks. Over the past few years, the shark research fishery, which is the only part of the shark fisheries that can land and sell sandbar sharks, has not been catching the full sandbar research fishery quota. During the Predraft stage, NMFS received extensive comments from commercial fishermen and Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel members to consider adjusting the retention limits instead of allowing commercial fishermen to land sandbar sharks outside of the Atlantic shark research fishery. Thus, NMFS is considering adjusting the commercial LCS retention limit for shark directed LAP holders based on public comment.
The preferred alternative (Alternative B2) would increase the retention limit for LCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions from 36 to a maximum of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb dw). To determine the impacts of this alternative, NMFS used the same methodology used in Amendment 2 to calculate how many sandbar sharks could potentially be discarded dead by vessels harvesting the 55 LCS other than sandbar shark retention limit. Because harvesting additional LCS per trip could result in additional sandbar sharks being discarded dead, this additional mortality would be counted against the unharvested sandbar shark research fishery quota, and NMFS would reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota accordingly. Thus overall, NMFS does not expect the mortality of sandbar sharks to increase as a result of the increased retention limit under this alternative. Since the sandbar shark research fishery quota was previously analyzed in Amendment 2, and would be reduced from 116.6 to 75.7 mt dw in order to account for increased discards under a retention limit of 55 LCS per trip, this alternative would have short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts on sandbar sharks. In addition, the retention limit increase under this preferred alternative would result in neutral direct and indirect ecological impacts to the different LCS management groups and species, because the quotas for the different LCS management groups and species are not being modified in this rulemaking and fishermen would continue to be limited by the total amount of LCS that could be harvested, as well as by seasonal closures once 80 percent of the quota is reached.
With regards to socioeconomic impacts, this new retention limit would result in potential total trip revenues of $1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. The preferred alternative would have short- and long-term direct and indirect minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts since shark directed permit holders could land more sharks per trip when compared to the current retention limit of 36 LCS per trip. The higher retention limit is likely to make each trip more profitable for fishermen, as well as more efficient, if they decide to take fewer trips, and in turn save money on fuel, bait, and other associated costs.
NMFS also analyzed three other retention limit alternatives that are not preferred at this time. The No Action alternative (Alternative B1) would maintain the current commercial LCS retention limit for directed permit holders. While this would have short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts on LCS fisheries, this option denies commercial shark fishermen additional opportunities to harvest LCS within their current quotas. Due to limited resources available to fund observed trips, the sandbar quota in the research fishery has not been fully harvested in recent years (
Currently, NMFS manages several shark species and management group quotas on a regional basis with quota linkages in the Atlantic region. NMFS is proposing to implement sub-regional quotas for aggregated LCS, hammerhead sharks, blacknose sharks, and non-blacknose SCS management groups in the Atlantic region. Implementing sub-regional quotas would help alleviate some of the tensions between fishermen in certain states due to varying preferences for season opening dates and differences in regional shark availability. Additionally, sub-regional quotas could facilitate greater fishing accountability for these shark management groups within sub-regions, and also provide for extended fishing seasons in some sub-regions. In order to implement sub-regional quotas in the Atlantic region, NMFS is considering a number of measures, such as apportioning landings to sub-regions based on historical landings, adjusting linkages between certain management groups within sub-regions, and establishing commercial quotas and TACs for non-blacknose SCS based on results of the recent stock assessment, SEDAR 34.
NMFS considered several factors when calculating sub-regional quotas. It is important to consider the potential impact of early seasonal closures on historical landings by region over time. For example, the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose fisheries closed on November 2, 2010, September 30, 2013, and July 28, 2014, thereby reducing fishing opportunities for fishermen in the northern Atlantic area in those years, because sharks tend to be more available later in the year in the northern Atlantic area, whereas they tend to be available year-round in the southern Atlantic area. Conversely, in years where NMFS established opening dates later in the year (
Due to the variability in the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries between 2008 and 2013, and various impacts of seasonal closures and changes to regulations and fishery management groups that did not impact one region more than another, NMFS calculated the sub-regional quotas based on total landings during this time period.
Unlike the calculations for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks, the data used to calculate non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark quotas would start after 2010 because SCS fisheries management changed in 2010 under Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, in which NMFS created a separate blacknose shark quota and linked the quota to the non-blacknose SCS quota. NMFS used ACCSP landings data from 2011 and 2012 to calculate SCS sub-regional quotas in Alternatives C2, C3 and C4. These years were used because they are years where the SCS fisheries were open year-round and sub-regional allocations would not be impacted by early closures; this approach was supported by some members of the HMS AP at the September 2014 meeting.
The two preferred alternatives are Alternatives C4 and C6. Alternative C4 would apportion the base annual quotas for the Atlantic LCS and SCS management groups into northern and southern sub-regional quotas, with the boundary between the northern and southern Atlantic sub-regions drawn along 34°00′ N. Latitude, based on historical landings percentages. The preferred alternative would also maintain the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose quota linkages in the southern Atlantic sub-region, eliminate the linkage between blacknose and non-blacknose SCS in the northern Atlantic sub-region, and prohibit the harvest and landings of blacknose sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region. The preferred alternatives do not consider removing linkages between all remaining species and management groups for several reasons. Removing linkages between these management groups would require an adjustment in
Preferred Alternative C4 would likely result in direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts across the Atlantic region. The preferred
Across the entire Atlantic region, preferred alternative C4 would likely result in both direct short- and long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Removing quota linkages in the northern Atlantic region, in combination with apportioning the Atlantic regional quota at 34°00′ N. Lat., would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort, and thereby maximize revenue, during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or when regional time/area closures are not in place. Removing quota linkages within the northern Atlantic sub-region would have beneficial impacts, as increased revenues from increased landings would continue to accrue with each fishing year. Active fishermen in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be able to continue fishing for non-blacknose SCS without the fishing activities in the southern Atlantic sub-region, where the majority of blacknose sharks are landed, impacting the timing of the non-blacknose SCS fishery closure. Economic advantages associated with removing quota linkages, allowing the northern Atlantic sub-region to land a larger number of non-blacknose SCS, would outweigh the income lost from prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks ($1,750).
The other preferred alternative, Alternative C6, would establish an Atlantic non-blacknose SCS TAC of 401.3 mt dw and maintain the 2014 base annual commercial quota of 176.1 mt dw (388,222 lb dw). For this alternative, NMFS used the current Atlantic non-blacknose SCS commercial base annual quota of 176.1 mt dw to determine the new Atlantic TAC for this management group. The proposed TAC is calculated by summing the sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks (recreational landings, commercial discards, which includes estimates of shrimp trawl discards, and research set-aside mortality) from the Atlantic region and adding the current commercial base annual quota (176.1 mt dw). The proposed Atlantic non-blacknose SCS TAC and commercial quota takes into account all sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and maintains the 2014 commercial base annual quota. In addition, no underharvest of the non-blacknose SCS quota in the Atlantic region would be carried forward to the next fishing season because the status of the bonnethead shark stock within the non-blacknose SCS management group is “unknown”. Thus, because this non-blacknose SCS TAC and commercial quota takes into account all sources of mortality for both species, keeps fishing mortality capped at current levels, does not increase interactions with blacknose sharks, and accounts for the unknown status of Atlantic bonnethead sharks, NMFS believes that Alternative C6 would have direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts to the Atlantic non-blacknose SCS.
With regards to socioeconomic impacts of preferred Alternative C6, because this alternative would maintain the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota, it is likely to have short-term neutral socioeconomic impacts. Recent non-blacknose SCS landings have been below 176.1, thus, this commercial quota could allow for increased landings and additional revenue if the entire quota is caught, which could have beneficial socioeconomic impacts. However, since the proposed commercial quota of 176.1 mt dw would not be adjusted for underharvests due to the unknown status of bonnethead sharks, the fishermen participating in this fishery would be capped at a lower quota than is possible in the current non-blacknose SCS fisheries if there is underharvest, potentially leading to long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts. NMFS does not expect fishing effort to dramatically increase for non-blacknose SCS in the southern region of the Atlantic, since this fishery would continue to be limited by blacknose shark landings and the linkage between these two groups. Preferred Alternative C6 would maintain fishing mortality at current levels and would not have unnecessary adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Cumulatively, Alternatives C4 and C6 would have positive impacts on the current state of shark fisheries in the Atlantic Region. Implementing the northern and southern sub-regional quotas proposed in Alternative C4 would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or when regional time/area closures are not in effect. Additionally, Alternative C4 would provide increased flexibility in the application of shark management measures throughout the Atlantic region, without having any adverse economic or ecological consequences. The non-blacknose SCS commercial quota under preferred Alternative C6 would continue to allow fishermen to land these species at current levels, while maintaining the Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead stocks at sustainable levels. It more accurately reflects the status of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks and considers the sources of mortality for all three non-blacknose SCS. Therefore, because of the neutral ecological impacts expected to shark species as well as non-target, incidental species and bycatch, and the moderately beneficial socioeconomic impacts expected by these combined measures, NMFS prefers these alternatives at this time.
NMFS also analyzed five other alternatives related to Atlantic sub-regional quotas that are not preferred at this time. Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, would not change the current commercial quota management in the Atlantic shark fisheries. Alternative C2 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 33°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas, while maintaining all current quota linkages. Alternative C3 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at Wilmington, North Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas, while maintaining all current quota linkages. Alternative C5 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 177.3 mt dw and reduce the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota to 128 mt dw (282,238 lb dw), based on the results of the 2013 assessment for bonnethead sharks. Alternative C7 would establish a non-blacknose SCS
Similar to management measures considered in the Atlantic region, NMFS is also considering implementing sub-regional quotas for shark management groups in the Gulf of Mexico region. The two preferred alternatives are Alternative D4 and D6. Alternative D4 would apportion the base annual commercial quotas for the Gulf of Mexico LCS management groups into eastern and western sub-regional quotas along 89°00′ W Longitude, based on historical landings percentages (see Discussion in section 2.4 of Draft EA). It would also maintain the linkage between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, eliminate the linkage between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and prohibit the harvest and landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. NMFS would maintain linkages between the remaining management groups. Removing linkages between the additional management groups would require an adjustment in quotas in order to account for potential interactions and mortalities, and could result in an increase in regulatory discards. The western sub-regional quota for hammerhead sharks would be 0 mt dw. Sub-regional quotas for LCS, based on percentages of landings apportioned to each sub-region, are outlined for the Gulf of Mexico LCS in Figure 2. As described above in the Atlantic regional and sub-regional quotas section, any overharvest of the overall regional base quota would be deducted from the sub-region(s) that caused the overharvest. However, if a sub-region's quota is overharvested but the overall regional quota is not exceeded, then no overharvest would be deducted from either sub-region the following fishing season. In addition, in cases where carry over is allowed, any underharvest of the overall regional base quota would be equally distributed to both sub-regions in the next fishing season, unless the status of the species or one of the species in the management group is unknown, overfished, or overfishing is occurring, in which case, NMFS would not carry over the underharvest to the following year's base annual quota.
Preferred Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts on LCS within the western and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions. The preferred sub-regional LCS quotas would have no impact on the current level of fishing pressure, catch rates or distribution of fishing effort since current LCS quotas are being maintained, but instead represents an administrative change in how quotas are monitored throughout the Gulf of Mexico region. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no changes would be made in the existing quota linkages between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks, which would likely result in neutral ecological impacts, since current conditions would be maintained. In contrast, in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, quota linkages would be removed between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks. While quota linkages mitigate incidental mortality of species caught together, only 0.6 percent of hammerhead shark landings in the Gulf of Mexico region can be attributed to fishing activities in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. In the western Gulf of Mexico region, due to the difficulties associated with managing a small quota of 0.1 mt dw, harvest of hammerhead sharks would be prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico would reduce the likelihood of overharvesting the hammerhead shark quota by quickly exceeding a small quota, and eliminate the need to monitor a small quota. Because landings of hammerhead in the western Gulf of Mexico are minimal, Alternative D4 would still likely result in neutral ecological impacts on LCS within the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral socioeconomic impacts across the entire Gulf of Mexico region, as increased revenues associated with increased flexibility with season opening dates as a result of implementing sub-regional quotas would be countered by potential losses from prohibiting landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico. Removing quota linkages within the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would have beneficial socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen active in this region would be able to continue fishing for aggregated LCS without fishing activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region determining the timing of the aggregated LCS fishery closure. Economic advantages associated with removing quota linkages, allowing the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region to continue to land a larger number of aggregated LCS, would offset any potential lost income from prohibiting landings of hammerhead shark. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no socioeconomic impacts are expected by maintaining the quota linkages already in place for LCS.
The other preferred alternative, Alternative D6, would establish a Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw and increase the commercial quota in the Gulf of Mexico region to the 2014 adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw). This TAC is calculated by summing the sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region
Alternative D6 would result in both direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts because it would increase the commercial quota above the current base non-blacknose SCS quota, providing fishermen with additional opportunities to profit from landing non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region, while keeping interactions with blacknose sharks at current levels, as quota linkages would be maintained. Given current financial difficulties faced by fishermen, associated with declining ex-vessel prices and restrictions on the sale of shark fins, the beneficial socioeconomic impacts of increasing the annual quota by 12.8 mt dw from the current base quota would likely be minimal. In addition, the proposed commercial quota of 68.3 mt dw could have minor adverse impacts since 2013 non-blacknose SCS landings exceeded this commercial quota. However, due to the uncertainties in SEDAR 34 and given the unknown stock status of bonnethead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region and uncertainty about the data and life history information for finetooth sharks, NMFS believes that the proposed commercial quota would continue to provide fishermen with sufficient opportunity to harvest non-blacknose SCS, while maintaining the species at sustainable levels.
Cumulatively, Alternatives D4 and D6 would have positive impacts on the current state of shark fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico region. Implementing the eastern and western sub-regional quotas in Alternative D4 would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or periods when sales of shark meat are increased, as well as providing increased revenue associated with potentially landing a larger portion of their sub-regional quota. Additionally, Alternative D4 would provide increased flexibility in the application of shark management measures throughout the Gulf of Mexico region, without having any adverse economic or ecological consequences. Alternative D6 would allow for non-blacknose SCS landings to be capped at the 2014 adjusted quota, and be conservative based on uncertainties associated with the SEDAR 34 stock assessment for bonnethead sharks and the SEDAR 13 stock assessment for finetooth sharks. Because of the neutral ecological impacts expected to shark species as well as non-target, incidental species and bycatch, and the moderately beneficial economic impact expected by these combined measures, NMFS prefers these alternatives at this time.
NMFS also analyzed five other alternatives related to Gulf of Mexico sub-regional quotas that are not preferred at this time. Alternative D1, the No Action alternative, would not change the current quota management of the shark fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Alternative D2 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for LCS along 89°00′ W Longitude into eastern and western sub-regional quotas, while maintaining current linkages. Alternative D3 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for LCS along 88°00′ W Longitude into eastern and western sub-regional quotas, while maintaining current linkages. Alternative D5 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 931.9 mt dw, based on current levels of catch, and maintain the current commercial base annual non-blacknose SCS quota of 45.5 mt dw (100,317 lb dw). Alternative D7 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 1,064.9 mt dw and increase the commercial quota to twice the 2013 landings, which is 178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw). While some of these alternatives share some similar components with the preferred alternatives, NMFS does not prefer the remaining alternatives at this time for a variety of reasons. Alternative D1, the status quo alternative, does not address some of the issues facing the Atlantic shark fisheries and the current purpose of Amendment 6 is to increase flexibility for shark fishermen. Alternative D2 does not take into consideration quota linkages between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks. While Alternative D3 would have neutral ecological impacts on Gulf of Mexico shark species and non-target species and have beneficial economic impacts, the alternative is not preferred because the split in Alternatives D2 and D4 may reflect the distribution of fishing constituents better. The quota under Alternative D5 would not address the financial difficulties faced by shark fishermen throughout the Gulf of Mexico or improve the current state of the Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries. Finally, the increased quota under Alternative D7 could likely negatively impact blacknose sharks, which have an unknown status, and would have an unknown impact on finetooth sharks.
NMFS is considering removing the upgrading restrictions for shark LAP holders in order to reduce restrictions for fishermen to buy and sell shark permits. The current preferred alternative, Alternative E2, would remove current upgrading restrictions for shark directed LAP holders. Eliminating these restrictions would have short- and long-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or transfer shark directed permits without worrying about the increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. In addition, the upgrade restriction for shark permit holders was implemented in part to match the upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits. NMFS is currently considering removing the upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits, and if those are removed, then removing the upgrading restrictions for shark directed LAP holders could aid in maintaining consistency for fishermen who hold
NMFS also analyzed the No Action alternative that would have maintained the current upgrading restrictions related to horsepower, length overall, gross registered tonnage and net tonnage. This alternative would have neutral ecological and socioeconomic impacts, since it would maintain the status quo. However, the No Action alternative limits fishermen's ability to update vessels or engines to more fuel-efficient ones and would provide less flexibility for fishermen when buying, selling, or transferring LAPs than the preferred alternative.
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA for Draft Amendment 6 that discusses the impact on the environment that would occur as a result of this proposed action. In this proposed action, NMFS is considering both adjusting current management measures affecting the Atlantic shark fisheries, as well as creating new measures that provide managers and fishermen with operational and implementation flexibility. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule would have on small entities if adopted. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. This proposed action is being considered to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and ending overfishing. In September 2010, NMFS published an ANPR to request public comment on potential adjustments to the regulations governing the Atlantic shark fisheries to address specific issues currently affecting management of the shark fisheries and to identify specific goals for management of these fisheries in the future. Based on the comments received on the ANPR, in September 2011, NMFS published a NOI to prepare an FMP Amendment that would consider catch shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries. Since the publication of the NOI, there have been a few major changes in the Federal management of the Atlantic shark fisheries, including the publication of Amendment 5a. In addition to the changes in Federal regulations, there have also been changes in state shark management, such as the shark fin possession prohibitions. In considering comments received on the ANPR and NOI, in April 2014, NMFS released a Predraft for Amendment 6 that included management options for changes to regional quota and permit structures. On May, 27 2014, NMFS published another NOI announcing its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) instead of an Environmental Impact Statement and that the agency is moving away from the catch share concept for this particular Amendment. Since the publication of these documents, and reviewing the comments received, NMFS has continued to consider various ways to move forward to address recurring issues through regulations that provide managers and fishermen with increased management and implementation flexibility, while maintaining conservation measures for the commercial shark fisheries.
Section 603(b)(2) requires Agencies to describe the objectives of the proposed rule. The management goals and objectives of this action are to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and ending overfishing. To achieve this purpose and need, and to comply with existing statutes such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its objectives, NMFS has identified the following objectives with regard to this proposed action:
• Increasing the efficiency in the LCS and SCS fisheries;
• Maintaining or increasing equity across all shark fishermen and regions;
• Promoting economic viability for the shark fishery participants;
• Obtaining optimum yield from the LCS and SCS fisheries;
• Maintaining or increasing management flexibility for the shark fisheries;
• Decreasing dead discards of sharks;
• Continuing to rebuild overfished shark stocks; and
• Preventing overfishing of shark stocks.
Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas.
NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. Under the former, lower size standards, all entities subject to this action were considered small entities, thus they all would continue to be considered small under the new standards. NMFS does not think that the new size standards affect analyses prepared for this action and solicits public comment on the analyses in light of the new size standards. Under these standards, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS permit holders subject to this rulemaking to be small entities.
As discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EA for Amendment 6, the proposed rule would apply to the 473 commercial shark permit holders in the Atlantic shark fishery, based on an analysis of permit holders as of September 2014. Of these permit holders, 214 have directed shark permits and 259 hold incidental shark permits. Not all permit holders are active in the fishery in any given year. Active directed permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Based on 2013 HMS electronic dealer data, 68 shark directed permit holders were active in the Atlantic and 22 shark directed permit holders were active in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS has determined that the proposed rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions. More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected and the categories and number of permit holders can be found in Chapter 3 of the Draft EA for Amendment 6.
Section 603(b)(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a final rule that, among other things, listed as threatened under the ESA a Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of scalloped hammerhead sharks (79 FR 38214). This DPS occurs within the boundary of Atlantic HMS commercial and recreational fisheries, which are managed by NMFS. On August 27, 2014, NMFS published a final rule that, among other things, listed as threatened, or determined that threatened status was still warranted for, seven species of corals that occur within the boundary of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
On October 30, 2014, based on the new listings, NMFS requested reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation on the continued operation and use of HMS gear types (bandit gear, bottom longline, buoy gear, handline, and rod and reel) and associated fisheries management actions in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS also submitted a biological evaluation to support this request for reinitiation of consultation and to provide supplemental information for an
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of “significant” alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from compliance requirements. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives.
The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels. In this rulemaking, we considered 6 different categories of management measures to address current issues facing LCS and SCS shark fisheries. These categories are permit stacking (A1-A3), commercial retention limits (B1-B4), Atlantic sub-regional quotas (C1-C7), Gulf of Mexico sub-regional quotas (D1-D7), and upgrading restrictions (E1 and E2).
Under Alternative A1, the preferred alternative, NMFS would not implement permit stacking for the shark directed limited access permit holders. NMFS would continue to allow only one directed limited access permit per vessel and thus one retention limit. The current retention limit of 36 LCS per trip would result in potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. It is likely that this alternative could possibly have minor adverse socioeconomic impacts in the long term, because if fishermen are unable to retain an increased number of LCS per trip by stacking permits, the profitability of each trip could decline over time, due to declining prices for shark products and increasing prices for gas, bait, and other associated costs. The No Action alternative could also have neutral indirect impacts to those supporting the commercial shark fisheries, since the retention limits, and thus current fishing efforts, would not change under this alternative.
Under Alternative A2, NMFS would allow fishermen to concurrently use a maximum of two shark directed permits on one vessel, which would result in aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits. Under the current LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would allow a vessel with two stacked permits to have a LCS retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448 lb of meat, 124 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins, which is an increase of $1,166 per trip compared to the status quo alternative. For fishermen that currently have two directed limited access permits, this alternative would have short-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts because these fishermen would be able to stack their permits and avail themselves of the retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. The higher retention limit is likely to make each trip more profitable for fishermen, as well as more efficient, if they decide to take fewer trips and in turn save money on gas, bait, and other associated costs. This alternative could also have indirect, minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts to entities supporting the commercial shark fisheries, such as fishing tackle manufacturers and suppliers, bait suppliers, fuel providers, and shark dealers, because the increased efficiency and profitability in the fisheries could also lead to increases in potential employment, personal income, and sales for the entities supporting the fisheries. However, the current number of directed permits in the Atlantic region is 136, and 130 of those permits have different owners. In the Gulf of Mexico, of the 83 directed shark permits, 73 have different owners. Therefore, it is unlikely that many of the current directed shark permit holders would be able to benefit from this alternative in the short-term. In addition, the cost of one directed shark permit can run anywhere between $2,000 and $5,000, which could be difficult for many shark fishermen to afford. For fishermen that do not currently have more than one directed shark permit, this alternative could have long-term minor beneficial impacts if these fishermen are able to acquire an additional permit and offset the cost of the additional permit by taking advantage of the potential economic benefits of the higher retention limits. Nevertheless, this alternative is unlikely to have beneficial socioeconomic impacts for the shark fishery as a whole because only shark fishermen that could afford to buy multiple shark permits would benefit from the higher retention limit and higher revenues whereas those shark fishermen that cannot afford to buy a second directed shark permit would be at a disadvantage, unable to economically benefit from the higher retention limits. Given the current make-up of the shark fishery, which primarily consists of small business fishermen with only one permit, and the cost of the additional permit, this could potentially lead to inequity and unfairness among the directed shark permit holders if those fishermen that currently have multiple directed permits or that could afford to buy an additional directed permit gain an economic advantage.
Under Alternative A3, NMFS would allow fishermen to concurrently use a maximum of three shark directed permits on one vessel, which would result in aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits. Under the current LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that a vessel with three stacked permits would have a LCS retention limit of 108 LCS per trip. This alternative would allow shark directed permit holders to retain three times as many LCS per trip then the current retention limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of
Alternative B1 would not change the current commercial LCS retention limit for shark directed permit holders. The retention limit would remain at 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for directed permit holders. This retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. It is likely that this alternative would have short-term neutral socioeconomic impacts, since the retention limits would not change under this alternative. However, not adjusting the retention limit would have long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts, due to the expected continuing decline in prices for shark products and increase in gas, bait, and other associated costs, which would lead to declining profitability of individual trips. In recent years, there have been changes in federal and state regulations, including the implementation of Amendment 5a and state bans on the possession, sale, and trade of shark fins, which have impacted shark fishermen. In addition to federal and state regulations, there have also been many international efforts to prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as campaigns targeted at the shark fin soup markets. All of these efforts have impacted the market and demand for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has seen a steady decline in ex-vessel prices for shark fins in all regions since 2010 (NMFS 2013).
Alternative B2, the preferred alternative, would increase the LCS retention limit to a maximum of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for shark directed permit holders and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb dw). This alternative would allow shark directed permit holders to retain 19 more LCS per trip than the current retention limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This alternative would have short- and long-term direct minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since shark directed permit holders could land more sharks per trip when compared to the current retention limit of 36 LCS per trip. The higher retention limit is likely to make each trip more profitable for fishermen, as well as more efficient, if they decide to take fewer trips, and in turn save money on fuel, bait, and other associated costs. Regarding the shark research fishery, this alternative could cause an average annual loss of $85,944, since the sandbar research fishery quota would be reduced by 90,230 lb dw. This potential lost income for the research fishery could be positive for commercial fishermen, since the increased retention limit could make trips more profitable. NMFS estimates that this reduction in the sandbar research fishery quota would have neutral socioeconomic impacts, based on current limited resources available to fund observed trips in the fishery and the current harvest level of the sandbar research fishery quota. In 2013, the vessels participating in the Atlantic shark research fishery only landed 37.0 mt dw (81,628 lb dw), or 32 percent, of the available sandbar shark quota. Under the new sandbar shark quota with the Atlantic shark research fishery, the 2013 landings would result in 49 percent of the new sandbar shark quota being landed. If available resources increase in the future for more observed trips in the fishery, then this alternative could have minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if the full quota is caught and the fishery has to close earlier in the year.
Alternative B3 would increase the LCS retention limit to a maximum of 72 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for shark directed permit holders and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 63.0 mt dw (138,937 lb dw). This alternative would double the current retention limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448 lb of meat, 124 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This alternative would have short- and long-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since shark directed permit holders could land twice as many LCS per trip. Shark directed trips would become more profitable, but more permit holders could become active in order to avail themselves of this higher trip limit. Before Amendment 2, there were 143 active directed shark permit holders, and the number of active directed shark permit holders has declined to 90, due to the current retention limit and declines in shark product prices. The increased retention limit could cause some fishermen to become active again, potentially causing a derby fishery and bringing the price of shark products even lower. Thus, NMFS needs to balance providing the flexibility of increasing the efficiency of trips and the associated socioeconomic benefits with the negative socioeconomic impacts of derby fishing and lower profits. This alternative could have neutral impacts for fishermen participating in the Atlantic shark research fishery, since the 2013 landings (37.0 mt dw; 81,628 lb dw) would result in 59 percent of the new sandbar shark quota being landed. Under Alternative B3, the new sandbar shark quota could result in average annual loss revenue of $112,508 for those fishermen participating in the shark research fishery, but the income could be recouped by the increased retention limit outside the shark research fishery. If available resources increase in the future for more observed trips in the fishery, then this alternative
Alternative B4 would increase the LCS retention limit to a maximum of 108 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for shark directed permit holders and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb dw). This alternative would allow shark directed permit holders to retain three times as many LCS per trip as the current retention limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This alternative could have short- and long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since shark directed permit holders could land three times the current LCS retention limit. This increased retention limit could result in 3,672 lb dw of LCS per trip, which could bring the fishery almost back to historical levels of 4,000 lb dw LCS per trip. While a retention limit of 108 LCS per trip would make each trip more profitable and potentially require fishermen to take fewer trips per year, this large increase in the retention limit could cause a lot more permit holders to become active. Thus, the profit of individual vessels could decrease, because LCS quotas could be caught at a faster rate, and the fishing season could be shortened. Additionally, in order to increase the retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the sandbar shark research quota would need to be reduced to an amount below what is currently being landed in the shark research fishery, which would have adverse impacts on fishermen in the shark research fishery, who would lose quota, and thus revenue.
Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, would not change the current management of the Atlantic shark fisheries. This alternative would likely result in short-term, direct neutral socioeconomic impacts as fisheries would continue to operate under current conditions, with shark fishermen continuing to fish at current rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the Atlantic region would be $339,998, while the shark fins would be $76,299. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings in the Atlantic region would be $416,297 ($339,998 + $76,299), which is 9 percent of the entire revenue for the shark fishery. For the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark landings, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from the meat would be $304,747, while the shark fins would be $75,537. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark landings in the Atlantic region would be $380,284 ($304,747 + $75,537), which is 8 percent of the entire revenue for the shark fishery. However, this alternative would likely result in long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts. Negative impacts would be partly due to the continued negative effects of federal and state regulations related to shark finning and sale of shark fins, which have resulted in declining ex-vessel prices of fins since 2010, as well as continued changes in shark fishery management measures. Additionally, under the current regulations, fishermen operating in the south of the Atlantic region drastically impact the availability of quota remaining for fishermen operating in the north of the Atlantic region. If fishermen in the south fish early in the year, they have the ability to land a large proportion of the quota before fishermen in the north have the opportunity to fish, due to time/area closures and seasonal migrations of LCS and SCS. Indirect short-term socioeconomic impacts resulting from any of the actions in Alternative C1 would likely be neutral because the measures would maintain the status quo with respect to shark landings and fishing effort. However, this alternative would likely result in indirect long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts. Negative socioeconomic impacts and decreased revenues associated with financial difficulties experienced by fishermen within Atlantic shark fisheries would carry over to the dealers and supporting businesses they regularly interact with.
Alternative C2 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 33°00′ N. Lat. (approximately at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas and potentially adjust the non-blacknose SCS quota based on the results of the 2013 assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks. Establishing sub-regional quotas could allow for flexibility in seasonal openings within the Atlantic region. Different seasonal openings within sub-regions would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or when regional time/area closures are not in effect. This would benefit the economic interests of North Carolina and Florida fishermen, the primary constituents impacted by the timing of seasonal openings for LCS and SCS in the Atlantic, by placing them in separate sub-regions with separate sub-regional quotas. Under this alternative, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 24.5 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (41.4 mt dw; 91,275 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $86,970, while the shark fins would be $19,705. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $106,675 ($86,970 + $19,705). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,749 per vessel. When compared to the other alternatives, the northern Atlantic sub-region would have minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts under Alternative C2, because this alternative would result in the highest total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks. In the southern Atlantic sub-region, fishermen would receive 75.5 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (127.5 mt dw; 281,277 lb dw) and 65.9 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $253,029, while the shark fins would be $56,593. The total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $309,622 ($253,029 + $56,593). When compared to the other alternatives, the southern Atlantic sub-region would have minor adverse socioeconomic impacts under Alternative C2, because this alternative would result in lower total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks.
Under Alternative C2, NMFS would determine the blacknose shark quota for each sub-region using the percentage of landings associated with blacknose sharks within each sub-region and the new non-blacknose SCS quotas in conjunction with Alternatives C5, C6,
This alternative would have minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts for the northern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to Alternative C3, because fishermen in the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive a higher quota under Alternative C2. Alternative C2 would have minor adverse economic impacts for the southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to other alternatives, because fishermen in the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive a lower quota under Alternative C2. The slight increase in some of the sub-regional quotas within the northern Atlantic sub-region would result in direct short-term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate beneficial impacts. Beneficial economic impacts are based on increased average annual gross revenues associated with increased aggregated LCS, hammerhead, and non-blacknose SCS sub-regional quotas in the northern Atlantic region seen in this alternative. While Alternative C2 would allow fishermen flexibility to maximize landings of LCS and SCS within their associated sub-regions, it does not take into consideration the SEDAR 34 stock assessment results or the quota linkages between non-blacknose SCS and blacknose sharks, and therefore, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
Alternative C3 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. (approximately at Wilmington, North Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas and potentially adjust the non-blacknose SCS quota based on the results of the 2013 assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks. This alternative would likely result in direct short-term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate beneficial impacts. However, drawing the regional boundary between the northern and southern Atlantic sub-regions along 34°00′ N. Lat. would result in more equitable sub-regional quotas, in comparison to the boundary considered in Alternative C2. Under this alternative, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 19.7 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (33.3 mt dw; 73,393 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $72,485, while the shark fins would be $16,549. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $89,034 ($72,485 + $16,549). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,460 per vessel. When compared to Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would have minor adverse economic impacts under this alternative. In the southern Atlantic sub-region, fishermen would receive 80.3 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (135.6 mt dw; 299,159 lb dw) and 65.9 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $267,513, while the shark fins would be $59,750. The total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $327,263 ($267,513 + $59,750). There are approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $5,113 per vessel. This alternative would have minor beneficial economic impacts for the southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to Alternative C2.
As in Alternative C2, NMFS would determine the blacknose shark quota for each sub-region using the percentage of landings associated with blacknose sharks within each sub-region in Alternative C3 and the new non-blacknose SCS quotas in conjunction in Alternatives C5, C6, and C7. Under Alternative C3, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota, while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota. For the blacknose sharks, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 4.5 percent of the total blacknose shark quota (0.8 mt dw; 1,732 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 95.5 percent of the total blacknose shark quota (16.7 mt dw; 36,899 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacknose shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $1,443, while the shark fins would be $307. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacknose shark landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $1,750 ($1,443 + $307). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacknose shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $30,626, while the shark fins would be $6,513. The total average annual gross revenues for blacknose shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $37,139 ($30,626 + $6,513). This alternative would have neutral socioeconomic impacts for the northern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to Alternative C2, and would have beneficial socioeconomic impacts for the southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to Alternative C2.
Alternative C4, one of the preferred alternatives, would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for certain LCS and SCS management groups along 34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at Wilmington, North Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas, maintain SCS quota linkages in the southern sub-region of the Atlantic region, remove the SCS quota linkages in the northern sub-region of the Atlantic region, and prohibit the harvest and landings of blacknose sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region. The socioeconomic impacts of apportioning the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. into northern and southern sub-regional quotas as preferred in this alternative would have the same impacts as described in
Alternative C5 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 353.2 mt dw and reduce the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota to 128 mt dw (282,238 lb dw). When combined with the other alternatives to establish sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the economic impacts of Alternative C5 would vary based on the alternative. Under Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (41.2 mt dw; 90,881 lb dw) and the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (86.8 mt dw; 191,357 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $63,617, while the shark fins would be $16,040. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $79,657 ($63,617 + $16,040). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,306 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $133,950, while the shark fins would be $33,775. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $167,724 ($133,950 + $33,775). There are approximately 56 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $2,995 per vessel. Sub-regional quotas under Alternative C2 are about a two percent increase in landings allocated to the northern region for non-blacknose SCS when compared to Alternative C3. This percentage would lead to a slight increase in some of the sub-regional quotas within the northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to Alternative C3, and would result in short-term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately long-term moderate beneficial impacts in the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C5 and the sub-regional split under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred alternative), the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (38.8 mt dw; 85,518 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (89.2 mt dw; 196,720 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $59,863, while the shark fins would be $15,094. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $74,957 ($59,863 + $15,094). There are approximately 53 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,414 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $137,704, while the shark fins would be $34,721. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $172,425 ($137,704 + $34,721). There are approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $2,694 per vessel. Overall, the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota considered under this alternative is almost thirty percent less than the current base quota and less than half of the current adjusted quota for this management group. Therefore, NMFS believes this alternative would have short- and long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts due to the quota being capped at a lower level than what is currently being landed in the non-blacknose SCS fisheries, leading to a loss in annual revenue for these shark fishermen. In addition, the adverse impacts would be compounded by the unknown stock status of bonnethead, which would prevent NMFS from carrying forward underharvested quota. Thus, the commercial quota of 128 mt dw would not be adjusted and the fishermen would be limited to this amount each year, which could lead to shorter seasons and reduced flexibility, potentially affecting fishermen's decisions to participate.
Under Alternative C6, a preferred alternative, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC and maintain the current base annual quota of 176.1 mt dw (388,222 lb dw). When combined with the other alternatives to establish sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the economic impacts of Alternative C6 would vary based on the sub-regional quotas. Under Alternatives C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (56.7 mt dw; 125,007 lb dw) and the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (119.4 mt dw; 263,215 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $87,505, while the shark fins would be $22,064. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $109,569 ($87,505 + $22,064). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,796 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $184,251, while the shark fins would be $46,457. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $230,708 ($184,251 +
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C6 and the sub-regional split considered under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred alternative), the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (53.4 mt dw; 117,631 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (123.7 mt dw; 270,591 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $82,342, while the shark fins would be $20,762. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $103,104 ($82,342 + $20,762). There are approximately 53 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,945 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $189,414, while the shark fins would be $47,759. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $237,173 ($189,414 + $47,759). There are approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $3,706 per vessel. Overall, Alternative C6 would lead to a lower quota in the northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to current landings under the higher base quota. However, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time because it accounts for the status of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks and takes into account all sources of mortality for both species and would continue to allow fishermen to land non-blacknose SCS at current levels.
Under Alternative C7, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 489.3 mt dw and increase the quota to the current adjusted base annual quota of 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). The economic impacts of Alternative C7 would vary when combined with the other alternatives to establish sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas. Under Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (85.0 mt dw; 187,511 lb dw) and the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (179.1 mt dw; 394,822 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $131,258, while the shark fins would be $33,096. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $164,353 ($131,258 + $33,096). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $2,694 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $276,375, while the shark fins would be $69,686. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $346,061 ($276,375 + $69,686). There are approximately 56 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $6,179 per vessel. Sub-regional quotas under Alternatives C2 would lead to some slightly higher sub-regional quotas within the northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to Alternative C3 and C4, and would result in short-term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately long-term moderate beneficial impacts in the northern Atlantic sub-region, especially if there is no quota linkage to blacknose sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C7 and the sub-regional split considered under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred alternative), the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (80.0 mt dw; 176,447 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (184.1 mt dw; 405,886 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $123,513, while the shark fins would be $31,143. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $154,656 ($123,513 + $31,143). There are approximately 53 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $2,918 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $284,120, while the shark fins would be $71,639. The total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $355,759 ($284,120 + $71,639). There are approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $5,559 per vessel. Overall, Alternative C7 would lead to the same quota in the northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to current landings under the higher base quota. However, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time, because it would cap the non-blacknose SCS commercial at a higher level than Alternative C6 and does not account for the uncertainties in the SEDAR 34 bonnethead stock assessment.
Alternative D1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the current regional quotas and quota linkages in the Gulf of Mexico region and continue to allow harvest of hammerhead sharks throughout the entire Gulf of Mexico region. This alternative would likely result in short-term neutral direct socioeconomic impacts, because shark fishermen would continue to operate under current conditions, with shark fishermen continuing to fish at similar rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the Gulf of Mexico region would be $440,365, while the shark fins would be $554,750. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
Alternative D2 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip, aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks along 89°00′ W Longitude into western and eastern sub-regional quotas. Establishing sub-regional quotas would provide flexibility in seasonal openings within the Gulf of Mexico region. Different seasonal openings within sub-regions would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or during periods when sales of shark meat are increased (
In the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region under alternative D2, fishermen would receive 65.7 percent of the total blacktip quota (180.2 mt dw; 397,239 lb dw), 42.5 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (64.2 mt dw; 141,877 lb dw), and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $236,497, while the shark fins would be $95,213. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $331,710 ($236,497 + $95,213). There are approximately 24 directed shark permit holders in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. Based on this number of individual directed permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $13,821 per vessel. The slight increase in the blacktip shark sub-regional quota in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, in comparison to Alternative D3, would result in direct short-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Over time, increased revenues gained from the additional blacktip shark sub-regional quota, as well as increased revenue associated with fishermen maximizing their fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters, could ultimately have direct long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Under this alternative the quota for hammerheads sharks in the western sub-region would be 0.1 mt dw, which would be very difficult for NMFS to monitor and control, possibly leading to the quota being overharvested. This small hammerhead quota could lead to the aggregated LCS season being closed very early, and thus fishermen losing revenues if they are not able to land the aggregated LCS species. Therefore, because this alternative does not take into consideration the quota linkages between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks, NMFS does not prefer this alternative.
Alternative D3 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks along 88°00′ W Longitude into western and eastern sub-regional quotas. Under this alternative, the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would receive 31.2 percent of the total blacktip quota (85.6 mt dw; 188,643 lb dw), 53.2 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (80.4 mt dw; 177,596 lb dw), and 99.4 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (25.2 mt dw; 55,388 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues
In the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region under alternative D3, fishermen would receive 68.8 percent of the total blacktip quota (188.7 mt dw; 415,983 lb dw), 46.8 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (70.8 mt dw; 156,232 lb dw), and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $251,403, while the shark fins would be $101,055. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $352,458 ($251,403 + $101,055). There are approximately 24 directed shark permit holders in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. Based on this number of individual directed permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $14,686 per vessel. This alternative would have minor beneficial economic impacts for the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region fishermen when compared to other alternatives, because fishermen in the sub-region would receive a higher quota. This alternative would likely result in direct short-term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate beneficial impacts. However, drawing the regional boundary between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions along 88°00′ W Long. (
Alternative D4, one of the preferred alternatives, would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks along 89°00′ W Longitude into western and eastern sub-regional quotas and would maintain LCS quota linkages in the eastern sub-region of the Gulf of Mexico region, remove the LCS quota linkages in the western sub-region of the Gulf of Mexico region, and prohibit the harvest of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. Removing quota linkages within the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would have beneficial socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen active in this region would be able to continuing fishing for aggregated LCS sharks without fishing activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region dictating the timing of the aggregated LCS fishery closure. Economic advantages associated with removing quota linkages, allowing the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region to land a larger number of aggregated LCS, would outweigh the income lost from prohibiting landings of hammerhead sharks, particularly considering that the estimated hammerhead quota for the western Gulf of Mexico would be 0.1 mt dw. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no socioeconomic impacts are expected by maintaining the quota linkages already in place for LCS. Thus, Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and indirect short- and long-term neutral socioeconomic impacts across the entire Gulf of Mexico region, as increased revenues associated with increased flexibility with season opening dates as a result of implementing sub-regional quotas would be countered by potential losses from prohibiting landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico. Because Alternative D4 would have neutral economic impacts, but still maintain the objective of providing flexibility of implementation of shark management measures through the region, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time.
Under Alternative D5, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 931.9 mt dw and maintain the current base annual quota of 45.5 mt dw (100,317 lb dw). This alternative would likely result in moderate adverse socioeconomic impacts, due to the quota being capped at a lower level than what the SEDAR 34 stock assessment indicated was sustainable. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark meat in the Gulf of Mexico region would be $32,101, while the shark fins would be $55,977. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings would be $88,078 ($32,101 + $55,977). There are approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf of Mexico, which would result in average annual gross revenues for all SCS species of $979 per vessel. When compared to Alternative D6, the preferred alternative, this alternative would result in $44,040 ($132,118−$88,078) less in total gross annual revenue, or $489 less per vessel. In addition, the smaller quota under Alternative D5 could lead to shorter seasons, when compared to 2013 landings. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
Under Alternative D6, the preferred alternative, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw and increase the quota to the current adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf of Mexico region would be $48,152, while the shark fins would be $83,966. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings would be $132,118 ($48,152 + $83,966). There are approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf of Mexico, which would result in average annual gross revenues for all SCS species of $1,468 per vessel. NMFS prefers this alternative at this time because it would increase the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota above the current base quota and provide fishermen with additional opportunities to profit from landing non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region, compared to the quota considered under Alternative D5, while also taking into account uncertainties in SEDAR 34, as well as the unknown status of bonnethead sharks.
Under Alternative D7, would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 1,064.9 mt dw and increase the quota to 178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw). Under this alternative, the commercial quota would be increased to twice the current 2013 landings, which is almost four times the
Under Alternative E1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would maintain the current upgrading restrictions in place for shark limited access permit holders. Thus, shark limited access permit holders would continue to be limited to upgrading a vessel or transferring a permit only if it does not result in an increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. The No Action alternative could result in direct and indirect minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if fishermen continue to be constrained by limits on horsepower and vessel size increases. Fishermen would also be limited by these upgrading restrictions when buying, selling, or transferring shark directed limited access permits. Because the No Action alternative provides fishermen with less operational flexibility, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
Alternative E2, a preferred alternative, would remove current upgrading restrictions for shark directed permit holders. Eliminating these restrictions would have short- and long-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or transfer shark directed permits without worrying about the increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. In addition, the upgrade restriction for shark permit holders was implemented to match the upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits. NMFS is currently considering removing the upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits, and if those are removed, then removing the upgrading restrictions for shark directed permit holders could aid in maintaining consistency for fishermen who hold multiple permits.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Penalties, Permits and fees, Commercial retention limits, Quotas.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Subject to the restrictions on upgrading the harvesting capacity of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and to the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner may transfer a shark or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to another vessel that he or she owns or to another person. Directed handgear LAPs for swordfish may be transferred to another vessel or to another person but only for use with handgear and subject to the upgrading restrictions in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section and the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section. Shark directed and incidental LAPs and swordfish incidental LAPs are not subject to the upgrading requirements specified in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section. Shark and swordfish incidental LAPs are not subject to the ownership requirements specified in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) An owner may upgrade a vessel with a swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit, or transfer such permit to another vessel or to another person, and be eligible to retain or renew such permit only if the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. A vessel owner that concurrently held a directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a directed or incidental shark LAP, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit as of August 6, 2007, is eligible to increase the vessel size or transfer the permits to another vessel as long as any increase in the three specifications of vessel size (length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage) does not exceed 35 percent of the vessel baseline specifications, as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(ii)(A) of this section; horsepower for those eligible vessels is not limited for purposes of vessel upgrades or permit transfers.
(a) * * *
(2) Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed LAP for sharks and that has been issued a shark research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain, possess, or land no more than 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip if the respective LCS management group(s) is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
(3) Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP for sharks and that has been issued a valid shark research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain, possess, or land no more than 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip if the respective LCS management group(s) is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
(4) * * *
(v) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a shark LAP and is operating in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, as defined at § 635.27(b)(1)(ii), may not retain, possess, land, or sell any hammerhead sharks.
(vi) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a shark LAP and is operating in the northern Atlantic sub-region, as defined at § 635.27(b)(1)(i), may not retain, possess, land, or sell any blacknose sharks.
(b)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(2)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(b)
(i) No overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as applicable, is specified at § 635.27(b)(1);
(ii) The overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as applicable, specified at § 635.27(b)(1) is zero;
(iii) After accounting for overharvests as specified at § 635.27(b)(2), the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as applicable, is determined to be zero or close to zero and NMFS has closed the fishery by publication of a notice in the
(iv) The species is a prohibited species as listed under Table 1 of Appendix A of this part; or
(v) Landings of the species and/or management group meet the requirements specified in § 635.28(b)(2) through (5) and NMFS has closed the fishery by publication of a notice in the
(2) Non-linked quotas: If the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota of a species or management group is not linked to another species or management group and that overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota is available as specified by a publication in the
(3) Linked Quotas: As specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quotas of some shark species and/or management groups are linked to the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quotas of other shark species and/or management groups. For each pair of linked species and/or management groups, if the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota specified in § 635.27(b)(1) is available for both of the linked species and/or management groups as specified by a publication in the
(4) The quotas of the following species and/or management groups are linked:
(i) Northern Atlantic hammerhead sharks and northern Atlantic aggregated LCS.
(ii) Southern Atlantic hammerhead sharks and southern Atlantic aggregated LCS.
(iii) Eastern Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS.
(iv) Southern Atlantic blacknose sharks and southern Atlantic non-blacknose SCS.
(v) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks and Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS.
(5) NMFS may close the regional or sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group(s) before landings reach, or are expected to reach, 80 percent of the quota. Before taking any inseason action, NMFS will consider the following criteria and other relevant factors:
(i) Estimated Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark season length based on available sub-regional quotas and average sub-regional weekly catch rates during the current fishing year and from previous years;
(ii) Variations in regional and/or sub-regional seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of blacktip sharks, hammerhead sharks, and aggregated LCS based on scientific and fishery information;
(iii) Effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments;
(iv) The amount of remaining shark quotas in the relevant sub-regions, to date, based on dealer or other reports; and,
(v) The regional and/or sub-regional catch rates of the relevant shark species or management group(s), to date, based on dealer or other reports.
(6) When the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional fishery for a shark species and/or management group is closed, a fishing vessel, issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit pursuant to § 635.4, may not possess, retain, land, or sell a shark of that species and/or management group that was caught within the closed region or sub-region, except under the conditions specified in § 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32, a NMFS-approved observer is onboard, and the sandbar and/or Research LCS fishery, as applicable, is open. A shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, may not purchase or receive a shark of that species and/or management group that was caught within the closed region or sub-region from a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks that were caught in the closed region or sub-region that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage. Under a closure for a shark species or management group, a shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with State regulations, purchase or receive a shark of that species or management group if the shark was harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel
(7) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess, retain, land, or sell sharks.
(c) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a vessel that possesses, retains, or lands a shark from the management unit may sell such shark only if the vessel has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part. Persons may possess, retain, land, and sell a shark only to a federally-permitted dealer and only when the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-region has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). Persons that own or operate a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard can possess, retain, land, and sell a shark only if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(a).
(4) Only dealers who have a valid Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and who have submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting requirements of § 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel that has, or is required to have, a valid Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit issued under this part. Dealers may purchase a shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part, except that dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel who does not have a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit if that vessel fishes exclusively in state waters and does not possess a HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4. Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a sandbar shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a valid shark research permit and who had a NMFS-approved observer onboard the vessel for the trip in which the sandbar shark was collected. Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel who has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part only when the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-region has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a shark from a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(a).
(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23; the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks, swordfish, and northern albacore tuna as specified in § 635.27; the retention limits for sharks, as specified at § 635.24; the regional retention limits for Swordfish General Commercial permit holders, as specified at § 635.24; the marlin landing limit, as specified in § 635.27(d); and the minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and roundscale spearfish as specified in § 635.20.
(b) In accordance with the framework procedures in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or modify for species or species groups of Atlantic HMS the following management measures: Maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield based on the latest stock assessment or updates in the SAFE report; domestic quotas; recreational and commercial retention limits, including target catch requirements; size limits; fishing years or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions, or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; species in the management unit and the specification of the species groups to which they belong; species in the prohibited shark species group; classification system within shark species groups; permitting and reporting requirements; workshop requirements; the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna; administration of the IBQ program (including but not limited to requirements pertaining to leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or minimum IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps (individual or by category), permanent sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); time/area restrictions; allocations among user groups; gear prohibitions, modifications, or use restriction; effort restrictions; observer coverage requirements; EM requirements; essential fish habitat; and actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, as appropriate.
(d) * * *
(3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of a species or management group when the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-region is closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a species or management group when the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-region is closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has received a petition from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize designated as event MON 87403, which has been genetically engineered for increased ear biomass. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the Monsanto petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition is also available on the APHIS Web site at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 14-213-01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize (
MON 87403 maize is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and field tests of MON 87403 maize have been authorized by APHIS. Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment after completion of the tests. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations and our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition is available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments will be considered in the development of our decisionmaking documents.
As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a plant pest risk assessment to assess its plant pest risk and the appropriate environmental documentation—either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to provide the Agency with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the petition request. For petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA, APHIS will follow our published process for soliciting public involvement (see footnote 1) and publish a separate notice in the
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that soybean and cotton genetically engineered for herbicide resistance by the Monsanto Company are no longer considered regulated articles under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by the Monsanto Company in its two petitions for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of publically available scientific data, and comments received from the public on the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental impact statement and plant pest risk assessments. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and record of decision.
You may read the documents referenced in this notice and any comments we received in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming. Those documents are also available on the Internet at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to APHIS seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS received two petitions (referred to below as “the petitions”) from the Monsanto Company seeking determinations of nonregulated status for soybean and cotton cultivars genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides. The first petition, APHIS Petition Number 10-188-01p, seeks a determination of nonregulated status of soybean (
Notices were published
Following review of public comments, we published another notice
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701cotton, an EIS has been prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
A notice of availability regarding the draft EIS prepared by APHIS was published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
A notice of availability regarding the final EIS prepared by APHIS was published by EPA in the
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by the Monsanto Company, references provided in the petitions, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EIS, the PPRAs, comments provided by the public, and APHIS' evaluation of and response to those comments, APHIS has determined that MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Accordingly, the petitions requesting a determination of nonregulated status are approved and MON 87708 soybean and MON 88701 cotton are no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and to the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act.
Copies of the two signed determination document and the signed record of decision, as well as copies of the final EIS and two PPRAs are available as indicated in the
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to designate over-snow vehicle (OSV) use as allowed, restricted, or prohibited on National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and Areas on National Forest System lands within the Lassen National Forest; and to identify snow trails for grooming within the Lassen National Forest. In addition, the Forest Service proposes to:
1. Formally adopt California State Parks' OSV snow grooming standards requiring a minimum of 18 inches of snow depth before grooming can occur;
2. Implement a Forest-wide snow depth requirement for OSV use that would provide for public safety and natural and cultural resource protection by allowing OSV use in designated Areas when there is a minimum of 12 inches of snow covering the landscape; and allow OSV use on designated National Forest System roads and designated National Forest System Trails when there is a minimum of 6 inches of snow covering the road or trail; and
3. Prohibit OSV use in selected Areas and on non-motorized trails.
This proposal would be implemented on all of the Lassen National Forest.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by February 19, 2015. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in October 2015 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in September 2016.
Send written comments to Chris O'Brien, on behalf of Dave Hays, Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130; 530-257-2151. Comments may also be sent via facsimile to 530-252-6463. Comments may be submitted on the Lassen National Forest OSV Designation Web page:
Christopher O'Brien, Ph.D., Public Services and Ecosystems Staff Officer, USDA Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130; 530-257-2151;
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Snow Trail Grooming Program: For over 30
The following summarizes how the Forest Service currently manages OSV use on the approximately 1,150,020-acre Lassen National Forest:
1. Approximately 406 miles of National Forest System OSV trails;
2. Of the approximately 406 miles of National Forest System OSV trails, approximately 324 miles are groomed OSV trails;
3. Approximately 148 miles of National Forest System trail closed to OSV use;
4. Approximately 976,760 acres of National Forest System land open to off-trail cross-country OSV use; and
5. Approximately 173,260 acres of National Forest System land closed to OSV use.
In 2013, the Forest Service entered into a Settlement Agreement with Snowlands Network et al., to “complete appropriate NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis(es) to identify snow trails for grooming” on the Lassen National Forest and four other national forests in California. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement for the Lassen National Forest by completing this analysis. Other requirements of the Settlement Agreement are listed in the “Need for Analysis” section, below.
Travel Management Rule subpart C: The Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule established new procedures (see 36 CFR part 212 Subpart C), for implementing the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 11644, as amended by E.O. 11989 on the National Forest System. On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court of Idaho, in the case of
The revised rule was issued for a 45-day public comment period in the
One purpose of this project is to effectively manage OSV use on the Lassen National Forest to provide access, ensure that OSV use occurs when there is adequate snow, promote the safety of all users, enhance public enjoyment, minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources, and minimize conflicts among the various uses.
There is a need to provide a manageable, designated OSV system of trails and Areas within the Lassen National Forest, that is consistent with and achieves the purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212. This action responds to direction provided by the Forest Service's Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR part 212 and subpart C of the Travel Management Rule, as proposed.
The existing system of available OSV trails and Areas on the Lassen National Forest is the culmination of multiple agency decisions over recent decades. Public OSV use of the majority of this available system continues to be manageable and consistent with current travel management regulations. Exceptions have been identified, based on internal and public input and the criteria listed at 36 CFR 212.55. These include needs to provide improved access for OSV users and formalize prohibitions required by Forest Plan and other management direction. These exceptions represent additional needs for change, and in these cases, changes are proposed to meet the overall objectives.
Currently, the Forest Service requires 12 or more inches of snow on the ground to operate an OSV on the Lassen National Forest. Although 12 inches of snow may exist at a given time in many higher elevation Areas, there may be less than 12 inches of snow at trailheads, which under current rules, would leave Areas with 12 or more inches of snow inaccessible to OSV use. To improve OSV access to Areas open to OSV use, the proposed action would allow OSV use on designated trails, as long as there are at least 6 inches of snow on the ground.
The Forest Service has also identified two Areas in which OSV use should be prohibited, but there are no existing orders or directives that have formally prohibited OSV use within them. One Area is located in the southwest corner of the Lassen National Forest, below 3,500 feet in elevation. Snowfall is typically not adequate in this Area for OSV use to occur. This Area is approximately 29,130 acres in size. The proposed action would prohibit OSV use in this Area.
The second Area in which OSV use should be prohibited is the Black Mountain Research Natural Area (RNA). The Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) prohibits motorized vehicles within Research Natural Areas, but no formal directive prohibiting such use has been issued. This Area is approximately 520 acres in size. The proposed action would prohibit OSV use in the Black Mountain RNA.
A second purpose of this project is to identify those designated National Forest System OSV trails where grooming for OSV use would occur as required by the Settlement Agreement between the Forest Service and Snowlands Network, et al. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Forest Service is required to complete the appropriate NEPA analysis to identify snow trails for grooming on the Lassen National Forest. This action would identify snow trails for grooming.
The snow trail grooming analysis would also address the need to provide a high quality snowmobile trail system on the Lassen National Forest that is smooth and stable for the rider. Groomed trails are designed so that the novice rider can use them without difficulty.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Forest Service is required to complete an appropriate NEPA analysis to identify snow trails for grooming. Subpart C of the Forest Service Travel Management Regulation requires the Forest Service to designate over-snow vehicle (OSV) use as allowed, restricted, or prohibited on
Subpart C of the Travel Management Regulation specifies that all requirements of subpart B of the Travel Management Regulations will continue to apply to the designation decision, including:
1. Public involvement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (36 CFR 212.52);
2. Coordination with Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments (36 CFR 212.53);
3. Consideration of the criteria for designation of roads, trails, and Areas (36 CFR 212.55);
4. Identification of designated uses on a publicly available use map of roads, trails, and Areas (36 CFR 212.56); and
5. Monitoring of effects (36 CFR 212.57).
Furthermore, additional terms of the Settlement Agreement require the Forest Service to:
1. Analyze ancillary activities such as the plowing of related parking lots and trailheads as part of the effects analysis;
2. Consider a range of alternative actions that would result in varying levels of snowmobile use; and
3. Consider an alternative submitted by Plaintiffs and/or Interveners in the NEPA analysis so long as the alternative meets the purpose and need, and is feasible and within the scope of the NEPA analysis, and Plaintiffs and/or Interveners provide the Forest Service with a detailed description of that alternative during the scoping period for the NEPA analysis.
The Forest Service proposes several actions on the Lassen National Forest to be analyzed as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The actions proposed are as follows:
1. To designate OSV use on National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and Areas on National Forest System lands within the Lassen National Forest where snowfall depth is adequate for that use to occur. The responsible official would designate OSV use as allowed, restricted, or prohibited on administrative units or Ranger Districts, or parts of administrative units or Ranger Districts of the Lassen National Forest. Areas where off-trail cross country OSV use would be allowed would cover 947,120 acres. Trails where OSV use would be allowed would total 406 miles. All existing OSV prohibitions applying to Areas or trails would continue.
2. Of the 406 miles of designated OSV trails, 324 miles would be groomed by the Forest Service on the Lassen National Forest. Our trail mileages are estimates only and we are currently reviewing groomed trails where there is uncertainty regarding Forest Service jurisdiction.
3. To groom trails consistent with historical grooming practices, when there are 18 inches of snow or more, and formally adopt California State Parks' snow grooming standards requiring a minimum of 18 inches of snow depth before grooming can occur.
4. To implement a Forest-wide snow depth requirement for OSV use that would provide for public safety and natural and cultural resource protection by allowing OSV use in designated Areas when there is a minimum of 12 inches of snow covering the landscape; and allow OSV use on designated National Forest System roads and designated National Forest System Trails when there is a minimum of 6 inches of snow covering the road or trail. When the snow-depth requirement is not met, OSV use would be prohibited. All snow trails would be located on existing dirt, gravel, or paved trails or roads. These trails and roads are used in the summer for highway, OHV, and non-motorized recreation.
5. Area Prohibitions. Over-snow vehicle use is currently prohibited on 173,260 acres of the Lassen National Forest. The proposed action would continue OSV prohibitions in currently prohibited areas and include the following additional prohibitions:
a. Prohibit OSV use in areas below 3,500 feet in elevation in the southwest corner of the Lassen National Forest (approximately 29,130 acres).
b. Prohibit OSV use in the Black Mountain Research Natural Area to be consistent with management area direction in the Forest Plan (approximately 520 acres).
As a result, OSV use would be prohibited on a total of approximately 202,900 acres of the 1,150,020-acre Lassen National Forest.
6. Trail Prohibitions. The proposed action would continue OSV prohibitions on the following trails on the Lassen National Forest:
a. Pacific Crest Trail (approximately 106 miles).
b. Colby Mountain Cross-country Ski Trails (approximately 6 miles).
c. McGowan Lake Cross-country Ski Trails (approximately 5 miles).
d. Biz Johnson Trail from Susanville to Westwood Junction (approximately 17 miles).
e. Lake Almanor Recreation Trail (approximately 9 miles).
f. Eagle Lake Trail (approximately 5 miles).
Over-snow vehicle use that is inconsistent with these designations would be prohibited under 36 CFR part 261 once the decision is issued.
The use designations resulting from this analysis would only apply to the use of over-snow vehicles. An over-snow vehicle is defined in the Forest Service's Travel Management Regulations as “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow” (36 CFR 212.1).
Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and over-snow vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations would be exempt from these designations (36 CFR 212.81(a)).
These actions would begin immediately upon the issuance of the record of decision, which is expected in October of 2016. The Forest Service would produce an OSV use map (OSVUM) that would look like the existing motor vehicle use map (MVUM) for the Lassen National Forest. Such a map would allow OSV enthusiasts to identify the routes and Areas where OSV use would be allowed on the Lassen National Forest.
The Lassen National Forest Supervisor will issue the decision.
This decision will designate OSV use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in Areas on National Forest System lands as allowed, restricted, or prohibited on the Lassen National Forest where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur. It will also identify the National Forest System trails where grooming would occur. The decision would only apply to the use of over-snow vehicles as defined in the Forest Service's Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR 212.1). The Forest Supervisor will consider all reasonable alternatives and decide whether to continue current management of OSV uses on the Lassen
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The preferred format for attachments to electronically submitted comments would be as an MS Word document. Attachments in portable document format (pdf) are not preferred, but are acceptable.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
The Lassen National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation is an activity implementing a land management plan. It is not an activity authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-148). Therefore, this activity is subject to pre-decisional administrative review consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74) as implemented by subparts A and B of 36 CFR part 218.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of period during which individuals may apply to be appointed to the Illinois Advisory Committee, New Jersey Advisory Committee, Oregon Advisory Committee, and Vermont Advisory Committee; request for applications.
Because the terms of the members of the Illinois Advisory Committee are expiring on May 30, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Illinois Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Illinois to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Midwestern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than February 15, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the New Jersey Advisory Committee are expiring on May 30, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the New Jersey Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of New Jersey to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than February 15, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Oregon Advisory Committee are expiring on May 30, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Oregon Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Oregon to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Western Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than February 15, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Vermont Advisory Committee are expiring on May 30, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Vermont Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Vermont to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than February 15, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Letters of interest for membership on the Illinois Advisory Committee should be received no later than February 15, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the New Jersey Advisory Committee should be received no later than February 15, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the Oregon Advisory Committee should be received no later than February 15, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the Vermont Advisory Committee should be received no later than February 15, 2015.
Send letters of interest for the Illinois Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Midwestern Regional Office, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the New Jersey Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Oregon Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Letters can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Vermont Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Letter can also be sent via email to
David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 353-8311. Questions can also be directed via email to
The Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont Advisory Committees (SACs) are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the SACs, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. SACs also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.
The SAC consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a two-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are
The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:
• Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,
• study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,
• appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,
• serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,
• submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and
• issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.
The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, or Vermont Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, February 6, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing potential project topics for the committee to study in the coming year. Committee members will discuss the issues that they believe warrant further investigation.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-438-5453, conference ID: 9657652. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by March 6, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The meeting will be held on Friday, February 6, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.
Dial: 888-438-5453.
Conference ID: 9657652.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Economic data on the costs of operating commercial fishing businesses are needed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to meet the legislative requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Social Sciences Branch (SSB) of the NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) is responsible for estimating the economic and social impacts of fishery management actions.
Lack of information on fixed (non-trip related) costs, crew payments and operating (trip) costs has severely limited the ability of the SSB to assess fishermen's behavioral responses to changes in regulations, fishing conditions, and market conditions. Maintaining an ongoing, consistent, data collection program will enable the SSB to provide a level of analysis that meets the needs of the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, to make informed decisions about the expected economic effects of proposed management alternatives.
Revision: We will begin conducting this survey every four years rather than annually, to reduce respondent burden and fatigue. In the next iteration, to be mailed in early 2016, half the population will receive a survey for costs incurred in 2015. In early 2017, the remaining half will receive a survey for costs incurred in 2016.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
In 1989, the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) was established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources (OPR) in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Minerals Management Service (MMS), and the US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD). The NMMTB provides protocols, techniques, and physical facilities for the long-term storage of tissues from marine mammals. Scientists can request tissues from this repository for retrospective analyses to determine environmental trends of contaminants and other substances of interest. The NMMTB collects, processes, and stores tissues from specific indicator species (
The purposes of this collection of information are: 1) to enable NOAA to allow the scientific community the opportunity to request tissue specimen samples from the NMMTB and, 2) to enable the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) of NOAA to assemble information on all specimens submitted to the Marine Environmental Specimen Bank (Marine ESB), which includes the NMMTB.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
On December 17, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mario Obdulio Padilla (“Padilla”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)). Specifically, Padilla conspired, knowingly and willfully attempted to export defense articles, that is AR-15M-16 firearm barrels, receivers, components, parts, and accessories, from the United States to Honduras without having first obtained a license or written approval from the U.S. Department of State. Padilla was sentenced 37 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release and fined a $200 assessment. Padilla is also listed on the U.S. Department of State Debarred List.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Padilla's conviction for violating AECA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Padilla to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Padilla.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of
Accordingly, it is hereby
First, from the date of this Order until December 17, 2022, Mario Obdulio Padilla, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 98126-004, FCI Petersburg Low, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1000, Petersburg, VA 23804, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Padilla by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Padilla may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Padilla. This Order shall be published in the
Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 17, 2022.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
January 20, 2015.
Kabir Archuletta or Josh Startup, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593, or (202) 482-5260, respectively.
On September 22, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice initiating an antidumping duty investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
On January 5, 2015, Edsal Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Petitioner”), made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determination, in order to facilitate the Department's analysis of respondents' questionnaire responses and interested parties' surrogate value data submissions. Because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days.
For the reasons stated above, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated this investigation. Therefore, the new deadline for the preliminary determination is March 24, 2015. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Risk Policy Working Group will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The items of discussion in the committee and advisory panel's agenda are:
The Risk Policy Working Group will discuss the implementation and application of the Council's Risk Policy across all Council-managed species; review updated matrix of “baseline conditions” for Council-managed species,
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 39 Review Workshop for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Smoothhound Sharks.
The SEDAR 39 assessment of the HMS Smoothhound Sharks: a Data Workshop; a series of Assessment webinars; and a Review Workshop.
The SEDAR 39 Review Workshop will be held from 9 a.m. on February 10, 2015 until 6 p.m. on February 12, 2015. See
Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Review Workshop agenda are as follows:
The Review Panel participants will review the stock assessment reports to determine if they are scientifically sound.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to First Line Technology, L.L.C. located at 3656 Centerview Drive, Suite 4, Chantilly, Virginia 20151, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license throughout the United States (U.S.), the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 7,064,241: Chemical and Biological Decontaminating Solution Using Peracids and Germinants in Microemulsions, Process and Product Thereof issued June 20, 2006, Navy Case No. 84,658//U.S. Patent No. 7,185,594: Aqueous Based Chemical and Biological Warfare Decontaminating System for Extreme Temperature Applications issued May 18, 2010, Navy Case No. 97,750//U.S. Patent No. 7,829,520: Aqueous Based Chemical and Biological Warfare Decontaminating System for Extreme Temperature Applications” issued November 9, 2010, Navy Case No. 100,367.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than January 31, 2015.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD), Attention Lorraine Harting, Code 00T1, 17632 Dahlgren Road, Suite 201, Dahlgren, VA 22448-5154.
Lorraine Harting, 540-653-2680,
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the Department of Navy (DON) announces the appointment of members to the DON's numerous Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The purpose of the PRBs is to provide fair and impartial review of the annual SES performance appraisal prepared by the senior executive's immediate and second level supervisor; to make recommendations to appointing officials regarding acceptance or modification of the performance rating; and to make recommendations for performance bonuses and basic pay increases. Composition of the specific PRBs will be determined on an ad hoc basis from among the individuals listed below:
Jacqueline Wourman, Performance Management Program Manager, Executive Management Program Office, Office of Civilian Human Resources at 202 685-6665.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 23, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tracy Rimdzius, 202-208-7154.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability of guidance and open application period.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing Guidance for the EPAct 2005 Section 242 Program. The guidance describes the hydroelectric incentive payment requirements and explains the type of information that owners or authorized operators of qualified hydroelectric facilities can provide DOE when applying for hydroelectric incentive payments. This incentive is available for electric energy generated and sold for a specified 10-year period as authorized under section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In Congressional appropriations for Federal fiscal year 2014, DOE received funds to support this hydroelectric incentive program for the first time. At this time, DOE is only accepting applications from owners and authorized operators of qualified hydroelectric facilities for hydroelectricity generated and sold in calendar year 2013.
DOE is currently accepting applications from January 20, 2015 through February 19, 2015. Applications information must be sent to
Written correspondence may be sent to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-4), by email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to Mr. Steven Lindenberg, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-4), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-2783,
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005; Pub. L. 109-58), Congress established a new program to support the expansion of hydropower energy development at existing dams and impoundments
In response, DOE developed and announced draft guidance intended to describe the application process and the information necessary for DOE to make a determination of eligibility under section 242.
DOE accepted public comments on the guidance on two separate occasions in July and October 2014. In response to these comments, DOE developed a summary of comments and DOE's response which can be found with the final guidance, which is available at:
When submitting information to DOE for the Section 242 program, it is recommended that applicants carefully read and review the complete content of the Guidance for this process. The terms defined in the Guidance shall apply without regard to the hydroelectric kilowatt capacity of the facility concerned, without regard to whether the facility uses a dam owned by a governmental or non-governmental entity, and without regard to whether the facility began operation on or after October 1, 2005.
As an aid to supporting the hydropower industry, DOE has developed the following checklist for application related to calendar year 2013 power production. This checklist is provided to aid the applicant and does not necessarily include all requirements stated in the Guidance.
Each application will be reviewed based on the Guidance at (
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on January 12, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Otter Tail Power Company (Complainant), filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent's Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff is unjust and unreasonable to the extent that the
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On December 11, 2014, the Commission issued a “
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Kalama Lateral Project (Project), which would involve construction and operation of a new natural gas pipeline and associated facilities by Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) in Cowlitz County, Washington. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces an extension of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. The NOI identified January 10, 2015 as the close of the scoping period. Please note that the scoping
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Northwest plans to construct and operate approximately 3.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline to provide 320,000 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to a proposed methanol production facility to be located within the north industrial area of the Port of Kalama, in Cowlitz County, Washington. The proposed methanol plant is not under the jurisdiction of the Commission and would not be constructed or operated by Northwest. However, the environmental impact of the plant would be part of the state of Washington's State Environmental Policy Act review process.
The Kalama Lateral Project would transport natural gas to the methanol plant from Northwest's existing Ignacio/Sumas mainline in Cowlitz County, Washington. The project would require new appurtenances to tie the new pipeline into the existing mainline including a new tap and valve. Pig launcher facilities
The general location of the planned facilities is shown in Appendix 1.
Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would disturb approximately 109.4 acres of land. Following construction, about 19.4 acres would be maintained within permanent easements for ongoing operation of the pipeline, aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads. The remaining acreage disturbed during construction would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. These acreage estimates are based on Northwest's general intention to construct its pipeline using a 100-foot-wide right-of-way and to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way.
Under Docket Nos. PF12-2-000 and CP13-18-000, FERC reviewed a pipeline route that was substantially similar to the one currently proposed by Northwest. A NOI was issued on June 22, 2012. On May 8, 2013, Northwest formally withdrew its Application of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Kalama Lateral Pipeline Project because the project proponent, Veresen U.S. Power Inc. terminated the Facilities Agreement. The project currently under review involves a pipeline following the same general corridor with a new customer located at the Port of Kalama.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. We will present our independent analysis of the issues in the EA. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 5 of this notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit the SHPO's views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Northwest and public comments. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
These issues identified include:
• Geology and soils;
• land use; and
• public safety
This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before January 9, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-8-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
When the EA is published, copies may be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the PennEast Pipeline Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC (PennEast), a partnership of six member companies including AGL Resources, New Jersey Resources Pipeline Company, South Jersey Industries, Public Service Electric and Gas Company Power LLC, Spectra Energy Partners, and UGI Energy Services. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies and stakeholders on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 12, 2015. However, this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Review Process flow chart in appendix 1.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the Commission's environmental review process, and to verbally comment on the Project. Each scoping meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. and representatives from PennEast will be present one hour prior to the start of each meeting to answer questions about the Project. Affected landowners and interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the scoping meetings and present comments on the issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of each meeting will be added to the Commission's administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately recorded.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
The “For Citizens” section of the FERC Web site (
PennEast plans to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain the planned Project to provide approximately 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of year-round transportation service from northern Pennsylvania to markets in eastern and southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. PennEast states the Project would bring natural gas produced in the Marcellus Shale region in eastern Pennsylvania to homes and businesses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Project would extend from various receipt point interconnections, including interconnections with Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC and gathering systems operated by Williams Partners L.P., Regency Energy Partners LP, and UGI Energy Services, LLC, all in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Various delivery point interconnections would be constructed including UGI Utilities, Inc. in Carbon and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC in Northampton County; and Elizabethtown Gas, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Transmission, LLC, all in Hunterdon, New Jersey.
The planned Project would consist of constructing or installing the following components:
• 108.8 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline, originating near Dallas, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania and terminating near Pennington, Mercer County, New Jersey. The pipeline route would also traverse Carbon, Northampton, and Bucks Counties, Pennsylvania, and Hunterdon and Mercer Counties, New Jersey;
• the Hellertown Lateral, a 2.1-mile, 24-inch-diameter new pipeline and the associated TCO Interconnect and UGI Lehigh Interconnect and Launcher/Receiver Site in Northampton County, Pennsylvania;
• one new compressor station near Blakeslee in Kidder Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Installation of three gas turbine-driven Taurus 70 units rated at 10,916 horsepower (hp) each under ISO conditions (32,745 total ISO hp);
• the Wyoming Interconnect at Milepost (MP) 0.00 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania;
• the Springville Interconnect at MP 0.25 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania;
• the Auburn and Leidy Interconnects at MP 4.50 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania;
• the UGI HAZ Interconnect at MP 25.50 in Carbon County, Pennsylvania;
• the Elizabethtown Interconnect at MP 76.35 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey;
• the Algonquin and TETCO Interconnects in Hunterdon County, New Jersey;
• the Transco Interconnect at MP 108.8 in Mercer County, New Jersey; and
• seven mainline block valves at locations along the planned pipeline segments in Luzerne, Carbon, and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania and Hunterdon County, New Jersey.
The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
PennEast plans to conduct tree clearing in the fourth quarter of 2016 with construction starting in Spring 2017 and a projected in-service date of October 1, 2017.
PennEast is still in the planning phase of the Project and workspace requirements have not been finalized. However, PennEast is planning on using a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 36-inch-diameter pipeline, affecting approximately 1,308 acres of land based on the length of the pipeline. Following construction, PennEast would retain a 50-foot-wide easement for operation of the Project. PennEast would also require land for additional temporary workspaces at road, railroad, waterbody, and wetland crossings; topsoil storage; access roads; storage or pipe yards; and other purposes during construction.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation and maintenance of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology;
• soils;
• water resources, including surface water and groundwater;
• wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds;
• fisheries and aquatic resources;
• threatened, endangered, and other special-status species;
• land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources;
• socioeconomics;
• cultural resources;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety and reliability; and
• cumulative environmental impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we participated in public Open House meetings sponsored by PennEast in the project area in November 2014 to explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders. We have also begun to contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
Based on our preliminary review of the Project; information provided by PennEast; and public comments filed in the Commission's administrative record and submitted to staff at the applicant-sponsored open houses; we have identified several issues that we think deserve attention. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our ongoing environmental analysis. These issues are:
• Purpose and need for the Project;
• impacts on forested areas including fragmentation;
• impacts on agricultural areas and soils;
• impacts on residential areas and use of eminent domain;
• impacts on recreational areas including parks and nature preserves including Appalachian Trail, Sourland Conservancy, and other state-managed and preserved lands;
• impacts on preservation easements on private lands or conservation easements and property values;
• impacts on surface water including Susquehanna, Delaware, and Lehigh Rivers;
• impacts on groundwater including wells and springs;
• impacts on wildlife and vegetation;
• impacts on federal and state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species;
• geologic hazards including karst and seismic areas;
• impacts on air quality;
• impacts related to noise during construction and operation;
• assessment of alternative pipeline routes and compressor station locations; and
• cumulative impacts.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 12, 2015. However, this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Review Process flow chart in appendix 1.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (PF15-1-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes: federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned Project.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once PennEast files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the Project.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, PennEast has established a toll-free phone number (1-844-347-7119) and an email support address (
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Leach XPress Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas) in Marshall and Wayne Counties, West Virginia and Fairfield, Vinton, Lawrence, Noble, Jackson and Hocking Counties, Ohio. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 12, 2015. However, this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Review Process flow chart in appendix 1.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the Commission's environmental review process, and to verbally comment on the Project. Each scoping meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. and representatives from Columbia Gas will be present one hour prior to the start of each scoping meeting to answer questions about the Project. Affected landowners and other interested parties are encouraged to attend the scoping meetings and to give their comments on the issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of each meeting will be added to the Commission's administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately recorded.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
The “For Citizens” section of the FERC Web site (
Columbia Gas plans to construct approximately 161 miles of new natural gas pipeline in West Virginia and Ohio; two new compressor stations in Ohio and one new compressor station in West Virginia; and four new regulator stations in Ohio; and modify two existing compressor stations in West Virginia and Ohio as well as one existing regulator station in Ohio. The Leach XPress Project would provide about 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day of firm transportation service to natural gas consumers served by the Columbia Gas and Columbia Gulf pipeline systems. According to Columbia Gas, its project would provide shippers outlets from constrained supply basins and access to higher value markets.
The Leach XPress Project would consist of the following facilities:
• LEX Pipeline—130 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Marshall County, West Virginia and Fairfield, Hocking, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, and Perry Counties, Ohio;
• R-801 Loop—27 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Fairfield, Hocking, and Vinton Counties, Ohio;
• BM-111 Loop—2.9 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop from Lawrence County, Ohio to Wayne County, West Virginia;
• LEX1 Pipeline—0.6 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Fairfield County, Ohio;
• three new compressor stations, designated as the Lone Oak, Summerfield, and Oak Hill Compressor Stations to be located in Marshall County, West Virginia, and Noble and Jackson Counties, Ohio, respectively;
• four new regulator stations in Hocking and Vinton Counties, Ohio, respectively;
• modifications to the existing Ceredo and Crawford Compressor Stations in Wayne County, West Virginia and Fairfield County, Ohio, respectively;
• modifications to the existing RS-1286 regular station in Vinton County, Ohio; and
• abandonment in-place of 28 miles of the 20-inch-diameter R-501 Pipeline in Fairfield, Hocking, and Vinton Counties, Ohio.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 2,534 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines. Following construction, Columbia Gas would maintain about 1,008 acres for permanent operation of the project's aboveground facilities and permanent pipeline easements; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 48 percent of the planned pipeline routes parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology
• soils;
• water resources, including surface water and groundwater
• wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• fisheries and aquatic resources;
• threatened, endangered, and other special status species;
• land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources;
• socioeconomics;
• cultural resources;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety and reliability; and
• cumulative environmental impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we participated in public Open Houses meetings sponsored by Columbia Gas in the project area in November 2014 to explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholder. We have also begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 7.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia Gas. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis. Issues identified include:
• Geology—effects as a result of blasting to remove existing surface and subsurface bedrock during Project construction;
• soils—effects on soil stability during and after project construction;
• land use—effects on residential areas and agricultural lands during construction and operation of Project facilities including public safety;
• water resources—effects on wetlands and waterbodies;
• Mississippi River crossing in two locations, as well as Muskingum River;
• biological resources—effect on threatened and endangered species occurring within or adjacent to the Project right-of-way;
• cultural—effects on archeological sites and historic resources;
• socioeconomic and transportation—effects of increased workforce and impacts to local population; and
• air quality and noise—effect on local air quality and noise environment from construction and operation and maintenance of Project facilities.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 12, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF14-23-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once Columbia Gas files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, Columbia Gas has established a toll-free phone number (1-888-499-3450) and an email support address (
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional State Committee (RSC), SPP Members Committee and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Dallas near the Galleria, 4099 Valley View Lane, Dallas, TX 75244.
January 26, 2015 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)
January 26, 2015 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)
January 27, 2015 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR part 60, subpart XX) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0664.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0006) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0027, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1974.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0488) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0080, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance,
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA, section 123 (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1425.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0077) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0549, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Lisa Boynton, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2487; fax number: (202) 564-8729; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTT) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1985.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0478) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0083, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final notice of submission for OMB review—Extension with change: State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) hereby gives notice that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension with change of the State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4). The EEOC is proposing revisions to the race and ethnicity categories on the EEO-4 report to conform to OMB's
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
A copy of this ICR and applicable supporting documentation submitted to OMB for this review may be obtained from: Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this final notice must be submitted to Chad A. Lallemand, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).
The EEOC has collected information from state and local governments with 100 or more full-time employees since 1974. The Commission is proposing revisions to the EEO-4 report to conform with OMB's
A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the
EEO-4 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of discrimination against state and local governments and to provide information on the employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with several other Federal agencies. Pursuant to section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(d), as amended, EEO-4 data are shared with State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). Aggregated data are also used by researchers and the general public.
Estimated burden hours were calculated by multiplying the number of reports expected to be filed annually (12,458 in 2011) by the estimated average time to complete and submit each report (7.16 hours).
These burden estimates are largely based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for employers required to file the EEO-4 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting, but empirical data in this area is lacking. Accordingly, efforts will be undertaken by the Commission to (1) develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing and (2) to implement new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome.
The other new burden is the one-time cost of employers changing the manner in which they collect and store the new race and ethnicity changes as well as changes to computer programs and systems. There will be no cost for employers whose current systems are already designed to handle the full multiple race and ethnicity classifications, and we estimate that about ten percent of employers currently have this ability. The estimated cost for employers that will have to re-survey the workforce to comply with the new race and ethnicity changes is $21,600,000.
For the Commission.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final notice of submission for OMB review—extension with change: Local Union Report (EEO-3).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) hereby gives notice that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension with change of the Local Union Report (EEO-3). The EEOC is proposing revisions to the race and ethnicity categories on the EEO-3 report to conform to OMB's
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before February 19, 2015.
A copy of this ICR and applicable supporting documentation submitted to OMB for this review may be obtained from: Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this final notice must be submitted to Chad A. Lallemand, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to
Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).
The EEOC has collected information from local unions on the EEO-3 form since 1966. The Commission is proposing revisions to the EEO-3 report to conform to OMB's
A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the
Estimated burden hours were calculated by multiplying the number of reports expected to be filed biennially (1,176 in 2012) by the estimated average time to complete and submit each report (2.05 hours). These estimates are based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for respondents required to file the EEO-3 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting, but empirical data in this area is lacking. Accordingly, efforts will be undertaken by the Commission to (1) develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing; and (2) to implement new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome.
The other new burden is the one-time cost of respondents changing the manner in which they collect and store the new race and ethnicity changes as well as changes to computer programs and systems. There will be no cost for respondents with a current system that is already designed to handle the full multiple race and ethnicity classifications. It is estimated that about ten percent of respondents currently
For the Commission.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular Meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
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
This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 23, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires the Commission, with certain important exceptions, to preempt (to the extent necessary) the enforcement of any state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation on Thursday January 15, 2015 at the conclusion of the Open Meeting.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
This meeting will be continued on February 10, 2015.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
8:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) January 26, 2015.
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
NIOSH gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI and OMRF found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by reporting falsified data in:
• “Asb2 regulates the activity of SCF E3 ubiquitin ligases by antagonizing CAND1-mediated exchange of F-box proteins,” submitted to
• the revised version of “Asb2 regulates the activity of SCF E3 ubiquitin ligases by antagonizing CAND1-mediated exchange of F-box proteins,” submitted to
• grant application CA189216-01 submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH; hereafter referred to as the “original NCI grant application”
• grant application CA189216-01A1 submitted to NCI, NIH; hereafter referred to as the “revised NCI grant application”
ORI found that Respondent knowingly falsified and/or fabricated Western blot gel images by duplication, reuse and relabeling, and/or alteration through contrast, rotation, and/or scale of the images.
Specifically, Respondent included falsified images in all of the figures (Figures 1-6 and S1-5) in the original
Dr. Kang has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on December 23, 2014:
(1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed to ensure that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, the institution employing him must submit a plan for supervision of his duties to ORI for approval; the plan for supervision must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agreed that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon plan for supervision;
(2) that any institution employing him must submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS- supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(3) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services, is being amended at Chapter AK, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), as last amended at 70 FR 36386-36387, dated June 23, 2005, and most recently at 76 FR 19995 (Apr. 11, 2011) as follows:
• Medicare Hearings and Appeals Chief Judge's Office (CJO) (Headquarters Office)
— Office of Operations
— Office of Programs
• Medicare Hearings and Appeals Field Offices
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc., (ACHC) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for home health agencies (HHAs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. An HHA that participates in Medicaid must also meet the Medicare conditions for participation (CoPs) as required under 42 CFR 488.6(b).
This final notice is effective February 24, 2015 through February 24, 2021.
Cindy Melanson, (410) 786-0310, or Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899.
A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as a HHA provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1861(o) and 1891 of the Social Security Act (the Act), establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a HHA. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements in general are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at part 488. The regulations at part 484 specify the specific conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as an HHA.
Generally, to enter into a Medicare provider agreement, a facility must first be certified as complying with the conditions set forth in part 484 and recommended to us for participation by
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accrediting organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions, we may treat the provider entity as having met those conditions, that is, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
Part 488, subpart A, implements the provisions of section 1865 and requires that a national accrediting organization applying for approval of its Medicare accreditation program must provide us with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires its accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.4 and § 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by us. ACHC's current term of approval as a recognized Medicare accreditation program for HHAs expires February 24, 2015.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS-approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us with 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the
In the August 22, 2014
• An onsite administrative review of ACHC's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its HHA surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited HHAs; and, (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• The comparison of ACHC's Medicare accreditation program standards to our current Medicare HHA CoPs.
• A documentation review of ACHC's survey process to:
++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and ACHC's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ Compare ACHC's processes to those we require of state survey agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited HHAs.
++ Evaluate ACHC's procedures for monitoring HHAs it has found to be out of compliance with ACHC's program requirements. (This pertains only to monitoring procedures when ACHC identifies non-compliance. If noncompliance is identified by a state survey agency through a validation survey, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).)
++ Assess ACHC's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed HHA and respond to the HHA's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ Establish ACHC's ability to provide us with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ Determine the adequacy of ACHC's staff and other resources.
++ Confirm ACHC's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
++ Confirm ACHC's policies with respect to surveys being unannounced.
++ Obtain ACHC's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the August 22, 2014 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether ACHC's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for HHAs. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared ACHC's HHA accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs of 42 CFR part 484, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of ACHC's HHA application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, ACHC has completed revising its standards and certification processes to meet the requirements at:
• Section 1891(c)(2)(A) of the Act, to ensure all renewal surveys are conducted within 36 months of the last survey end date.
• § 484.10(c)(2), to address the patient's right to participate in the planning of care.
• § 484.14(e), to ensure personnel records include qualifications and current licensure.
• § 488.8(a)(2)(v), to ensure data submitted in CMS' Accrediting Organization System for Storing User Recorded Experiences (ASSURE) database is complete and accurate.
• § 489.3, to ensure situations that rise to the level of immediate jeopardy (IJ) are cited at the condition level.
Based on our review and observations described in section IV of this final notice, we have determined that the ACHC accreditation program requirements meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we approve the ACHC as a national accreditation organization for HHAs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective February 24, 2015 through February 24, 2021.
This document does not impose information collection and
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Medical Device Accessories: Defining Accessories and Classification Pathway for New Accessory Types.” This draft document provides proposed guidance to industry and FDA staff about the regulation of accessories in medical devices. The guidance explains what FDA considers to be an “accessory,” outlines how the risk-based framework for the classification of devices applies to accessories, and describes the use of the
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 of 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 April 20, 2015. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by March 23, 2015. See section IV of this document, the “Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.”
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance or the information collection to
Sugato De, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5435, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6270 or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
This draft guidance document is intended to provide guidance to industry and FDA staff about the regulation of accessories to other medical devices. In doing so, this guidance document explains what FDA considers to be an “accessory” and outlines how the risk-based framework for the classification of devices applies to accessories. In addition, this guidance describes use of the
For the purposes of this guidance document, FDA considers an “accessory” as a medical device that is intended to support, supplement, and/or augment the performance of one or more medical devices. In practice, the distinctions among devices that support, supplement, and/or augment parent devices are subtle and many devices that we would consider to be an accessory may do more than one of these things. Thus, if the device is intended to support, supplement, and/or augment the performance of one or more parent devices, we intend to consider the device as an accessory.
Once a specific article has been determined to be an accessory, the guidance document describes how the accessory is classified based on its risks when used as intended with the intended parent device(s). In practice, FDA may classify individual accessories either by inclusion in the classification regulation of the parent device (either via a premarket submission or via express inclusion in the language of the regulation or order) or via development of a unique, separate classification regulation or order for the accessory.
For accessories of a new type, the guidance outlines the use of the
This 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 the regulation of medical device accessories. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
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. “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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The draft guidance encourages manufacturers and other parties to utilize the process defined in section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act to request risk-based classifications of new types of accessories. This process provides a pathway to class I or class II classification for accessory devices for which general controls, or general and special controls, provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device.
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, manufacturers and other parties may submit a
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents are medical device manufacturers seeking to market device accessories. Of the approximately 41
Based on estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff who are familiar with the proposed submission process for accessory classification requests and on our burden estimate for a similar information collection request (see “
The draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 860, subpart C, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0138.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Mitigating the Risk of Cross-Contamination From Valves and Accessories Used for Irrigation Through Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopes.” FDA has received reports of blood and stool traveling through colonoscope irrigation channels and into the water bottle and tubing when the irrigation channel did not have a backflow-prevention mechanism in place. This draft guidance document, when finalized, will highlight the cross-contamination risk associated with
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 of 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 April 20, 2015.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6527.
During colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, clinicians often use a water bottle to supply irrigation for the procedure. Clinicians typically use a single water bottle for multiple patients without reprocessing the water bottle between patients. This practice raises the risk of cross-contamination between patients, because the water bottle and associated tubing/connectors can become contaminated with blood or stool that travels up through the endoscope channels and tubing (a phenomenon referred to as “backflow”). FDA has received reports of backflow from colonoscope irrigation channels into the water bottle and tubing when the irrigation channel did not have a backflow-prevention mechanism in place.
This draft guidance document, when finalized, will: (1) Highlight the cross-contamination risk associated with specific types of irrigation valves and accessories when used with flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes; (2) clarify terminology used to describe these devices; and (3) and outline strategies to mitigate the risk of cross-contamination between patients. These strategies will include recommendations on device design and appropriate labeling.
This 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 mitigating the risk of cross-contamination from valves and accessories used for irrigation through flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices.” FDA is issuing this draft guidance to provide clarity to industry and FDA staff on the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH's) compliance policy for low risk products that promote a healthy lifestyle (general wellness products). This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Bakul Patel, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5449, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8589.
FDA is issuing this draft guidance to provide clarity to industry and FDA staff on CDRH's compliance policy for low-risk products that promote a healthy lifestyle (general wellness products). CDRH does not intend to examine low-risk general wellness products, as discussed in this guidance, to determine whether they are devices within the meaning of section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)), or, if they are devices, whether they comply with the FD&C Act's regulatory requirements for devices. This guidance does not apply to products regulated by other FDA Centers (
For purposes of the guidance, CDRH defines “general wellness products” as products which meet the following factors: (1) Are intended for only general wellness use, as defined in this guidance and (2) present a very low risk to users' safety. General wellness products can include exercise equipment, audio recordings, mobile apps, video games, and other products that are typically available from retail establishments (including online retailers and distributors that offer mobile apps to be directly downloaded), when consistent with the two factors above.
The scope of the guidance is limited to certain products that have either: (1) An intended use that relates to maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity or (2) an intended use that associates the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions. For the first category of general wellness products, the intended use do not include any reference or connection to diseases or conditions and only relate to weight management, physical fitness, relaxation or stress management, mental acuity, self-esteem, sleep management, or sexual function. For the second category of general wellness products, the product is intended to promote, track, and/or encourage choice(s), which, as part of a healthy lifestyle, may either help to reduce the risk of, or help living well with, chronic diseases or conditions where it is well understood that the healthy lifestyle choice(s) may reduce the risk or impact of a chronic disease or condition.
The general wellness policy does not extend to devices that present inherent risks to a user's safety. The guidance sets out factors we will consider to identify a device as low risk. If the product is invasive, involves an intervention or technology that may pose a risk to a user's safety if device controls are not applied (such as risks from lasers, radiation exposure, or implants), raises novel questions of usability, or raises questions of biocompatibility, then the device is not covered by this guidance.
We welcome comments on all aspects of this draft guidance. We are particularly interested in comments regarding CDRH's proposed list of general wellness intended uses that relate to maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity. Please comment on the current list as well as other intended uses regarding sustaining or offering general improvement to conditions and functions associated with a general state of health that do not make any reference to diseases or conditions that CDRH should consider including in the list.
This 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 proposed approach on general wellness products. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 (registration and listing and premarket notification (510(k))) have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0625 and 0910-0120, respectively; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 (labeling) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 (good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality system regulation) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 (medical device reporting (MDR) requirements) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 79 FR 75164-75165 dated December 17, 2014).
This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Specifically, this notice: (1) Establishes the Office of Human Resources (RB6); (2) establishes the Division of HR Operations (RB61), Division of Workforce Relations (RB62), and the Division of HR Policy and Technology (RB63), within the Office of Human Resources (RB6); (3) transfers the Division of Workforce Development (RB64) to the newly established Office of Human Resources (RB6); (4) abolishes the Division of Human Resources Management (RB42); (5) renames the Office of Management to the Office of Administrative Management (RB4); (6) renames the Division of Policy and Information Coordination to the Division of the Executive Secretariat (RB41); (7) establishes the Division of Executive Office Services (RB45), Division of Logistics and Support (RB46), and the Division of Security Services (RB47), within the Office of Administrative Management (RB4); (8) abolishes the Division of Management Services (RB43); (9) renames the Division of Contract Services for Primary Care, Health Systems and Clinician Recruitment and Retention to the Division of Technology and Enterprise Solutions (RB3A), and the Division of Contract Services for Maternal and Child Health and Administrative Support Offices to the Division of Primary Care and Health Infrastructure Support (RB3B), and the Division of Contract Services for HIV/AIDS, Health Professions, Rural Health and Grants Management to the Division of Population-Based Support (RB3C), within the Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy (RB3); (10) establishes the Division of Policy and Data Analysis (RB33) and the Division of Financial Support Services (RB34) within the Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy (RB3); (11) abolishes the Contract Administration Division (RB38) within the Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy (RB3); (12) renames the Division of IT Operational Support Services to the Division of End User Support (RB58), within the Office of Information Technology (RB5); (13) establishes the Division of Infrastructure Services (RB57), within the Office of Information Technology (RB5); and (14) abolishes the Division of IT Management Support Services (RB57), the Division of Web Support and Collaboration Services (RB59), and the Division of IT Security and Records Management (RB5R) within the Office of Information Technology (RB5).
To improve health and achieve health equity through access to quality services, a skilled health workforce and innovative programs.
Delete the organization for the Office of Operations (RB) in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of Operations (RB) is headed by the Chief Operating Officer, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Office of Operations includes the following components:
(1) Office of Operations (RB);
(2) Office of Budget (RB1);
a. Division of Budget Formulation and Presentation (RB11);
b. Division of Budget Execution and Management (RB12);
c. Division of Program Budget Services (RB13);
(3) Office of Financial Policy and Controls (RB2);
a. Division of Internal Controls (RB21);
b. Division of Financial Policy and Analysis (RB22);
(4) Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy (RB3);
a. Division of Technology and Enterprise Solutions (RB3A);
b. Division of Primary Care and Health Infrastructure Support (RB3B);
c. Division of Population-Based Support (RB3C);
d. Division of Policy and Data Analysis (RB33);
e. Division of Financial Support Services (RB34);
(5) Office of Administrative Management (RB4);
a. Division of the Executive Secretariat (RB41);
b. Division of Executive Office Services (RB45);
c. Division of Logistics and Support (RB46);
d. Division of Security Services (RB47);
(6) Office of Information Technology (RB5);
a. Division of Capital Planning, Architecture and Project Management (RB52);
b. Division of Data and Information Services (RB55);
c. Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (RB56);
d. Division of Infrastructure Services (RB57);
e. Division of End User Support (RB58); and
(7) Office of Human Resources (RB6);
a. Division of HR Operations (RB61);
b. Division of Workforce Relations (RB62);
c. Division of HR Policy and Technology (RB63);
d. Division of Workforce Development (RB64).
This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Specifically, this notice: (1) Transfers the human resources function from the Office of Management to the Office of Human Resources (RB6); (2) transfers the emergency operations function from the Office of Information Technology (RB5) to the Office of Administrative Management (RB4); (3) transfers the functions from the Division of Management Services to the Division of Executive Office Services (RB45), Division of Logistics and Support (RB46), and the Division of Security Services (RB47), within the Office of Administrative Management (RB4); (4) transfers the function of the Contract Administration Division to the Division of Policy and Data Analysis (RB33), and the Division of Financial Support Services (RB34), within the Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy (RB3); (5) transfers the functions of the Division of IT Management Support
Delete the functions for the Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy, the Office of Information and Technology, and the Office of Management, and replace in their entirety.
The Office of Acquisitions Management and Policy: (1) Provides leadership in the planning, development, and implementation of policies and procedures for contracts; (2) exercises the sole responsibility within HRSA for the award and management of contracts; (3) provides advice and consultation of interpretation and application of the Department of Health and Human Services policies and procedures governing contracts management and inter/intra agency agreements; (4) develops operating procedures and policies for the Agency's contracts programs and inter/intra-agency agreements; (5) establishes standards, guides, and evaluation procedures for contract operations throughout the Agency; (6) coordinates the Agency's positions and actions with respect to the audit of contracts; (7) maintains liaison directly with or through Agency Bureaus or Offices with contractors, other organizations, and various components of the department; (8) provides leadership, guidance, and advice on the promotion of the activities in HRSA relating to procurement and material management governed by the Small Business Act of 1958, Executive Order 11625, other statutes and national policy directives for augmenting the role of private industry, small and minority businesses as sources of supply to the Government and Government contractors; and (9) plans, directs, and coordinates the Agency's strategic sourcing program.
The Division of Technology and Enterprise Solutions: (1) Provides comprehensive acquisition services including planning, soliciting, negotiating, awarding, and administering simplified and negotiated procurement actions tailored to the functions of its assigned Bureau/Offices; (2) ensures compliance with federal laws and regulations, departmental and Agency guidelines, policies and procedures; (3) utilizes the automated contracts reporting systems including data input, data accuracy assessments, review, and correction of data reports; (4) provides professional, in-depth advice and consultation, customized to the Bureaus/Offices, regarding the appropriate contract vehicles and the various phases of the acquisition cycle; (5) conducts pre-award reviews of proposed contracts that exceed the requirements called for in the federal and departmental acquisition regulations in conjunction with the other contract services divisions; (6) plans and coordinates acquisition reviews of contracting activities within HRSA headquarters and the field components; and (7) responds to congressional inquiries and requests for acquisition information from other federal agencies and non-federal sources.
The Division of Primary Care and Health Infrastructure Support: (1) Provides comprehensive acquisition services including planning, soliciting, negotiating, awarding, and administering simplified and negotiated procurement actions tailored to the functions of its assigned Bureau/Offices; (2) ensures compliance with federal laws and regulations, departmental, and Agency guidelines, policies and procedures; (3) utilizes the automated contracts reporting systems including data input, data accuracy assessments, review, and correction of data reports; (4) provides professional, in-depth advice and consultation, customized to the Bureaus/Offices named above, regarding the appropriate contract vehicles and the various phases of the acquisition cycle; (5) conducts pre-award reviews of proposed contracts that exceed the requirements called for in the federal and departmental acquisition regulations in conjunction with the other contract services divisions; (6) plans and coordinates acquisition reviews of contracting activities within HRSA headquarters and the field components; and (7) responds to congressional inquiries and requests for acquisition information from other federal agencies and non-federal sources.
The Division of Population-Based Support: (1) Provides comprehensive acquisition services including planning, soliciting, negotiating, awarding, and administering simplified and negotiated procurement actions tailored to the functions of its assigned Bureau/Offices; (2) ensures compliance with federal laws and regulations, departmental and Agency guidelines, policies and procedures; (3) utilizes the automated contracts reporting systems including data input, data accuracy assessments, review, and correction of data reports; (4) provides professional, in-depth advice and consultation, customized to the Bureaus/Offices, regarding the appropriate contract vehicles and the various phases of the acquisition cycle; (5) conducts pre-award reviews of proposed contracts that exceed the requirements called for in the federal and departmental acquisition regulations in conjunction with the other contract services divisions; (6) plans and coordinates acquisition reviews of contracting activities within HRSA headquarters and the field components; and (7) responds to congressional inquiries and requests for acquisition information from other federal agencies and non-federal sources.
The Division of Policy and Data Analysis: (1) Administers the training and certification programs in collaboration with HRSA's programs and offices for HRSA's Contracting Officers' Representatives (CORS), FAC-C acquisition professionals, and Program and Project Mangers (P/PMs); (2) administers and oversees HRSA's automated contracts reporting systems; (3) conducts and monitors the performance of the HRSA purchase card program for headquarters, satellite contracts office, and regional field offices; (4) develops and implements policies, procedures, and other internal controls in compliance with federal, departmental, and Agency acquisition laws, regulations, policies and procedures; (5) coordinates and responds to acquisition-related information requests including congressional inquiries, performance management reviews, and requests for information from the General Accounting Office, Office of the Inspector General and other departments and non-federal sources; (6) conducts independent reviews and analysis requested by external and
The Division of Financial Support Services: (1) Manages the close-out process of negotiated and simplified acquisition actions and other related actions; (2) in coordination with the Divisions of Contract Services, provides contract audits and analysis related to HRSA's acquisition actions, including terminations, modifications, cost proposals, and invoices; (3) manages the invoice tracker process; (4) manages the inter/intra-agency agreement process; (5) manages input into the Small Business Procurement Forecast Data Repository; (6) manages the contractor performance assessment reporting system and the procurement writing system; and (7) provides credit card audits to ensure compliance with HRSA Policy.
The Office of Administrative Management provides HRSA-wide leadership, program direction, and coordination of all phases of administrative management. Specifically, the Office of Administrative Management: (1) Provides management expertise, staff advice, and support to the Chief Operating Officer in administrative program and policy formulation and execution; (2) provides administrative management services including property management, space planning, Contingency of Operations, safety, physical security, and general administrative services; (3) plans, directs, and coordinates organizational personnel security and badging activities; (4) coordinates the development of policy and regulations; (5) directs and coordinates the agency's delegations of authority; (7) administers the agency's Executive Secretariat and committee management functions; (8) administers the agency's Freedom of Information Program; and (9) serves as the agency's Senior Travel Official.
The Division of the Executive Secretariat provides leadership, management and guidance HRSA-wide for correspondence, policy and information coordination and Freedom of Information Act requests. Specifically, the Executive Secretariat: (1) Advises the Administrator and other key agency officials on cross-cutting policy issues and assists in the identification and resolution of cross-cutting policy issues and problems; (2) establishes and maintains tracking systems that provide HRSA-wide coordination and clearance of policies, regulations and guidelines; (3) plans, organizes and directs the Executive Secretariat with primary responsibility for preparation and management of written correspondence; (4) arranges briefings for Department officials on critical policy issues and oversees the development of necessary briefing documents; (5) coordinates the preparation of proposed rules and regulations relating to HRSA programs and coordinates review and comment on other Department regulations and policy directives that may affect HRSA programs; (6) oversees and coordinates the committee management activities; (7) coordinates the review and publication of
The Division of Executive Office Services plans, directs, and coordinates administrative activities for the offices within the Office of the Administrator (OA). Specifically: (1) Provides administrative management services including property, and general administrative services; (2) ensures implementation of statutes, Executive Orders, and regulations related to official travel and transportation; (3) provides oversight for the HRSA OA travel management program involving use of travel management systems, passenger transportation, and travel charge cards; (4) manages, controls, and/or coordinates all matters relating to mail management within OA; (5) serves as liaison for the Office of the Administrator awards coordination; (6) manages and/or coordinates small purchases and Iprocurements; and (7) coordinates human resource activities for the Office of the Administrator offices.
The Division of Logistics and Support plans, directs, and coordinates administrative activities for the HRSA Bureaus and Offices. Specifically: (1) Ensures implementation of statutes, Executive Orders, and regulations related to official travel, transportation, and relocation; (2) provides oversight for the HRSA travel management program involving use of travel management services/systems, passenger transportation, and travel charge cards; (3) manages, controls, and/or coordinates all matters relating to mail management within HRSA, including developing and implementing procedures for the receipt, delivery, collection, and dispatch of mail; (4) ensures implementation of regulations and policies related to time and attendance throughout HRSA; (5) responsible for the HRSA time and attendance program; (6) manages and/or coordinates small purchases and Iprocurements for Reasonable Accommodations; (7) ensures implementation of statutes, Executive Orders, and regulations related to official relocations of HRSA staff; (8) manages, controls, and/or coordinates all matters relating to mail management within HRSA including developing and implementing procedures for the receipt, delivery, collection, and dispatch of mail; (9) maintains overall responsibility for the HRSA Forms Management Program; (10) provides oversight for the HRSA travel management program involving use of travel management systems, passenger transportation, and travel charge cards; (11) manages the quality of work life programs; (12) provides administrative management services including procurement, property, space planning, and general administrative services; (13) provides planning, management, and oversight of all interior design projects, move services and furniture requirements; (14) develops space and furniture standards and related policies; (15) provides analysis of office space requirements required in supporting decisions relating to the acquisition of commercial leases; (16) manages the copier maintenance program; and (17) manages ergonomics throughout HRSA.
The Division of Security Services plans, directs, and coordinates safety, physical security, personnel security, COOP/Emergency Management, parking/transit subsidy and badging. Specifically: (1) Ensures implementation of Executive Orders, and regulations related to badging and personnel security related functions; (2) manages Transhare and parking coordination programs; (3) provides support and guidance on badging and personnel security issues; (4) approves foreign travel; (5) performs security briefings; (6) approves UFMS and other system requests; (7) performs on-boarding and off-boarding duties; (8) serves as Transhare coordinator and provides oversight for the Transhare and
The Chief Information Officer is responsible for the organization, management, and administrative functions necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Chief Information Officer including: (1) Architects, deploys, and supports IT infrastructure; (2) provides IT end user support; (3) develops enterprise and custom applications; (4) provides investment control, budget formulation and execution, policy development, strategic and tactical planning, and performance monitoring; (5) provides leadership in the development, review, and implementation of policies and procedures to promote improved information technology (IT) management capabilities and best practices throughout HRSA; (6) coordinates IT workforce issues and works closely with the Office of Administrative Services on IT recruitment and training issues; and (7) oversees HRSA security operations and management program.
The Division of Capital Planning, Architecture and Project Management coordinates HRSA's capital planning and investment control, Enterprise Architecture, and Enterprise Project Life Cycle processes including: (1) Provides direct planning development and support to assure that IT activities support and achieve agency business planning and mission objectives; (2) works to obtain required information and analyze it as appropriate; coordinates control and evaluation of ongoing IT projects and investments, including support to the HRSA Enterprise Governance Board and the Technical and Business Review Board in conducting such reviews; (3) implements, coordinates, and administers the records management program for HRSA; and (4) establishes Agency records management policy, HRSA records schedules, and provides training in compliance with National Archives and Records Administration standards.
The Division of Data and Information Services develops and maintains an overall data and information management strategy for HRSA that is integrated with HHS and government-wide strategies, including: (1) Serves as HRSA's coordination center for data transparency and Open Government data initiatives; (2) provides for HRSA's data quality and ensures that data required for HRSA's enterprise information requirements are captured in appropriate enterprise applications and that necessary data repositories are built and maintained; (3) evaluates and integrates emerging technologies to facilitate the translation of data and information from data repositories into electronic formats for internal and external dissemination; (4) identifies information needs across HRSA and develops approaches for meeting those needs using appropriate technologies, including development and maintenance of an enterprise reporting platform and a geospatial data warehouse; (5) enhances and expands the use and utility of HRSA's data by providing basic analytic and user support, develops and maintains a range of information products for internal and external users, and demonstrates potential uses of information in supporting management decisions; (6) provides leadership and establishes policies to address legislative or regulatory requirements in its areas of responsibility; and (7) advises HRSA's Chief Information Officer on technical and analytical support that can be made available to other HRSA Bureaus and Offices.
The Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (DESAM) develops enterprise and customize software applications to meet customer and mission needs. DESAM evaluates business processes, and develops and integrates systems, and functional and data architectures based on requirements. DESAM develops, maintains and supports software application including Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications.
The Division of Infrastructure Services provides leadership and consultation including the following functions: (1) Directs and manages the support and acquisition of HRSA's network and desktop hardware, servers, wireless communication devices, and software licenses; (2) manages the HRSA Data Center and the operation and maintenance of a complex, high-availability network infrastructure on which mission-critical applications are made available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; (3) controls infrastructure configuration management, installations and upgrades, security perimeter protection, and system resource access; and (4) coordinates IT activities for Continuity of Operations Planning Agency-wide including provisioning and maintaining IT infrastructure and hardware at designated Continuity of Operations Planning locations to support emergency and Continuity of Operations Planning requirements.
The Division of End User Support provides leadership, consultation, training, and management services for HRSA's enterprise user computing environment. Specifically: (1) Directs and manages the support and acquisition of HRSA's desktop hardware, mobile devices, telecommunication, and cabling; (2) maintains workstation hardware and software configuration management controls; (3) accounts for property life cycle management, and tracks Agency-wide IT capital equipment; (4) oversees the delivery of desktop services to staff in HRSA Regional Offices; and (5) provides telecommunications accountability, oversight, and support.
(1) Provides advice and guidance on all aspects of the HRSA human resources management program; (2) provides the full range of human resources operations including: employment; staffing and recruitment; compensation; classification; executive resources; labor and employee relations; employee benefits; and retirement; (3) develops and coordinates the implementation of human resources policies and procedures for HRSA's human resources activities; (4) monitors, evaluates, and reports on the effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with HR laws, rules, and regulations; (5) provides advice and guidance for the establishment or modification of organization structures; (6) manages the HRSA's Ethics Program; (7) administers the agency's performance management programs; (8) manages the incentive and honor awards programs; (9) represents HRSA in human resources matters both within and outside of the Department; (10) oversees the commissioned corps liaison activities including the day-to-day operations of workforce management; (11) monitors HR accountability; (12) manages HR information technology; (13) provides staff support to the Deputy Ethics Counselor; (14) directs, coordinates, and conducts workforce development activities for the agency and (15) conducts HRSA-wide workforce analysis studies and surveys.
The Division of HR Operations is responsible for providing advice, guidance and advisory services on human resources activities. (1) Provides the full range of human resources operations activities including: employment; staffing and recruitment; compensation; classification; and personnel action processing; (2) develops and implements human resources policies and procedures for classification, and staffing and recruitment; (3) provides expert guidance to managers on the recruitment process; and (4) ensures human resources staff is meeting customer service and performance expectations.
The Division of Workforce Relations is responsible for providing advice, guidance, and counsel to agency employees and managers. (1) Represents HRSA on human resources matters before the Department, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Personnel Management, the unions, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority; (2) provides human resources to managers and employees, including: labor relations, employee relations, performance management, employee benefits, and retirement; (3) manages the unemployment and voluntary leave transfer programs; (4) manages the HRSA-wide ethics program; (5) administers the performance management programs; (6) manages commissioned corps liaison activities; and (7) manages HRSA's Telework Program.
The Division of HR Policy and Technology: (1) Develops and implements HRSA-wide human resources policies; (2) establishes standard operating procedures for the human resources office; (3) guides the identification, review, and implementation of HR information technology that enables workforce empowerment and supports HR in achieving its ability to execute a variety of duties efficiently and effectively; (4) manages an accountability program that includes preparation and responses to audits and reviews; (5) manages the incentive and honor awards programs; (6) manages the HR helpdesk by providing timely, reliable, and accurate HR-related information to customers and other stakeholders; (7) manages the executive resources functions to include recruitment, staffing, and performance management; and (8) works on HR projects and initiatives.
(1) Establishes long-term workforce skills and capacity building strategies; (2) plans, directs, manages, evaluates HRSA-wide learning programs, technical, career growth and leadership development programs; (3) develops, designs, implements, and evaluates a comprehensive strategic workforce leadership development and career management program for all occupational series throughout HRSA; (4) provides technical assistance and recommendations in creating high-performance in organizations, career management, and employee learning and development; (5) maximizes economies of scale through systematic planning and evaluation of agency-wide learning and leadership development initiatives; (6) identifies and assesses relevant scanning/benchmarking on workforce and career development processes, services and products; (7) establishes policies governing major learning initiatives and new learning activities, and works collaboratively with other components of HRSA in planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating policies related to professional development initiatives; (8) plans, directs, and manages HRSA-wide skills-building and service programs for fellows and interns; (9) conducts agency-wide workforce analysis studies and surveys; (10) develops comprehensive workforce capacity-building strategies that meet the requirements of the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Health and Human Services, programmatic needs of HRSA, and the governance and management needs of HRSA leadership; and (11) evaluates workforce capacity-building strategies to ensure that HRSA is able to retain a cadre of talented and ready public health professionals, reduce risks associated with turnover in mission critical positions and create a match between future needs and the aspirations of individuals.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.
This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurological Sciences and Disorders C, February 26, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to February 27, 2015, 06:00 p.m., Embassy Suites Alexandria, Alexandria, VA which was published in the
The meeting date has been changed from February 26-27, 2015 to March 30-31, 2015. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 6, 2015, 11:00 a.m. to February 6, 2015, 01:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on February 11, 2015. The meeting location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c) (6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute, February 3, 2015, 09:00 a.m. to February 4, 2015, 02:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date and time of the meeting to February 3, 2015 from 08:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section, February 05, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to February 06, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Marriott Courtyard Gaithersburg Washingtonian Ctr, 204 Boardwalk Place, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at Crowne Plaza Rockville, 3 Research Court, Rockville, MD 20850. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
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
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 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 would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice.
The Coast Guard is declaring Sea Area A1 in certain areas off the coast of the United States based upon the performance of the Coast Guard's
For questions on this Notice, contact Robert F. Salmon, telephone: 202-475-3537; email:
Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard's advanced command, control and direction-finding communications system that was created to better locate mariners in distress. By harnessing state-of-the-market technology, Rescue 21 enables the Coast Guard to execute its search and rescue missions with greater agility and efficiency which helps to save lives and property at sea and on navigable rivers. The Coast Guard's Rescue 21 system is comprised of strategically placed VHF Coast Stations that provide a continuous watch on DSC Channel 70 for receiving, and responding to, digital distress alerts.
In accordance with Chapter IV, Regulation 2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), “Sea Area A1 means an area within the radiotelephone coverage of at least one VHF Coast Station in which continuous Digital Selective Calling (DSC) alerting is available, as may be defined by a Contracting Government.” International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution A. 801(19), which is cited in Chapter IV, Regulation 2, further provides that stations participating in VHF DSC watchkeeping in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) should provide as complete a coverage of the Sea Area A1 as is possible.
The performance of the currently built-out Rescue 21 system demonstrates that it provides coverage over more than 90 percent of those areas within 20 nautical miles seaward of the territorial baseline along the East, West, and Gulf coasts of the United States, excluding Alaska, and including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Northern Mariana Islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. Based upon the demonstrated coverage and performance of the Rescue 21 System, and upon the applicable requirements of SOLAS, the Coast Guard is declaring as Sea Area A1 those areas within 20 nautical miles seaward of the territorial baseline along the East, West, and Gulf coasts of the United States, excluding Alaska, and including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Northern Mariana Islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.
While not related to Sea Area A1, the Coast Guard would like to inform mariners that the Rescue 21 System also provides VHF Coast Stations along the Great Lakes so that continuous DSC alerting is available within 20 nautical miles offshore from more than 90 percent of U.S. locations along the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard is also building Rescue 21 facilities along the Western Rivers and in Alaska.
The Coast Guard would like to take this opportunity to remind mariners that no radiocommunications system can guaranty 100 percent coverage or 100 percent availability because of the vagaries of radio propagation and equipment performance. The Coast Guard urges all mariners to be sure that they have obtained and are using a proper Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI), and that their DSC radios are connected to Global Positioning System (GPS) devices (if the DSC radio does not have built-in GPS). Assuring that a DSC alert is accompanied by both a properly registered MMSI and a GPS location significantly enhances and expedites search and rescue efforts.
It should be noted that this Declaration designating specified areas as Sea Area A1 will trigger certain radio carriage provisions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Maritime Radio Service Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 80.1
This notice is issued under authority of 14 U.S.C. 93(a)(16) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
United States Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applicants.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee. This Committee advises and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters relating to safe transit of vessels and products to and from the ports on the Lower Mississippi River and related waterways. Applicants selected for service on the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee via this solicitation will not begin their respective terms until August 27, 2015.
Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard March 23, 2015.
Send your cover letter and resume indicating the position you wish to fill via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Lieutenant Junior Grade Colin Marquis, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee; telephone (504)365-2282 or email at
The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee under the authority found in section 19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991, (Pub. L. 102-241) as amended by section 621 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-281. This Committee is established in accordance with and operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, title 5, United States Code, Appendix. The Lower Mississippi River Waterway
The Committee expects to meet at least two times annually. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. We will consider applications for 25 positions that expire or become vacant August 27, 2015. To be eligible, you should have experience regarding the transportation, equipment, and techniques that are used to ship cargo and to navigate vessels on the Lower Mississippi River and its connecting navigable waterways, including the Gulf of Mexico. The 25 positions available for application are broken down as follows:
1. Five members representing River Port authorities between Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the Head of Passes of the Lower Mississippi River, of which one member shall be from the Port of St. Bernard and one member from the Port of Plaquemines.
2. Two members representing vessel owners domiciled in the state of Louisiana.
3. Two members representing organizations which operate harbor tugs or barge fleets in the geographical area covered by the Committee.
4. Two members representing companies which transport cargo or passengers on the navigable waterways in the geographical area covered by the Committee.
5. Three members representing State Commissioned Pilot organizations, with one member each representing New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, the Crescent River Port Pilots Association, and the Associated Branch Pilots Association.
6. Two at-large members who utilize water transportation facilities located in the geographical area covered by the Committee.
7. Three members each one representing one of three categories: Consumers, shippers, and importers-exporters that utilize vessels which utilize the navigable waterways covered by the Committee.
8. Two members representing those licensed merchant mariners, other than pilots, who perform shipboard duties on those vessels which utilize navigable waterways covered by the Committee.
9. One member representing an organization that serves in a consulting or advisory capacity to the maritime industry.
10. One member representing an environmental organization.
11. One member drawn from the general public.
12. One member representing the Associated Federal Pilots and Docking Masters of Louisiana.
Each member serves for a term of 2 years. Members may serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government. If you are selected as a member from the general public and from at-large members who utilize water transportation facilities in the geographical area covered by the Committee, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a Special Government Employee, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Applicants can obtain this form by going to the Web site of the Office of Government Ethics (
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in her or his individual capacity. See guidance notice (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). Positions we list for members from the general public and from at-large members who utilize water transportation facilities in the geographical area covered by the Committee would be someone appointed in her or his individual capacity and she or he would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65, as amended by title II of Pub. L. 110-81).
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employment organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
To visit our online docket, go to
Note that during the vetting process applicants may be asked to provide date of birth and social security number. All email submittals will receive receipt confirmation.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before February 19, 2015.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP application by one of the following methods. Please refer to
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at Environmental Review, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (TE-54185B) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Applicant requests a new permit for gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
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 your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District, Boise, Idaho, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments to identify relevant issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until February 19, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers and the BLM Web site,
You may submit comments related to the Bruneau Owyhee Sage-Grouse Habitat Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Boise District Office at the above address.
Mike McGee, Wildlife Biologist, Boise District Fuels Management to have your name added to the mailing list, at telephone 208-384-3300; address 3948 S. Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705-5339; email
The project is a collaborative effort among Federal, State, and county governments as well as conservation organizations and the University of Idaho to improve and maintain functioning sage-grouse habitat in Owyhee County, Idaho. The proposal is to remove early-stage encroachment of western juniper (
Recent research suggests that sage-grouse populations incur negative impacts at a very low level of juniper encroachment, and that no leks remain active when conifer cover exceeds 4 percent. Within the proposed treatment area, thousands of acres of sage-grouse habitat are being encroached upon by western juniper. Removal of early-stage juniper encroachment would improve and maintain suitable sage-grouse habitat. Many acres within the project area do not meet the criteria for treatment, for example, areas where juniper is well established and areas where no juniper trees are present. Therefore, actual treatment acres would be considerably less than the 1.5 million acres identified as the project area.
Proposed treatments include cutting and lopping juniper, leaving the material on site, or cutting followed by jackpot burning. Jackpot burning—burning when the ground is saturated, frozen, or covered by snow—would be utilized in areas where scattering cut juniper is not feasible or desirable. Mastication of juniper using a track-hoe fitted with a grinding implement could also occur within 100 feet of existing roads. The BLM may use handsaws to implement treatment within designated wilderness or wilderness study areas, as determined through a minimum requirements analysis.
The purpose of public scoping is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and to guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues:
• Juniper slash near roads posing a threat to the public and firefighters during a wildfire,
• Introduction and spread of invasive and noxious vegetation,
• Impacts to raptor nests,
• Removal of old growth juniper,
• Disturbance to lekking, nesting or wintering sage-grouse during project implementation,
• Disturbance to migratory birds, and
• Effects of juniper management on wilderness characteristics.
Appropriate mitigation measures would be used to minimize impacts to sage-grouse habitat, old growth juniper, raptor nests, migratory birds, and wilderness characteristics. These mitigation measures would be identified in detail in the EIS and would primarily include physical avoidance and timing restrictions during implementation.
The BLM will use NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed sage-grouse habitat project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, that may be interested in or affected by the proposed sage-grouse habitat project may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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.
40 CFR 1501.7.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
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) Dakotas Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Dakotas Resource Advisory Council meeting will be held on February 12, 2015 in Bowman, North Dakota. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Bowman City Offices, 101 First Street Northeast, Bowman, North Dakota.
Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Eastern Montana/Dakotas District, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana 59301; (406) 233-2831;
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 North and South Dakota. At this meeting, topics will include: An Eastern Montana/Dakotas District report, North Dakota and South Dakota Field Office manager reports, Montana/Dakotas State Office RAC chair meeting topics for discussion, Ft. Meade Recreation Area trails projects report, individual RAC member reports and other issues the council may raise. All meetings are open to the public and the
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
1. Irrigation, M&I, and Miscellaneous Water Users; Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming: Temporary or interim irrigation and M&I water service, water storage, water
2. Rogue River Basin Water Users, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon: Water service contracts; $8 per acre-foot per annum.
3. Willamette Basin Water Users, Willamette Basin Project, Oregon: Water service contracts; $8 per acre-foot per annum.
4. Pioneer Ditch Company, Boise Project, Idaho; Clark and Edwards Canal and Irrigation Company, Enterprise Canal Company, Ltd., Lenroot Canal Company, Liberty Park Canal Company, Poplar ID, all in the Minidoka Project, Idaho; and Juniper Flat District Improvement Company, Wapinitia Project, Oregon: Amendatory repayment and water service contracts; purpose is to conform to the RRA.
5. Nine water user entities of the Arrowrock Division, Boise Project, Idaho: Repayment agreements with districts with spaceholder contracts for repayment, per legislation, of the reimbursable share of costs to rehabilitate Arrowrock Dam Outlet Gates under the O&M program.
6. Three irrigation water user entities, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon: Long-term contracts for exchange of water service with three entities for the provision of up to 292 acre-feet of stored water from Applegate Reservoir (a USACE project) for irrigation use in exchange for the transfer of out-of-stream water rights from the Little Applegate River to instream flow rights with the State of Oregon for instream flow use.
7. Conagra Foods Lamb Weston, Inc., Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Miscellaneous purposes water service contract providing for the delivery of up to 1,500 acre-feet of water from the Scooteney Wasteway for effluent management.
8. Benton ID, Yakima Project, Washington: Replacement contract to, among other things, withdraw the District from the Sunnyside Division Board of Control; provide for direct payment of the District's share of total operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs incurred by the United States in operation of storage division; and establish District responsibility for operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement for irrigation distribution system.
9. Stanfield and Westland IDs and 67 individual contractors, Umatilla Project, Oregon: Amendatory repayment contracts and repayment agreements for reimbursable cost of SOD repairs to McKay Dam.
1. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators, M&I and miscellaneous water users; California, Nevada, and Oregon: Temporary (interim) water service contracts for available project water for irrigation, M&I, or fish and wildlife purposes providing up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for terms up to 5 years; temporary Warren Act contracts for up to 10,000 acre-feet for use of excess capacity in project facilities for terms up to 5 years; temporary conveyance agreements with the State of California for various purposes; long-term contracts for similar service for up to 1,000 acre-feet annually.
2. Contractors from the American River Division, Delta Division, Cross Valley Canal, San Felipe Division, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis Unit, and Elk Creek Community Services District; CVP; California: Renewal of 30 interim and long-term water service contracts; water quantities for these contracts total in excess of 2.1M acre-feet. These contract actions will be accomplished through long-term renewal contracts pursuant to Public Law 102-575. Prior to completion of negotiation of long-term renewal contracts, existing interim renewal water service contracts may be renewed through successive interim renewal of contracts.
3. Redwood Valley County WD, SRPA, California: Restructuring the repayment schedule pursuant to Public Law 100-516.
4. El Dorado County Water Agency, CVP, California: M&I water service contract to supplement existing water supply. Contract will provide for an amount not to exceed 15,000 acre-feet annually authorized by Public Law 101-514 (Section 206) for El Dorado County Water Agency. The supply will be subcontracted to El Dorado ID and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District.
5. Sutter Extension WD, Delano-Earlimart ID, Pixley ID, the State of California Department of Water Resources, and the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CVP; California: Pursuant to Pub. L. 102-575, agreements with non-Federal entities for the purpose of providing funding for CVPIA refuge water conveyance and/or facilities improvement construction to deliver water for certain Federal wildlife refuges, State wildlife areas, and private wetlands.
6. CVP Service Area, California: Temporary water acquisition agreements for purchase of 5,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water for fish and wildlife purposes as authorized by Public Law 102-575 for terms of up to 5 years.
7. El Dorado ID, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of nonproject water in the amount of up to 17,000 acre-feet annually. The contract will allow CVP facilities to be used to deliver nonproject water to the District for M&I use within its service area.
8. Horsefly, Klamath, Langell Valley, and Tulelake IDs; Klamath Project; Oregon: Repayment contracts for SOD work on Clear Lake Dam. These districts will share in repayment of costs, and each district will have a separate contract.
9. Casitas Municipal WD, Ventura Project, California: Repayment contract for SOD work on Casitas Dam.
10. Warren Act Contracts, CVP, California: Execution of long-term Warren Act contracts (up to 40 years) with various entities for conveyance of nonproject water in the CVP.
11. Tuolumne Utilities District (formerly Tuolumne Regional WD), CVP, California: Long-term water service contract for up to 9,000 acre-feet from New Melones Reservoir, and possibly a long-term contract for storage of nonproject water in New Melones Reservoir.
12. Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority, CVP, California: Agreement to transfer the OM&R and certain financial and administrative activities related to the Madera Canal and associated works.
13. Sacramento Suburban WD, CVP, California: Execution of long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of 29,000 acre-feet of nonproject water. The contract will allow CVP facilities to be used to deliver nonproject water provided from the Placer County Water Agency to the District for use within its service area.
14. Town of Fernley, State of California, City of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County, State of Nevada, Truckee-Carson ID, and any other local interest or Native American Tribal Interest who may have negotiated rights under Public Law 101-618; Nevada and California: Contract for the storage of non-Federal water in Truckee River reservoirs as authorized by Public Law 101-618 and the Preliminary Settlement Agreement. The contracts shall be consistent with the Truckee River Water Quality Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of the Truckee River Operating Agreement.
15. Delta Lands Reclamation District No. 770, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of up to 300,000 acre-feet of nonproject flood flows via the Friant-Kern Canal for flood control purposes.
16. Pershing County Water Conservation District, Pershing County, Lander County, and the State of Nevada; Humboldt Project; Nevada: Title transfer of lands and features of the Humboldt Project.
17. Mendota Wildlife Area, CVP, California: Reimbursement agreement between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for conveyance service costs to deliver Level 2 water to the Mendota Wildlife Area during infrequent periods when the Mendota Pool is down due to unexpected but needed maintenance. This action is taken pursuant to Public Law 102-575, Title 34, Section 3406(d)(1), to meet full Level 2 water needs of the Mendota Wildlife Area.
18. San Luis WD, CVP, California: Proposed partial assignment of 2,400 acre-feet of the District's CVP supply to Santa Nella County WD for M&I use.
19. Placer County Water Agency, CVP, California: Proposed exchange agreement under section 14 of the 1939 Act to exchange up to 71,000 acre-feet annually of the Agency's American River Middle Fork Project water for use by Reclamation, for a like amount of CVP water from the Sacramento River for use by the Agency.
20. Irrigation Contractors, Klamath Project, Oregon: Amendment of repayment contracts or negotiation of new contracts to allow for recovery of additional capital costs.
21. Orland Unit Water User's Association, Orland Project, California: Repayment contract for the SOD costs assigned to the irrigation of Stony Gorge Dam.
22. Goleta WD, Cachuma Project, California: An agreement to transfer title of the federally owned distribution system to the District subject to approved legislation.
23. Colusa County WD, CVP, California: Execution of a long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of up to 40,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year through the use of the Tehama-Colusa Canal.
24. City of Santa Barbara, Cachuma Project, California: Execution of a temporary contract and a long-term Warren Act contract with the City for conveyance of nonproject water in Cachuma Project facilities.
25. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in California, Nevada, and Oregon: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to ARRA. Added costs to rates to be collected under irrigation and interim M&I ratesetting policies.
26. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in California, Nevada, and Oregon: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11.
27. Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, Cachuma Project, California: Amendment to SOD Contract No. 01-WC-20-2030 to provide for increased SOD costs associated with Bradbury Dam.
28. Reclamation will become signatory to a three-party conveyance agreement with the Cross Valley Contractors and the California State Department of Water Resources for conveyance of Cross Valley Contractors' CVP water supplies that are made available pursuant to long-term water service contracts.
29. Westlands WD, CVP, California: Negotiation and execution of a long-term repayment contract to provide reimbursement of costs related to the construction of drainage facilities. This action is being undertaken to satisfy the Federal Government's obligation to provide drainage service to Westlands located within the San Luis Unit of the CVP.
30. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; California: Revision of an existing contract between San Luis WD, Meyers Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation providing for an increase in the exchange of water from 6,316 to 10,526 acre-feet annually and an increase in the storage capacity of the bank to 60,000 acre-feet.
31. San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, Delta Division, CVP, California: Negotiation of a 5-year wheeling agreement with an effective date in 2011 is pending. A wheeling agreement with the State of California, Department of Water Resources provides for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through State of California facilities to the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery.
32. Byron-Bethany ID, CVP, California: A current wheeling agreement with the State of California, Department of Water Resources and Byron-Bethany ID for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through the California State Aqueduct to Musco Family Olive Company, a customer of Byron-Bethany.
33. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: Amendment to an existing O&M agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra Costa Rock Slough Fish Screen to the District. Initial construction funding provided through ARRA.
34. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators and M&I water users, CVP, California: Temporary water service contracts for terms not to exceed 1 year for up to 100,000 acre-feet of surplus supplies of CVP water resulting from an unusually large water supply, not otherwise storable for project purposes, or from infrequent and otherwise unmanaged flood flows of short duration.
35. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators, M&I and miscellaneous water users, CVP, California: Temporary Warren Act contracts for terms up to 5 years providing for use of excess capacity in CVP facilities for annual quantities exceeding 10,000 acre-feet.
36. City of Redding, CVP, California: Proposed partial assignment of 30 acre-feet of the City of Redding's CVP water supply to the City of Shasta Lake for M&I use.
37. Langell Valley ID, Klamath Project; Oregon: Title transfer of lands and facilities of the Klamath Project.
38. Sacramento River Division, CVP, California: Administrative assignments of various Sacramento River Settlement Contracts.
39. Conaway Preservation Group, LLC, Sacramento River Division, CVP, California: Proposed assignment of 10,000 acre-feet of water under an existing Sacramento River Settlement Contract to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.
40. California Department of Fish and Game, CVP, California: To extend the term of and amend the existing water service contract for the Department's San Joaquin Fish Hatchery to allow an increase from 35 to 60 cubic feet per second of continuous flow to pass through the Hatchery prior to it returning to the San Joaquin River.
41. Orland Unit Water User's Association, Orland Project, California: Title transfer of lands and features of the Orland Project.
42. Santa Clara Valley WD, CVP, California: Second amendment to Santa Clara Valley WD's water service contract to add an additional point of delivery.
43. PacifiCorp, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Transfer of O&M of Link River Dam and associated facilities. Contract will allow for the continued O&M by PacifiCorp.
44. Tulelake ID, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Transfer of O&M of Station 48 and gate on Drain #1, Lost River Diversion Channel.
45. Fresno County Waterworks No. 18; Friant Division, CVP; California: Execution of an agreement to provide for the O&M of select Federal facilities by Fresno County Waterworks No. 18.
46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulelake ID; Klamath Project; Oregon and California: Water service contract for deliveries to Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, including transfer of O&M responsibilities for the P Canal system.
47. Tulelake ID, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Amendment of repayment contract to eliminate reimbursement for P Canal O&M costs.
48. East Bay Municipal Utility District, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for storage and conveyance of up to 47,000 acre-feet annually.
49. Sacramento County Water Agency, CVP, California: Assignment of 7,000 acre-feet of CVP water to the City of Folsom.
50. Del Puerto WD, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract, not to exceed 40 years, for storage and conveyance of up to 60,000 acre-feet of recycled water from the cities of Turlock and Modesto. This nonproject water will be stored in the San Luis Reservoir and conveyed through the Delta-Mendota Canal to agricultural lands and wildlife refuges.
1. (12) Banta Carbona ID, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of nonproject water in the Delta-Mendota Canal.
2. (25) County of Tulare, CVP, California: Proposed assignment of the County's Cross Valley Canal water supply in the amount of 5,308 acre-feet to its various subcontractors. Water will be used for both irrigation and M&I purposes.
1. Milton and Jean Phillips, BCP, Arizona: Develop a Colorado River water delivery contract for 60 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year as recommended by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
2. John J. Peach, BCP, Arizona: Develop a Colorado River water delivery contracts for 456 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year as recommended by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
3. Gila Project Works, Gila Project, Arizona: Title transfer of facilities and certain lands in the Wellton-Mohawk Division from the United States to the Wellton-Mohawk IDD.
4. Sherrill Ventures, LLLP and Green Acres Mohave, LLC; BCP; Arizona: Draft contracts for PPR No. 14 for 1,080 acre-feet of water per year as follows: Sherrill Ventures, LLLP, a draft contract for 954.3 acre-feet per year and Green Acres Mohave, LLC, a draft contract for 125.7 acre-feet per year.
5. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to ARRA.
6. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Pub. L. 111-11.
7. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Proposed 100-year lease not to exceed 5,925 acre-feet per year of CAP water from the Tribe to Gilbert.
8. City of Yuma, BCP, Arizona: Amend the City's contract to extend the term (which expired October 2012) for 5 years during which time a consolidated contract will be developed.
9. Bard WD, Yuma Project, California: Supersede and replace the District's O&M contract for the Yuma Project, California, Reservation Division, Indian Unit, to reflect that appropriated funds are no longer available, and to specify an alternate process for transfer of funds. In addition, other miscellaneous processes required for Reclamation's contractual administration and oversight will be updated to ensure the Federal Indian Trust obligation for reservation water and land are met.
10. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the San Diego County Water Authority, and the Otay WD; BCP; California: Execute a proposed Amendment No. 2 to extend the “Agreement for Temporary Emergency Delivery of a Portion of the Mexican Treaty Waters of the Colorado River to the International Boundary in the Vicinity of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, and the Operation of Facilities in the United States” until November 9, 2019.
11. Flowing Wells ID and the City of Tucson, CAP, Arizona: Execute a proposed partial assignment to the City of 19 acre-feet per year from the District's CAP water entitlement amount of 4,354 acre-feet per year.
12. Central Arizona Water Conservation District, CAP, Arizona: Negotiate a standard form of wheeling agreement for the wheeling of nonproject water, in accordance with the District's existing contract.
13. Ogram Farms, BCP, Arizona: Revise Exhibit A of the contract to change the contract service area and points of diversion/delivery.
14. Ogram Boys Enterprises, Inc., BCP, Arizona: Revise Exhibit A of the contract to change the contract service area and points of diversion/delivery.
15. H2O Water Company, Inc. and the Town of Queen Creek, CAP, Arizona: Execute a proposed assignment to the Town of Queen Creek of the H2O Water Company's 147 acre-foot annual CAP water entitlement.
16. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute Amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 20,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015.
17. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute Amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to lease 13,933 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015.
18. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 2,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2015.
19. Town of Quartzsite, BCP, Arizona: Amend the contract with the Town of Quartzsite to extend the term for another 15 years ending on January 28, 2029.
1. (18) Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, and the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, CAP, Arizona: Approve a proposed exchange agreement for 13,933 acre-feet of CAP water for Verde River water. Contract executed September 25, 2014.
2. (24) Cibola Valley IDD, BCP, Arizona: Approve a partial assignment of 240 acre-feet per year from the District's Colorado River fourth-priority entitlement to GSC Farm, LLC, and execute the necessary amendments to the District's and GSC's contracts. Contract executed December 3, 2014.
1. (7) Bureau of Land Management, LCWSP, California: Amend contract No. 8-07-30-W0375 to add a new point of diversion and place of use; San Bernardino County's Park Moabi, a Bureau of Land Management-leased site.
1. Individual irrigators, M&I, and miscellaneous water users; Initial Units, CRSP; Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico: Temporary (interim) water service contracts for surplus project water for irrigation or M&I use to provide up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for terms up to 10 years; long-term contracts for similar service for up to 1,000 acre-feet of water annually.
2. Contracts with various water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Pub. L. 111-11 to be executed as project progresses.
3. Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico: Reclamation continues annual leasing of water from various San Juan-Chama Project contractors to stabilize flows in a critical reach of the Rio Grande in order to meet the needs of irrigators and preserve habitat for the silvery minnow. Reclamation leased approximately 13,209 acre-feet of water from San Juan-Chama Project contractors in 2014.
4. Various Entities, Carlsbad Project, New Mexico: Reclamation leases water in the Pecos River to make up for the water depletions caused by changes in operations at Sumner Dam which were made to improve conditions for a threatened species, the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner. Individual irrigators enter into forbearance contracts and lease agreements with individuals who have privately held water rights to divert nonproject water either directly from the Pecos River or from shallow/artesian wells in the Pecos River Watershed. Reclamation contracted with Fort Sumner ID for partial- and full-season fallowing in 2014, and with the NMISC to lease privately held water for delivery to the Pecos River via the NMISC's Vaughn Pipeline.
5. Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District, Lyman Project, Wyoming: The District has requested that its Meeks Cabin repayment contract be amended from two 25-year contacts to one 40-year contract.
6. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: Proposed carriage contract to both store up to 35,000 acre-feet of nonproject water in Steinaker Reservoir and carry nonproject water in the Steinaker Service and Feeder Canals.
7. PacifiCorp Energy Corporation, Emery County Project, Utah: The Corporation has requested renewal of its water service contract for 6,000 acre-feet of project M&I water from Joe's Valley Reservoir, Emery County Project.
8. Aamodt Litigation Settlement, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: Contract for 1,079 acre-feet of San Juan-Chama Project water for M&I use with the four Pueblos included in the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, Title VI of P.L. 111-291. The four Pueblos are the Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque.
9. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Salt River Project, Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona: The District has requested a renewal of its existing contract from 2034 through 2044.
10. City of Santa Fe, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: Contract to store up to 50,000 acre-feet of project Water in Elephant Butte Reservoir. The proposed contract would have a 25- to 40-year maximum term, which due to ongoing consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has been executed and extended on an annual basis. The Act of December 29, 1981, Public Law 97-140, 95 Stat. 1717 provides authority to enter into this contract.
11. Pinnacle Potash International, Flaming Gorge, CRSP, Utah: Pinnacle Potash International has requested a water service agreement for up to 20,000 acre feet of M&I water out of Flaming Gorge for potash mining at a place near Crescent Junction, Utah.
12. Weber River Water Users Association, Weber River Project, Utah: The Association has requested Reclamation augment a to-be-built O&M building near Echo Dam and is willing to pay the difference in costs for the larger building. The United States would accept the money under the Civil Sundry Appropriations Act of 1921.
13. North Summit Pressurized Irrigation Company, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The Company has requested a contract to convey and store its privately held water on a space-available basis in Rockport Reservoir and the use of Wanship Dam to pressurize its piped irrigation system under the authority of the Warren Act of 1911.
14. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, Provo River Project, Utah: The District has requested a contract to store its Ontario Drain Tunnel water in Deer Creek Reservoir on a space-available basis under the authority of the Warren Act of 1911.
15. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The District has requested a contract to return certain water rights to Reclamation and for Reclamation to allow the storage of Weber Basin Project water in Smith Morehouse Reservoir under the authority of Section 14 of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939.
16. Azalea Oil Company; Flaming Gorge Unit, CRSP; Wyoming: The Company has requested a contract for 1 acre-foot of water for drilling, dust suppression, and other uses for a well. The Company plans on drilling in Southwest Wyoming.
17. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: Requested a water delivery contract for 33,519 acre-feet of M&I water; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554).
18. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: Requested a water delivery contract for 33,519 acre-feet of M&I water; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554).
19. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, New Mexico: Reclamation continues negotiations on an OM&R transfer contract with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority pursuant to Public Law 111-11, Section 10602(f) which transfers responsibilities to carry out the OM&R of transferred works of the Project; ensures the continuation of the intended benefits of the Project, distribution of water, and sets forth the allocation and payment of annual OM&R costs of the Project.
20. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: Requested a contract to store up to 50,000 acre-feet of project water in Elephant Butte Reservoir. The proposed contract would have a 40-year maximum term, which due to ongoing consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the existing Contract No. 3-CS-53-01510 which expired on January 26, 2008, has been extended annually. The Act of December 29, 1981, Pub. L. 97-140, 95 Stat. 1717 provides authority to enter into this contract. Reclamation is conducting environmental compliance to proceed with the 40-year contract. In the interim, Reclamation continues to execute annual renewals until a long-term contract can be executed.
21. Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico: (a) Navajo Nation title transfer agreement for the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline for facilities and land outside the corporate boundaries of the City of Farmington, New Mexico; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554) and the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act (Title X of Pub. L. 111-11);
22. Dolores Water Conservancy District, Dolores Project, Colorado: The District has requested a water service contract for 1,402 acre-feet of newly identified project water for irrigation. The proposed water service contract will provide 417 acre-feet of project water for irrigation of the Ute Enterprise and 985 acre-feet for use by the District's full-service irrigators.
23. City of Page, Arizona; Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP; Arizona: Long-term contract for 975 acre-feet of water for municipal purposes.
24. Florida Water Conservancy District, Florida Project, Colorado: The District and the United States, pursuant to Section 4 of the CRSP, and subsection 9(c)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939, propose to negotiate and execute a water service contract for 2,500 acre-feet of Florida Project water for M&I and other miscellaneous beneficial uses, other than commercial agricultural irrigation, within the District boundaries in La Plata County, Colorado.
25. Aamodt Settlement, Pojoaque Basin Region Water System: Contributed Funding Agreements with the County of Santa Fe for associated construction costs will be executed in 2015.
1. (7) Public Service Company of New Mexico, Reclamation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program: The agreement identifies that Reclamation may provide cost-share funding for the recovery monitoring and research, and O&M of the constructed fish passage at the Public Service Company's site pursuant to Pub. L. 106-392, dated October 30, 2000 (114 Stat. 1602).
2. (8) Jensen Unit, CUP, Utah: The Uintah Water Conservancy District has requested a contract with provisions to prepay 2,675 acre-feet of the 3,300 acre-feet of project M&I water from Red Fleet Reservoir. Contract executed October 9, 2014.
3. (16) Pine Glen, LLC, Mancos Project, Colorado: Pine Glen LLC has requested a new carriage contract to replace existing contract No. 14-06-400-4901, assignment No. 6. The new contract is the result of a property sale. Remaining interest in the existing assignment is for 0.56 cubic feet per second of nonproject water to be carried through Mancos Project facilities. Contract executed February 13, 2014.
4. (17) Voiles, Katherine Marie and William Thomas, Mancos Project, Colorado: Katherine Marie and William Thomas Voiles have requested a new carriage contract to replace existing contract No. 14-06-400-4901, assignment No. 2-A. The new contract is the result of a property sale. Remaining interest in the existing assignment is for 0.38 cubic feet per second of nonproject water to be carried through Mancos Project facilities. Contract executed February 26, 2014.
5. (18) Hanson, Brian E. and Joan M. Brake-Hanson, Mancos Project, Colorado: Brian E. Hanson and Joan M. Brake-Hanson have requested a new carriage contract to replace existing contract No. 14-06-400-4901, assignment No. 5. The new contract is the result of a property sale. Remaining interest in the existing assignment is for 0.12 cubic feet per second of nonproject water to be carried through Mancos Project facilities. Contract executed July 29, 2014.
6. (20) El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, Rio Grande Project, Texas: Contract to convert up to 1,000 acre-feet of the Pueblo's project irrigation water to use for tradition and religious purposes.
1. (12) Elkhead Reservoir Enlargement: This contract will supersede Contract No. 05-WC-40-420. The proposed contract will include the Recovery Program's pro-rata share of the actual construction cost plus fish screen costs. Also identified in this proposed contract is the pro-rata share of the actual construction costs for the other signatory parties. Upon payment by Recovery Program, this proposed contract will ensure a permanent water supply for the endangered fish.
2. (22) Uintah Water Conservancy District, Jensen Unit, CUP, Utah: Proposed carriage contract to both store up to 5,000 acre-feet of nonproject water in Red Fleet Reservoir and carry nonproject water in the project Canals.
1. Irrigation, M&I, and miscellaneous water users; Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: Water service contracts for the sale, conveyance, storage, and exchange of surplus project water and nonproject water for irrigation or M&I use to provide up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 1 year, or up to 1,000 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 40 years.
2. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Pub. L. 111-11.
3. Green Mountain Reservoir, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Water service contracts for irrigation and M&I; contracts for the sale of water from the marketable yield to water users within the Colorado River Basin of western Colorado.
4. Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP, North Dakota: Intent to modify long-term water service contract to add additional irrigated acres.
5. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of excess capacity contracting in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
6. Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of excess capacity contracting in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.
7. Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term contract or amendment of contract No. 4-07-70-W0107 with the Municipal Subdistrict and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project.
8. Northern Integrated Supply Project, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term contract with approximately 15 regional water suppliers and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for the Northern Integrated Supply Project.
9. Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Long-term exchange, conveyance, and storage contract to implement the Exhibit B Agreement of the Settlement Agreement on Operating Procedures for Green Mountain Reservoir Concerning Operating Limitations and in Resolution of the
10. Roger W. Evans (Individual); Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of long-term water service contract.
11. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc., Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Contract for long-term carriage and storage, and/or a new contract for an additional use of water.
12. Southeastern Water Conservancy District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of an excess capacity master storage contract.
13. Green Mountain Reservoir, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a request for a contract for municipal-recreational purposes.
14. State of Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks; Glen Elder Unit, P-SMBP; Kansas: Intent to enter into a contract for the remaining conservation storage in Waconda Lake for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes.
15. Arkansas Valley Conduit, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of a repayment contract for the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
16. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Amend or supplement the 1938 repayment contract to include the transfer of OM&R for Carter Lake Dam Additional Outlet Works and Flatiron Power Plant Bypass facilities.
17. Jamestown Reservoir, Jamestown Unit, P-SMBP, North Dakota: Intent to enter into an individual long-term irrigation water service contract to provide up to 285 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 40 years from Jamestown Reservoir, North Dakota.
18. Donala Water and Sanitation District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of a long-term excess capacity contract.
19. Purgatoire Water Conservancy District, Trinidad Project, Colorado: Consideration of a request to amend the contract.
20. Doug and Michelle Hamilton; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract.
21. Frank Robbins; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract.
22. Wade W. Jacobsen; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract.
23. Yellowtail Unit, P-SMBP, Montana: Negotiation of a water allocation agreement with the Crow Tribe for 300,000 acre-feet of storage in Bighorn Lake pursuant to the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-291, enacted December 8, 2010).
24. Garrison Diversion Conservancy District; Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Renegotiation of the master repayment contract to conform to the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000; negotiation of water service or repayment contracts with irrigators and M&I users.
25. State of Colorado; Armel Unit, P-SMBP; Colorado: Consideration of a contract action to address future OM&R costs.
26. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, Norman Project, Oklahoma: Amend existing contract No. 14-06-500-590 to execute a separate contract(s) to allow for importation and storage of nonproject water in accordance with the Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2012.
27. Harlan County Dam and Reservoir, Bostwick Division, P-SMBP, Nebraska and Kansas: Consideration of a contract with Bostwick ID in Nebraska and Kansas-Bostwick ID No. 2 for repayment of extraordinary O&M at Harlan County Dam and Reservoir.
28. Altus Dam, W.C. Austin Project: Consideration of a contract(s) for repayment of SOD costs.
29. Bull Lake Dam, Riverton Unit, P-SMBP: Consideration of a contract with Midvale ID for repayment of SOD costs.
30. Helena Valley ID; Helena Valley Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the repayment contract to allow for delivery of up to 10,000 acre-feet of water for M&I purposes within the District boundaries.
31. Savage ID; Savage Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Intent to renew the repayment contract to provide for a long-term-water supply to the District.
32. Mirage Flats ID; Mirage Flats Project: Consideration of a contract action for repayment of SOD costs.
33. Guernsey Dam, North Platte Project, Nebraska and Wyoming: O&M repayment contracts with North Platte Project contractors for the repayment of extraordinary maintenance associated with Guernsey Dam.
34. Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo Project, Texas: Consideration of a potential contract(s) for use of excess capacity by individual landowner(s) for irrigation purposes.
35. Dickinson-Heart River Mutual Aid Corporation; Dickinson Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of an amended long-term irrigation water service contract.
36. Town of Silverthorne, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term water service contract for Green Mountain Reservoir.
37. Soldier Canyon Filter Plant/Tri-Districts, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a long-term excess capacity contract.
38. Hillcrest Colony; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a 10-year water service contract.
39. Allan Davies; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Renewal of a long-term water service contract.
40. William Rau; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Renewal of a long-term water service contract.
41. Western Heart River ID; Heart Butte Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation repayment contract and project-use power contract to include additional acres.
42. Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP, Montana: Renewal of 20 various individual water service contracts for small amounts of irrigation and municipal water use.
43. Edwards Farms, Nebraska Bostwick, P-SMBP: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act contract.
44. Larry TenBensel, Frenchman Cambridge, P-SMBP: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act contract.
45. Dickinson-Heart River Mutual Aid Corporation; Dickinson Unit, Heart Division; P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation water service contract to modify the acres irrigated.
46. Galloway, Inc. (dba Blue Valley Ranch), Green Mountain Reservoir; Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a request to amend the existing contract.
47. Fort Clark ID; Fort Clark Unit; P-SMBP; North Dakota: Intent to enter into a new 5-year irrigation water service contract.
48. Buford-Trenton ID, Buford-Trenton Project, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation power repayment contract and project-use power contract to include additional acres.
49. Larry TenBensel, Frenchman-Cambridge, P-SMBP: Consideration of a long term excess capacity contract for the conveyance of nonproject water.
50. Kansas Bostwick ID, P-SMBP: Proposed amendment to original excess capacity contract executed June 2014, or new short-term excess capacity contract for storage and conveyance of nonproject water.
51. State of Nebraska, Bostwick Division, P-SMBP: Excess capacity contract with the State of Nebraska and/or State of Kansas entities.
52. Jeffrey N. Edwards Revocable Trust; Bostwick Division, P-SMBP; Nebraska: Excess capacity contract for the conveyance of nonproject water.
53. Grass Land Colony, Inc.; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Proposed 10-year contract for M&I water.
1. (39) Nelson Dikes, Milk River Project: Consideration of a contract(s) for repayment of SOD costs. Completed, various dates.
2. (56) Port of Entry Piegan, Montana; Milk River Project; Montana: Consideration of a new water service contract. Contract executed November 7, 2014.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 23, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact William Majors,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: Respondents must complete the eForm Access Request form in order to receive a user ID and password to obtain access to ATF's eForm System. The information is used by the Government to verify the identity of the end users prior to issuing passwords.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On January 13, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the lawsuits entitled
The proposed consent decree is between Plaintiff United States of America and the following Settling Defendants: Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc. (“PPPI”), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Myset Investment Company, Citigroup Inc., MRC Holdings, Inc., Rexam Beverage Can Company, Albéa Americas, Inc., and certain real property currently owned and operated by Albéa (referred to here as “Washington Facility”). Rio Tinto AUM is also a signatory to the consent decree and bound by certain paragraphs set forth in the agreement.
This consent decree would resolve the United States' claims under CERCLA against the Settling Defendants arising from the Pohatcong Valley Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site located in Warren County, New Jersey (“Site”). The Site consists of an area of two plumes of groundwater contamination (one that is contaminated primarily with trichloroethylene (“TCE plume”) and another that is contaminated primarily with tetrachloroethylene (“PCE plume”), that join into a combined plume) which EPA has divided into three Operable Units (“OUs”). OU1 addresses groundwater contamination in two areas within Washington Borough and neighboring townships. OU2 addresses groundwater contamination down-gradient from OU1. OU3 consists of contaminated soil source areas in the OU1 area.
The proposed consent decree provides that PPPI will perform the
The Consent Decree includes covenants not to sue by the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the 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:
Please enclose a check or money order for $74.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $20.00.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Notice of revision of listing of covered Department of Energy facilities.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is publishing a list of Department of Energy (DOE) facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA). This notice revises and republishes the listing of DOE facilities that was last published by OWCP on April 8, 2013 (78 FR 20950) to include additional determinations made on this subject through January 20, 2015.
Rachel P. Leiton, Director, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-3321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0081 (this is not a toll-free number).
OWCP welcomes comments regarding this list. Individuals who wish to suggest changes to this list may provide information to OWCP at the following address: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Room C-3321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. You may also suggest changes to this list by email at
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7384
Following the amendments to EEOICPA that were enacted as subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2178 (October 28, 2004), OWCP promulgated final regulations governing its expanded responsibilities under EEOICPA on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78520). One of those regulations, 20 CFR 30.5(x)(2), indicates that OWCP has adopted the list of DOE facilities that was published by DOE on August 23, 2004, and notes that OWCP “will periodically update this list as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion by publishing a revised list of covered [DOE] facilities in the
Since OWCP last published a notice listing all DOE facilities covered under EEOICPA in the April 8, 2013
Specifically, the Director of OWCP has determined that the Haist Property located in Tonawanda, New York, meets the statutory definition of a
By updating the two lists found below, OWCP is presenting the public with the most current listing of DOE facilities in order to assist potential claimants and their families. OWCP is continuing its efforts in this area as it adjudicates claims filed under EEOICPA, and further revisions of these lists should be expected. Although DOE maintains a Web site (
The five complete lists previously published by DOE included all three types of work sites described in Executive Order 13179,
The first list consists exclusively of work sites that have only been DOE facilities for purposes of coverage under EEOICPA, and the second list consists of work sites that have also been at least one other type of covered work site in addition to a DOE facility. To see what other types of covered work sites the DOE facilities appearing in the second list are or have been, readers can refer to the
DOE facilities appearing on the lists that have undergone environmental remediation at the direction of or directly by DOE are identified by the following symbol—†—after the date range during which such environmental remediation occurred. During those periods, only the work of employees of DOE contractors who actually performed the remediation is “covered work” under EEOICPA.
The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and its six committees will meet January 22-24, 2015. On Thursday, January 22, the first meeting will commence at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), with the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Friday, January 23, the first meeting will commence at 8:30 a.m., EST, with the next meeting commencing at 11:00 a.m., EST, and the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Saturday, January 24, the first meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m., EST, and it will be followed by the closed session meeting of the Board of Directors which will commence promptly upon adjournment of the first meeting.
Colonnade Ballroom B, Westin Colonnade, 160 Aragon Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134.
Unless otherwise noted herein, the Board and all committee meetings will be open to public observation. Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open, except
Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings by management and LSC's Inspector General, and to consider and act on the General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation involving LSC, on a list of prospective funders and prospective members of Leaders' Council.
Institutional Advancement Committee—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on recommendation of new prospective funders and on prospective members of Leaders Council to the Board of Directors.
Audit Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings on the following matters: the Office of Compliance and Enforcement's active enforcement matter(s) and follow-up to the Office of the Inspector General's open investigations; governance under Statement on Auditing Standard 114.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board, Institutional Advancement Committee and Audit Committee meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC Web site, at
LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce receipt of three notices of intent to audit the 2011, 2012, and 2013 statements of account submitted by 98frogfm.com, Christmas Music 24/7, and ZadioRadio concerning the royalty payments each made by each pursuant to two statutory licenses.
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, grants to copyright owners of sound recordings the exclusive right to perform publicly sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions, subject to limitations. Specifically, the right is limited by two statutory licenses. The section 114 license allows nonexempt noninteractive digital subscription services and eligible nonsubscription services to perform publicly sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). The section 112 license allows a service to make necessary ephemeral reproductions to facilitate the digital transmission of the sound recording. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges). The rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR parts 380-384. As part of the terms set for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc. as the Collective,
On December 20, 2013, SoundExchange filed with the Judges three separate notices of intent to audit 98frogfm.com, Christmas Music 24/7, and ZadioRadio (all Eligible Small Webcasters), for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Section 380.6(c) requires the Judges to publish notice in the
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce receipt of a notice of intent to audit the 2011, 2012, and 2013 statements of account of Galaxie concerning the royalty payments its New Subscription Service made pursuant to two statutory licenses.
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, grants to copyright owners of sound recordings the exclusive right to perform publicly sound recordings by means of certain digital audio transmissions, subject to certain limitations. Specifically, the right is limited by two statutory licenses. The section 114 license allows nonexempt noninteractive digital subscription services and eligible nonsubscription services to perform publicly sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). The section 112 license allows a service to make necessary ephemeral reproductions to facilitate the digital transmission of the sound recording. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges. The rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR parts 380-384. As part of the terms set for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc. as the Collective,
On December 23, 20142, SoundExchange filed with the Judges a notice of intent to audit Galaxie's New Subscription Service for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Section 382.15(c) requires the Judges to publish notice in the
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce receipt of a notice of intent to audit the 2011, 2012, and 2013 statements of account submitted by Galaxie concerning the royalty payments its Business Establishment Service made pursuant to two statutory licenses.
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
Licensees may operate under these licenses provided they pay the royalty fees and comply with the terms set by the Copyright Royalty Judges. The rates and terms for the section 112 and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR parts 380-384. As part of the terms set for these licenses, the Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc. as the Collective,
On December 23, 2014, SoundExchange filed with the Judges a notice of intent to audit Galaxie's Business Establishment Service for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Section 384.6(c) requires the Judges to publish notice in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Frances Teel, Mail Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Mail Code JF000, Washington, DC 20546, or
NASA's founding legislation, the Space Act of 1958, as amended, directs the Agency to expand human knowledge of Earth and space phenomena and to preserve the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautics, space science, and technology. The NASA Office of Education has three primary goals (1) strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce, (2) attract and retain students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, disciplines, and (3) engage Americans in NASA's mission.
This notice informs the public of NASA's intent to revise a currently approved information collection for a project formerly known as the NASA Summer of Innovation Project. The
Electronic.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference (unless otherwise specified) from the National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):
February 3, 2015 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and February 6, 2015 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The National Science Board's
Friday, January 23, 12:00-1:00 p.m., EST.
Chairman's remarks; update on NSF implementation of Uniform Guidance and Administrative Burdens Task Force recommendations; and draft comments on proposed National Institutes of Health multisite Institutional Review Board policy.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to
The National Science Board's Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEH), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. § 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Friday, January 23, 2:00-3:00 p.m., EST.
Chairman's remarks; discussion of Committee goals; and discussion of format for February meeting.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 25, 2014 to January 7, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on January 6, 2015.
Comments must be filed by February 19, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; 301-415-1506,
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0006 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0006 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not involve either a
As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the PBAPS, Unit 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT [i]nterval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The licensee proposed to change only the frequency of performing the ILRT, extending it from the current 10 years to 15 years. No previously evaluated accidents were postulated to be caused by the frequency of ILRT; consequently, changing the frequency of ILRT alone does not increase the probability of occurrence of any previously evaluated accident.
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design bases, performance,
Therefore, there will be no significant increase of the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design bases, performance or use of the containment system. Thus, no new or different kind of accident could be created by the proposed amendment.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any new acceptance criteria or performance parameters. The containment system, under the proposed ILRT frequency, will continue to perform its original design functions under the original design and licensing bases. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction of margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on its own analysis, determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.1 Table 3-3 corrects an administrative error to the stated surveillance method introduced by TS Amendment 152 [dated March 25, 1993; ADAMS Accession No. ML15005A051)], and will make the surveillance method for the containment high range radiation monitors consistent with Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 11.2 for the range of the monitors and consistent with the guidance for special calibration of these monitors contained in NUREG-0737 [“Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,” November 1980; ADAMS Accession No. ML102560051] Table II.F.1-3. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because: (1) The proposed amendment does not represent a change to the system design, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter, degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident in the USAR from being performed, (3) the proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating radiological consequences, and [4]) the proposed amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission product barrier. No other safety related equipment is affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the surveillance method to be consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0737 Table II.F.1-3. The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed change. Further, the proposed change does not change the design function of any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an accident. The change only corrects the surveillance method of the high range post-accident radiation monitors to be consistent with the design of the monitors and NUREG-0737.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each Control Room Emergency Filtration (CREF) subsystem equipped with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] with a requirement to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing change is consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and will continue to assure that these systems
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
The change proposed for this ventilation system does not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Condition for Operation is met and the system components are capable of performing their intended safety functions. The change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
The design basis for the CREF systems' heaters is to heat the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed deletion of WCAP-15847 removes obsolete and superseded procedures from the licensing basis. The amendment of the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task alters the automatic depressurization system (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The proposed changes to the procedures do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or event, and the change to the ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents would occur if the tests were performed in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The affected procedures and requirements do not adversely affect or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amending the OSA task regarding ADS valve testing does not adversely affect the design or operation of safety-related equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an accident other than what is already described in the licensing basis. These changes do not adversely affect safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to remove WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA task do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, design code compliance, design function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin because NQA-1 requirements are maintained in other Westinghouse procedures and testing of the ADS valves is still performed. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a safety evaluation dated December 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on February 5-7, 2015, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Preparation for Meeting with the Commission in March 2015 (Open)—The Committee will discuss topics in preparation for the meeting with the Commission.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of the February 6th meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use
January 19, 26, February 2, 9, 16, 23, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 19, 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 February 9, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 23, 2015.
By a vote of 4-0 on January 12, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that an Affirmation Session be held with less than one week notice to the public. The Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) on Fermi Combined License Application: LBP-14-9, Memorandum Requesting Commission Approval for Sua Sponte Review (July 7, 2014); Intervenors' Petition for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Dismissal of Contention 23 for Lack of Timeliness (Oct. 6, 2014) was held at 9:25 a.m. on Tuesday, January 13, 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 Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Annual Notice.
Notice is given under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Membership is effective on January 20, 2015.
Linda M. Beard, Human Resources Specialist, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 606-5393.
The Review Commission, as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) (1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance adjustments. Members of the PRB serve for a period of 24 months. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
• Shireen L. Dodson, Ombudsman, U.S. Department of State;
• Linda J. Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board;
• Tracy Murrell, Director, Office of Marine Safety, National Transportation Safety Board; and
• Victor Thompson, Director and HQ Chief Information Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program due to expire on February 10, 2015.
The Privacy Act, as amended, requires the RRB to issue a public notice of its use and intent to use, information obtained from state agencies in ongoing computer matching programs regarding individuals who received benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
The information received through the computer matching programs may consist of either: (1) A report of unemployment or sickness payments made by the state for the same period that benefits were paid by the RRB, or (2) a report of wages paid to an individual, and the names and addresses of employers who reported those wages to the state for the same period that benefits were paid by the RRB.
The purpose of this notice is to advise individuals applying for or receiving benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act of the use made by the RRB of the information obtained from state agencies by means of a computer match.
Submit comments on or before March 2, 2015.
Address any comments concerning this notice in writing to the Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.
Mr. Timothy S. Grant, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Attn: BIS-IRMC, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed, and by adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protection for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when matching records in a system of records with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish reports about matching programs to Congress and Office of Management and Budget;
(5) Notify beneficiaries and applicants that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
If the matching operation reveals that the individual who had received benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act also received either unemployment or sickness insurance benefits from the state for any days in the period, the state agency will notify the RRB. Depending on arrangements made between the two jurisdictions, and, in the case of state sickness benefits, on the applicable state law, either the RRB or the state agency will attempt to recover the amount of the duplicate payments.
If the matching operation reveals that wages had been reported for the individual during the requested period, the state will notify the RRB of this fact and furnish a breakdown of the wages, as well as the name and address of each employer who reported earnings for the individual. The RRB will then contact each employer who reported earnings for the individual for the given period. Only if the employment is verified will the RRB take action to recover the overpayment. If the RRB benefits had been paid under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, recovery is limited to payments made for those days on which the individual was gainfully employed.
By authority of the Board.
On November 25, 2014, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2014-06 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The rule change, as proposed, amends the rulebooks of FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and FICC's Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) to simplify those rules relating to the insolvency of a member and ceasing to act, in order to simplify certain aspects of FICC's process in a cease to act situation and provide greater legal certainty for FICC and its members, particularly in an intra-day cease to act situation.
In connection with lessons learned from a recent close-out simulation exercise conducted by FICC's parent company, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, in which FICC participated, and a related review of the GSD and MBSD rules, specific challenges were identified relating to the administration of certain aspects of GSD and MBSD insolvency and ceasing to act rule provisions, particularly in an intra-day cease to act situation.
GSD and MBSD include in their current insolvency rules
This “Time of Insolvency” concept is distinguished from the time at which FICC ceases to act for a member. The GSD and MBSD rules currently use “Time of Insolvency” as a line of demarcation when determining FICC's obligations with respect to pending transactions involving the insolvent member. Specifically, transactions with the insolvent member that are not compared or deemed compared in accordance with the GSD or MBSD rules, respectively, prior to the “Time of Insolvency” are not eligible to be part of the close-out process, unless otherwise determined by FICC's Board of Directors in order to promote orderly settlement.
For a non-insolvency cease to act situation, the GSD rules and the MBSD rules on ceasing to act
Identifying an exact time at which a member has become “insolvent” for purposes of establishing a “Time of Insolvency” may pose potential challenges for FICC in circumstances where the member is deemed “insolvent” based upon the determination or action of a third party, such as the member's regulator, supervisory authority or a court of competent jurisdiction. In an intra-day cease to act situation where transaction data is being submitted to FICC in real-time, such potential challenges may create a lack of legal certainty for FICC and its members regarding FICC's obligations with respect to pending transactions involving the insolvent member. The rule change removes the “Time of Insolvency” concept from the GSD rules and the MBSD rules and instead simply relies on the single time FICC ceases to act for an insolvent member for purposes of determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such insolvent member.
In order to also simplify its process in non-insolvency cease to act situations, the rule change removes the separate “Cut-Off Time” concept from the GSD rules and the MBSD rules, and instead relies on the single time FICC ceases to act for a defaulted member for purposes of determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such defaulted member.
Currently, the provisions of the GSD's rules and the MBSD's rules on ceasing to act,
Administering such a multi-pronged facts-and-circumstances-based test for individual transactions in a cease to act situation, particularly an intra-day cease to act situation where transaction data is being submitted to FICC in real-time, may pose potential challenges to FICC and create a lack of legal certainty for FICC and its members regarding FICC's obligations with respect to individual pending transactions involving the insolvent or otherwise defaulted member. In order to simplify FICC's process in a cease to act situation and provide FICC and its members with greater ex ante legal certainty regarding the rules applicable to pending transactions involving an insolvent or otherwise defaulted member, the rule change removes the multi-pronged facts and circumstances-based test and the related provisions of each of GSD's rules and MBSD's rules, and instead simply relies on the compared trade definitions under each of GSD's and MBSD's rules, subject to the discretion of FICC's Board of Directors to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement with respect to transactions the data on which have been submitted only by non-defaulting members.
The rule change, as approved, amends the GSD rules as follows:
In Rule 1—“Definitions,” the following definitions have been revised:
The term “Compared Trade” is revised to remove the prong of the definition which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act for a member under GSD Rule 22A, a transaction involving such member that would not otherwise be a Compared Trade under the GSD rules may, in certain circumstances, be deemed a Compared Trade based solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member.
The term “Off-the-Market Transaction” is revised to conform the text and the numbering of the definition with the text and numbering of the parallel “Off-the-Market Transaction” definition in the MBSD rules.
In Rule 3A—“Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members,” Sections 15(a) and 16(a) of Rule 3A are revised to remove references to Rule 22, current Section 3 (Notification of Insolvency) and related conforming changes to the text of such sections are made. Section 15(b) of Rule 3A is revised to remove the reference to the “Time of Insolvency” concept and to align the text regarding the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency of a Sponsored Member with the parallel text included in Section 16 of Rule 3A relating to the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency of a Sponsoring Member. Consistent with the numbering of Section 15 of Rule 3A, Section 16(a) of Rule 3A is revised to make the second paragraph a new subsection (b). New Section 16(b) is also revised to align the text regarding the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency of a Sponsoring Member with the parallel text included in Section 15(b) relating to the actions taken by FICC in connection with the insolvency of a Sponsored Member.
In Rule 22—“Insolvency of a Member,” current Section 3, which provides for FICC to notice its membership and the Commission regarding the insolvency of a GSD member, is removed in order to clarify that GSD members and the Commission will only receive one notice from FICC at the time it ceases to act for a GSD member in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 22A (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act), whether FICC ceases to act for the member for insolvency or non-insolvency related reasons. Section 4 of Rule 22 (Ceasing to Act for the Member) is renumbered as new Section 3 and revised to remove the reference to the “Time of Insolvency” concept.
In Rule 22A—“Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act,” Section 1 (Notification) is revised to clarify that FICC will notice the Commission and GSD members of every decision to cease to act for a member. Section 1 is further revised to remove the requirement that FICC establish a separate “Time of Insolvency,” in the event it ceases to act because of a member's insolvency, or “Cut-Off Time,” in the event it ceases to act for a member for non-insolvency related reasons.
Sections 2, 2(a) and 2(b) of Rule 22A are revised remove the “Time of Insolvency” and “Cut-Off Time” concepts, and instead rely on the time FICC ceases to act for a member for purposes of determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such member. Section 2(a) is further revised to use the defined term “Compared Trade” for purposes of clarifying which transactions are eligible to be part of the close-out process as of the time FICC ceases to act for a member, subject to the discretion of FICC's Board of Directors to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement.
Section 2(c) of Rule 22A, which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act for a member, a transaction involving such member that would not otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the GSD rules may, in certain circumstances, be deemed compared based solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member, based on a multi-pronged facts and circumstances-based test, is removed. FICC will instead rely on the “Compared Trade” definition in GSD Rule 1 when determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving an insolvent or otherwise defaulted member, subject to the discretion of FICC's Board of Directors to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement with respect to transactions the data on which have been submitted only by non-defaulting members.
The rule change, as approved, amends the MBSD rules as follows:
In Rule 1—“Definitions,” the following definitions have been revised:
The term “Compared Trade” is revised to remove the prong of the definition which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act for a member under MBSD Rule 17, a transaction involving such member that would not otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the MBSD rules may, in certain circumstances, be deemed a Compared Trade based solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member. The “Compared Trade” definition is further clarified to reference the specific MBSD rules
In Rule 16—“Insolvency of a Member,” current Section 3 of Rule 16, which provides for FICC to notice its membership and the Commission regarding the insolvency of a member, is removed in order to clarify that MBSD members and the Commission will only receive one notice from FICC at the time FICC ceases to act for a MBSD member in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 17 (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act), whether FICC ceases to act for a MBSD
In Rule 17—“Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act,” Section 1 (Notification) is revised to clarify that FICC will notice the Commission as well as MBSD's members of every decision to cease to act for a MBSD member. Section 1 of Rule 17 is further revised to remove the requirement that FICC establish a separate “Time of Insolvency,” in the event it ceases to act because of a member's insolvency, or “Cut-Off Time,” in the event it ceases to act for a member for non-insolvency related reasons.
Sections 2, 2(a), 2(d) and 2(e) of Rule 17 are revised to remove the “Time of Insolvency” and “Cut-Off Time” concepts, and instead rely on the time FICC ceases to act for a member for purposes of determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving such member.
Section 2(g) of Rule 17, which provides that, in the context of FICC ceasing to act for a MBSD member, a transaction involving such member that would not otherwise be compared or deemed compared under the MBSD rules may, in certain circumstances, be deemed compared based solely on data submitted by a non-defaulting member, based on a multi-pronged facts and circumstances-based test, is removed. FICC will instead rely on the compared trade definitions in the MBSD rules when determining its obligations with respect to pending transactions involving an insolvent or otherwise defaulted member, subject to the discretion of FICC's Board of Directors to determine otherwise in order to promote orderly settlement with respect to transactions the data on which have been submitted only by non-defaulting members.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission concludes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly those set forth in Section 17A,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings
Consideration of amicus participation; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
This proposed rule change would provide OCC with flexibility with respect to setting the date for the annual meeting of OCC's stockholders.
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 OCC with administrative flexibility with respect to setting the date of the annual meeting of OCC's stockholders. As background, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, such as OCC, must hold an annual meeting of its stockholders.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”),
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies and would not 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.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 14, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission recently approved a proposed rule change from the Exchange to offer the IPO Indicator as an enhancement to the NASDAQ Workstation at no additional cost.
The IPO Indicator, according to the Exchange, is designed to assist member firms in monitoring their orders in the NASDAQ Halt Cross process leading up to the launch of an initial public offering (“IPO”).
The Exchange also disseminates information about the size and buy/sell direction of an Imbalance,
In the case of an IPO, the Exchange states that the Halt Cross operates as follows: first, the underwriters to the IPO make a determination to launch the IPO during the Pre-Launch Period
The Exchange proposes to offer the IPO Indicator to provide information about the number and price at which shares of a member firm's orders entered for execution in an IPO Halt Cross (“IPO shares”) would execute in an IPO if it were to price at the present time.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As described above, the Exchange proposes to adopt Exchange Rule 7015(i) to offer stand-alone access to the IPO Indicator. The Commission notes that it recently approved a proposed rule change that allows the Exchange to provide the IPO Indicator through the NASDAQ Workstation.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
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
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule effective immediately in order to: (1) Adopt pricing for Retail Orders, as defined below, on the Exchange, including a new Retail Order Tier; (2) add Membership Fees; and (3) make certain non-substantive clean-up changes to the fee schedule.
The Exchange recently adopted rules related to the Exchange's Retail Order Attribution Program.
The Exchange proposes to introduce new fee codes ZA and ZR in order to provide pricing specific to Retail Orders executed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that such proposed pricing would apply to all Retail Orders and that a Retail Order would not need to be attributable in order to receive the proposed pricing. The Exchange is proposing new fee code ZA to apply to Retail Orders that add liquidity to the Exchange. A transaction with fee code ZA is proposed to be assigned a rebate of $0.0032 per share. The Exchange is also proposing new fee code ZR to apply to Retail Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange. A transaction with fee code ZR and is proposed to be assigned a charge of $0.0030 per share, which is the same as the standard fee for removing liquidity from the Exchange. Proposed fee codes ZA and ZR will only apply to Retail Orders that add or remove liquidity, respectively, in executions that occur on the Exchange. Where a Retail Order is routed, executes in an auction, or executes in the Opening or Re-Opening, the appropriate fee code will apply and proposed fee codes ZA and ZR will not apply.
In addition to the proposed standard pricing for Retail Orders executed on the Exchange, the Exchange is also proposing to add a new Retail Order Tier. As proposed, the Exchange would offer a rebate of $0.0034 per share for adding liquidity for a Retail Order executed on the Exchange where the Member adds an average daily volume of Retail Orders (fee code ZA), that is 0.07% or more of average daily TCV.
The Exchange is also proposing to charge an Annual Membership Fee for Members of the Exchange of $2,500, which will support their Exchange membership for the calendar year. The fee will be charged per Member firm. Beginning in January 2015, the Exchange plans to charge an Annual Membership Fee which will be assessed on all Members as of a date determined by the Exchange in January of each year. For any month in which a firm is approved for membership with the Exchange after the January renewal period, the Annual Membership Fee will be pro-rated beginning on the date on which membership is approved and based on the number of remaining trading days in that year. The fee will be assessed in the month following membership approval. For example, if a firm applies and is accepted for membership with the Exchange on February 15, 2015, the new Member will be assessed a pro-rated Annual Membership Fee for the period beginning on February 15 through the end of 2015. The fee will be assessed in the next month's billing cycle, which in this case, would be March 2015. Such fees will be non-refundable. However, where a Member is pending a voluntary termination of rights as a Member pursuant to Rule 2.8 prior to the date any Annual Membership Fee for a given year will be assessed (
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make certain non-substantive clean-up changes to the fee schedule. Footnote 2 relates to Step-Up Tiers in which displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange receive enhanced rebates where the Member meets certain thresholds related to a Member's Step-Up Add TCV.
The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee schedule effective January 2, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the new Retail Order rebate and fee code associated with adding liquidity is reasonable and equitable because it will incentivize Members to submit orders designated as Retail Orders to the Exchange which will enhance liquidity in Retail Orders on the Exchange and further incentivize Members who wish to execute against Retail Orders to send additional orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this increased liquidity would potentially stimulate further price competition for Retail Orders, thereby deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool in both non-Retail and Retail Orders, supporting the quality of price discovery, and promoting market transparency, further rendering the proposal reasonable and equitable. The Exchange believes that the new Retail Order rebate is non-discriminatory because it is equally available to all Members that enter Retail Orders.
The Exchange believes that the new Retail Order fee code for removing liquidity is reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because, as stated above, the fees associated with a Retail Order that removes liquidity on the Exchange is the same as the standard fee for removing liquidity for a non-Retail Order. The only difference is that the Exchange is now providing a more specific fee code in order to make it easier for Members to understand their monthly invoices, which the Exchange again believes makes the proposed change reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory.
The Exchange also believes that its proposed new Retail Order Tier and associated enhanced rebate are reasonable and equitable because the tiers based on added Retail Order volume is intended to reward those Members that and incentivize other Members to add a larger amount of volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange by providing an additional $0.0002 per share rebate for Members that have a add an average daily volume of Retail Orders that is 0.07% or more of average daily TCV. Further, the Exchange believes that the new Retail Order Tier is reasonable and equitable because it incentivizes and rewards Members for posting Retail Orders on the Exchange, which is consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebates [sic] associated with the tier is non-discriminatory in that it is equally available to all Members and, again, because it is consistent with the goal of enhancing market quality on the Exchange.
Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones proposed by and maintained on the Exchange, including Step-Up Tiers, the cross-asset step-up tier, the cross-asset tier and the Retail Order Tier proposed herein, have been widely adopted in the cash equities markets and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any existing tiers, but rather to add a new tier that will provide Members with additional ways to receive higher rebates, meaning that under the proposal, a Member will receive either the same or a higher rebate than they would receive today. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed additions to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure and incentives are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members and are consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that assessing an Annual Membership Fee provides an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange makes all services and products subject to these fees available on a non-discriminatory basis to similarly situated recipients. The Exchange believes that the Annual Membership Fee is a reasonable and equitable method of ensuring that its fees fund a greater portion of the cost of regulating activity on the Exchange, and that even after assessing these fees, the overall cost of Exchange membership is reasonable as compared with the costs of membership in other SROs.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the clarifying change that adds the footnote 2 to fee codes V and Y in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table is reasonable as it will help to avoid confusion for those that review the Exchange's fee schedule. The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not designed to amend any fee or rebate, nor alter the manner in which it assesses fees or calculates rebates. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is intended to make the fee schedule clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will allow the Exchange to compete more ably with other execution venues by providing more competitive prices for Retail Orders that add liquidity in securities traded on the Exchange, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. Also, because the market for order execution is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value.
The Exchange's proposed membership fees will be lower than the cost of membership on other exchanges,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 7025 (Extranet Access Fee) of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled “Extranet Access Fee” (“Pricing Schedule”), as well as to clarify the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee and thereby conform it to the equivalent fee of other markets.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to amend BX Rule 7025 of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, as well as to clarify the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee and thereby conform it to the equivalent fee of other markets.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify BX Rule 7025 to indicate that certain non-Exchange Customer Premises Equipment (“CPE”) Products shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per CPE. The Exchange also proposes to conform the Extranet Access Fee to that of another market, specifically NASDAQ Rule 7025, by substituting “recipient” for “client organization” and also indicating that if
The Extranet Access Fee was introduced a decade ago on NASDAQ Rule 7025.
BX Rule 7025 currently indicates that extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $750 per recipient client organization Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Configuration. As noted, this proposal indicates the same fee as NASDAQ Rule 7025, namely $1,000 per CPE Configuration, and adds to BX Rule 7025 verbatim clarifying language from NASDAQ Rule 7025. As proposed, BX Rule 7025 will read as follows: “Extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient Customer Premises Equipment (“CPE”) Configuration. If an extranet provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration. For purposes of this Rule 7025, the term “Customer Premises Equipment Configuration” shall mean any line, circuit, router package, or other technical configuration used by an extranet provider to provide a direct access connection to the Exchange market data feeds to a recipient's site. No extranet access fee will be charged for connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated data. For purposes of this rule, consolidated data includes data disseminated by the UTP SIP. Extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange pursuant to this Rule 7025 as well as a connection pursuant to BX Options Chapter XV, Section 3 shall be assessed a total monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration.” The proposal thus conforms BX Rule 7025 to NASDAQ Rule 7025, and makes them substantively identical.
The modified proposed Extranet Access Fee will, as on NASDAQ, be used to help support the Exchange's costs associated with maintaining multiple extranet connections with multiple providers. These costs include those associated with overhead and technology infrastructure, administrative, maintenance and operational costs. Since the inception of Extranet Access there have been numerous network infrastructure improvements and administrative controls enacted. Additionally, the Exchange has implemented automated retransmission facilities for most of its data clients that benefit extranet clients by reducing operational costs associated with retransmissions.
As the number of extranets has increased, the management of the downstream customers has expanded and the Exchange has had to ensure appropriate reporting and review processes, which has resulted in a greater cost burden on the Exchange over time. The proposed fee will also help to ensure that the Exchange is better able to closely review reports and uncover reporting errors via audits thus minimizing reporting issues.
Thus, subsequent to the proposal extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per CPE Configuration. If, as discussed below, an extranet provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration.
The Exchange proposes two clarifications to conform the language of BX Rule 7025 to that of NASDAQ Rule 7025. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to indicate that if an extranet provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration; and to substitute “recipient” for “client organization.” For purposes of this rule, consolidated data includes data disseminated by the UTP SIP. These proposed clarifications should serve to reduce any confusion as to the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee. Moreover, the clarifications would make the Exchange's Extranet Access Fee in BX Rule 7025 work the same as the equivalent fee in NASDAQ Rule 7025, and complete the effort to conform the two rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend BX Rule 7025, and to clarify the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee if an extranet provider has a connection on both the equity side through BX and the options side through BX options conforms the fee on the BX markets and the equivalent fee on Phlx and NASDAQ and is consistent with the Act.
All similarly situated extranet providers, including the Exchange operating its own extranet, that establish an extranet connection with the Exchange to access market data feeds from the Exchange are subject to the same fee structure. The fee will help the
If such costs are covered, the service may provide the Exchange with a profit. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is reasonable and notes that this proposal conforms to similarly-situated Extranet Access Fee rules on Phlx and NASDAQ. The extranet costs are separate and different from the colocation facility that is able to recoup these fees by charging for servers within the associated data centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The monthly fee is assessed uniformly to all extranet providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds, and is the same for all at $1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration. Thus, any burden arising from the fees is necessary in the interest of promoting the equitable allocation of a reasonable fee. Moreover, firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total cost of interacting with the Exchange or other markets and, of course, the Extranet Access Fee is but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Additionally, BX Rule 7025 will be clarified by stating that if an extranet provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration, and by replacing non-conforming language. This clarification should serve to reduce any confusion as to the applicability of this fee.
The proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
The proposed fees are applied uniformly among extranet providers, which are not compelled to establish a connection with the Exchange to offer access connectivity to market data feeds. For these reasons, any burden arising from the fees is necessary in the interest of promoting the equitable allocation of a reasonable fee. Additionally, firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total cost of interacting with the Exchange or other exchanges and, of course, the Extranet Access Fee is but one factor in a total platform analysis.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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 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.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before February 19, 2015.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
Small Business Lending Companies (SBLC's) and Non-Federally Regulations Lenders (NFRL's) are generally non-depository lending instructions authorized by SBA primarily to make loans under sections 7(a) of the Small Business Act. As sole regulator of these institutions, SBA requires them to submit audited financial statements annually as well as interim, quarterly financial statements and other reports to facilitate the agency's oversight lenders.
Comments may be submitted on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA—4205—DR), dated 01/07/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/07/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14210B and for economic injury is 14211B.
Small Business Administration.
Notice; extension of comment period.
On December 8, 2014, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) published a notice in the
The comment period for the notice on franchise agreement reviews, affiliation and eligibility for financial assistance is extended until April 7, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number: SBA-2014-0014, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Meghan Milloy, U.S. Small Business
On December 8, 2014, SBA published a notice and request for comments at 79 FR 72748. SBA is re-examining the factors the agency considers relevant to the determination of “affiliation” between entities involved in a franchise or other similar business relationship (such as license, dealer, and jobber relationships), the current processes for making such determinations, and issues related to the use of SBA's Franchise Findings List and the use of external resources (such as the Franchise Registry). The notice, which is identified by Docket Number SBA-2014-0014, is also available at
SBA received a formal request from several trade associations that represent participants in SBA's business loan programs to extend the comment period on this notice for an additional 60 days. After considering the request, SBA decided to extend the comment period an additional 60 days until April 7, 2015. This extension will give commenters additional time to consider the notice and submit comments.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Hearing of Region IV Small Business Owners in Orlando, FL.
The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this notice to announce the location, date and time of the Orlando, FL Regulatory Fairness Hearing. This hearing is open to the public.
The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (EST).
The hearing will be at the Caribe Royale Orlando, 8101 World Center Drive, Curacao Rooms 1 & 2, Orlando, FL 32821.
Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the hearing for Small Business Owners, Business Organizations, Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their members.
This hearing is being conducted in conjunction with the National 8(a) Association 2015 Winter Conference. The hearing is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation at the Orlando, FL hearing must contact José Méndez by January 28, 2015 in writing, or by fax or email in order to be placed on the agenda. For further information, please contact José Méndez, Case Management Specialist, Office of the National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 7125, Washington, DC 20416, by phone (202) 205-6178 and fax (202) 481-5719. Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability, translation services, or require additional information, please contact José Méndez as well.
For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see our Web site at
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Derek Rivers, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State, SA-17, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The DS 3072 is an application for an emergency loan for a destitute U.S. citizen and/or dependent to return to the United States, an application for a destitute U.S. citizen abroad to receive emergency medical and dietary assistance and an application for a U.S. citizen and/or dependent and a third country or host country national to receive a loan to assist in his or her repatriation to the United States and/or to provide them with the funds needed to address their emergency medical and/or dietary needs.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs will post this form on Department of State Web sites to give respondents the opportunity to complete the form online, or print the form and fill it out manually and submit the form in person or by fax or mail.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to March 23, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Sydney Taylor at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Department of State consular officers use Form DS-230 (Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration), in conjunction with a personal interview and other requirements set forth in 22 CFR part 42, subpart G, to elicit information necessary to ascertain the applicability of the legal requirements to issue an immigrant visa. The information requested on the form is limited to that which is necessary for consular officers to determine the eligibility and classification of aliens seeking immigrant visas to the United States efficiently. A consular officer is unable to adjudicate such visas without collecting this information.
The DS-230 is available electronically via the internet and is downloaded, completed online, printed and submitted to the National Visa Center (NVC). The web address where the DS-230 can be accessed is
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Maulana Fazlullah also known as Mullah Fazlullah also known as Fazal Hayat also known as Mullah Radio, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a continuation of task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a continuation of task to a previously established working group. This continuation of task requests the working group to provide cost and benefit data for the proposed implementation of the ARAC recommendations submitted in 2012 regarding the FAA's approach to update, reorganize and improve the level of safety requirements for the flammability of materials for transport category airplanes. This notice informs the public of a continuation to a previous ARAC activity, reinstates the Materials Flammability Working Group, and does not solicit membership.
Jeff Gardlin, Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057, telephone (425) 227-2136, facsimile (425) 227-1149; email
As a result of the December 18, 2014, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted and designated this task to the Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee, reinstating the Materials Flammability Working Group. The Materials Flammability Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC, through the TAE Subcommittee, and will provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The TAE Subcommittee will review and approve the recommendation report and will send the approved recommendation report to the ARAC for acceptance. After ARAC accepts the recommendation report, it will submit the recommendation report to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
On August 27, 2010 [75 FR 52807], the FAA tasked ARAC to consider the merits and make recommendations for improvement of an approach drafted by the FAA that would simplify compliance demonstrations, and upgrade the level of safety for flammability throughout the airplane. The objective of the proposed approach was to completely revisit the flammability requirements and take advantage of the wealth of data available from FAA research and advances in material fire safety to provide a simpler regulation that provides a higher level of safety for transport category airplanes.
The flammability requirements for interior materials on transport category airplanes have evolved significantly over the years to become more threat-based. By “threat-based,” the FAA means the flammability requirements use a more realistic test method based on the type of fire hazard most critical for the components in question. Historically, these requirements have been based on an analysis of the type of threat, the usage of the potentially flammable material (
The Materials Flammability Working Group completed the task, and the ARAC submitted the recommendations to the FAA in August 2012. The Materials Flammability Working Group believed the proposed threat-based organization for the flammability regulations was logical, practical and a more effective framework for regulation going forward than the current published regulations. The Materials Flammability Working Group believed the resulting regulation draft, along with appropriate advisory material, would ultimately be simpler and more easily understood and enforced. In order to proceed with rulemaking to implement the recommendations, the FAA is tasking the ARAC to provide cost and benefit data associated with implementation.
The Materials Flammability Working Group will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC, through the TAE Subcommittee, on the costs and benefits of implementing the recommendations previously submitted by the Materials Flammability Working Group in August 2012. The recommendation report can be found at:
The Materials Flammability Working Group is tasked to:
1. Review the Materials Flammability Working Group Recommendation Report dated July 9, 2012 and submitted in August 2012, along with subsequent research results to be provided to the Materials Flammability Working Group by the FAA.
2. Provide quantitative cost data for each recommendation, if applicable, along with assumptions and rationale for the cost data. The FAA will provide key assumptions to assist with cost estimation.
3. Provide quantitative economic benefit data for each recommendation, if applicable.
4. Provide service data regarding incidents (precursors) or accidents related to materials flammability that would be mitigated in the future by implementation of each recommendation.
5. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explain above.
a. The recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for position and the reasons for the disagreements.
6. The Materials Flammability Working Group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC, through the TAE Subcommittee, by responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation report has been submitted.
The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 8 months from publication of the tasking statement in the
The Materials Flammability Working Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC and are as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
3. Present the recommendation report at the TAE Subcommittee meeting.
The reinstated Materials Flammability Working Group is comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC or the TAE Subcommittee. The FAA is not soliciting membership for the reinstated Materials Flammability Working Group. The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their “individual capacity.” The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in a “representative capacity” for the “express purpose of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government.” (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) as amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
The members of the Materials Flammability Working Group must actively participate by attending all meetings, and providing written comments when requested. The members must devote the resources necessary to support the Materials Flammability Working Group in meeting any assigned deadlines. The members must keep management and those represented advised of the Materials Flammability Working Group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions does not conflict with the position of the member's represent.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the Materials Flammability Working Group are not open to the public. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1029 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1021 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
§§ 25.981(a)(3) and 25.901(c).
The petitioner seeks a time-limited exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR §§ 25.981(a)(3) Amendment 25-125, and 25.901(c) Amendment 25-126, to allow time for necessary design changes of the center wing tank fuel system wiring and fuel pump ground fault protection on A330-300 model airplanes in order to reach full compliance with these requirements and allow on-schedule delivery to its launch customer in the United States.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1132 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mike Dostert, ANM-112, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0948 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1031 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 9, 2015.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-0896 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is taking down the “Pilot's Bill of Rights” hyperlink on the FAA Internet Web page (
Effective date February 17, 2015.
On August 22, 2012, the FAA published a Notice (77 FR 52107) specifying how and where an airman subject to an FAA investigation may submit a request to the FAA under the Pilot's Bill of Rights, Pub. L. 112-153 (Aug. 3, 2012), to obtain air traffic data in the possession of a government contractor. Specifically, the Notice instructed airmen to click on the “Pilot's Bill of Rights” hyperlink on the FAA's Internet Web page to find out what specific information they would need to include in their request to obtain air traffic data in the possession of a government contractor, and that they should email their requests to a centralized point of contact at the following email address:
Although the FAA established the email address—
Individuals who have received notification from an FAA investigator that they are the subject of an investigation related to the approval, denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of an airman certificate may access or otherwise obtain air traffic data by contacting the FAA investigator that provided them with that notification.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, the Billings Bypass Project, located in the northeastern portion of the city of Billings urban area, Yellowstone County, Montana. Those actions grant approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C.139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 19, 2015. If this date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, parties are advised to file their claim no later than the business day preceding this date. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Brian Hasselbach, Statewide Planner, Right of Way and Environmental Programs Manager, Federal Highway Administration—Montana Division, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 2, Helena, MT 59601. Office hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time), (406) 441-3908,
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has taken final agency actions by issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Billings Bypass Project. The purpose of the project is to construct a new principal arterial to connect Interstate 90 (I-90) with Old Highway 312. The project is located in the northeastern portion of the city of Billings urban area, Yellowstone County, Montana.
The actions by FHWA on this project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the March 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); the July 2014 ROD; and in other documents in the FHWA's administrative record for the project. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record are available by contacting FHWA. The FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q) (Transportation Conformity).
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303];
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 1361], Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)].
7. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1), as amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141, § 1308, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of application delayed more than 180 days.
In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
1. Awaiting additional information from applicant
2. Extensive public comment under review
3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis
4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Special Permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2015.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Notice is hereby given that on August 29, 2014, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) approved the application of Stephens Federal Bank, Toccoa, Georgia, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection on the OCC Web site at the FOIA Reading Room
By the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collect requirements related to the treatment of distributions to foreign persons under sections 367(e)(1) and 367(e)(2).
Written comments should be received on or before March 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 317-5746, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The final regulations under section 367(e)(1) require gain recognition only for distributions of the stock or securities of foreign corporations to foreign persons. The final regulations under section 367(e)(2) generally require gain recognition when a domestic corporation liquidates into its foreign parent corporation; the regulations generally do not require gain recognition when a foreign corporation liquidates into its foreign parent corporation.
This document (TD 9704) contains final and temporary regulations relating to the consequences to U.S. and foreign persons for failing to satisfy reporting obligations associated with certain transfers of property to foreign corporations in nonrecognition exchanges. This document permits transferors to remedy “not willful” failures to file, and “not willful” failures to comply with the terms of, liquidation documents required under section 367(e)(2). In addition, this document modifies the reporting obligations under section 6038B associated with transfers that are subject to section 367(e)(2). Further, this document provides similar rules for certain transfers that are subject to section 367(a). The regulations are necessary to update the rules that apply when a U.S. or foreign person fails to file required documents or statements or satisfy reporting obligations. The regulations affect U.S. and foreign persons that transfer property to foreign corporations in certain non-recognition exchanges.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8802, Application for United States Residency Certification.
Written comments should be received on or before March 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5746, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning existing Final Regulation, TD 9467—Measurement of Assets and Liabilities for Pension Funding Purposes, and Notice 2014-53—Pension Funding Stabilization under the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HAFTA).
Written comments should be received on or before March 23, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Elaine Christophe at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA), Public Law 113-159, was enacted on August 8, 2014, and was effective retroactively for single employer defined benefit pension plans, optional for plan years beginning in 2013 and mandatory for plan years beginning in 2014. Notice 2014-53 provides guidance on these changes to the funding stabilization rules for single-employer pension plans.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing—January 28, 2015, Washington, DC.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Reed Eckhold, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 23, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 23, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for National Standards (NS) 1, 3, and 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and to the General section of the NS guidelines. This action is necessary to improve and clarify the guidance within the NS guidelines. The purpose of this action is to facilitate compliance with requirements of the MSA to end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks and achieve optimum yield (OY).
Written comments must be received on or before June 30, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0059, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to:
• Mail: Submit written comments to Wesley Patrick, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13357, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
• Fax: 301-713-1193; Attn: Wesley Patrick.
Wesley Patrick, 301-427-8563
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) fulfills the requirements of section 301(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)—“The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans”—with its National Standard (NS) guidelines that appear at 50 CFR 600.305 through 600.355. NMFS is proposing revisions to the General section of the NS guidelines and the guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7. Since 2007, fisheries management within the U.S. has experienced many changes, in particular the development and implementation of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) under all fishery management plans to end and prevent overfishing. Based on this experience, NMFS believes the NS guidelines can be improved to enhance the utility of the guidelines for managers and the public. The objective of these proposed revisions is to improve and streamline the NS1 guidelines, address concerns raised during the implementation of ACLs and AMs, and provide flexibility within current statutory limits to address fishery management issues. The purpose of this action is to facilitate compliance with requirements of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Proposed revisions to the General section of the NS guidelines and the guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 include the following: (1) Add a recommendation that Councils reassess the objectives of their fisheries on a regular basis; (2) consolidate and clarify guidance on identifying whether stocks require conservation and management; (3) provide additional flexibility in managing data limited stocks; (4) revise the guidance on stock complexes to encourage the use of indicator stocks; (5) describe how aggregate maximum sustainable yield (MSY) estimates can be used; (6) propose a definition for a depleted stock; (7) provide increased stability in fisheries by providing guidance on the use of multi-year overfishing determinations; (8) revise the guidance on optimum yield (OY) to improve clarity and better describe the role of OY under the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) framework; (9) clarify the guidance on acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules, describe how the ABC control rules can allow for phase-in adjustments to ABC, and allow for carry-over of all or some of an unused portion of the ACL; (10) revise the guidance on accountability measures (AMs) to improve clarity; (11) clarify the guidance on establishing ACL and AM mechanisms in FMPs; and (12) provide flexibility in rebuilding stocks. Further explanations of the major revisions that are being proposed, and the rationale for those revisions, are provided below.
Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) contains 10 national standards for fishery conservation and management. Any FMP prepared under the MSA, and any regulation promulgated pursuant to the
Guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 were first published in 1977 (42 FR 34450, July 5, 1977) and are codified in 50 CFR 600.310, 600.320, and 600.340, respectively. NMFS last revised the NS1 guidelines on January 16, 2009, to provide guidance for the implementation of requirements enacted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 for annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to end and prevent overfishing (74 FR 3178). The NS3 and NS7 guidelines were last revised in 1998 (63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998).
From 2007 to 2012, the 46 Federal FMPs have been amended to implement ACLs and AMs to end and prevent overfishing. This has been a transformative process for Federal fisheries; before the ACL requirement, some U.S. fisheries were managed under a total allowable catch system, but the majority were managed through effort controls (
Due to a number of concerns raised during the implementation of ACLs and AMs, NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on May 3, 2012, (77 FR 26238) to solicit public comments on potential adjustments to the NS1 guidelines. The comment period on the ANPR was extended once (77 FR 39459, July 3, 2012), and then reopened (77 FR 58086, Sept. 19, 2012), and ended on October 12, 2012. In March 2013, NMFS published a report that summarizes the comments received on the ANPR; the report is available online at:
In addition to the ANPR, issues related to the national standard guidelines were discussed at other public forums. In May 2013, NMFS sponsored the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference in Washington, DC. The conference focused on identifying ways to advance sustainability within U.S. fisheries. The discussions at the conference addressed MSA reauthorization issues, as well as adjustments to current management (including potential revisions to the NS1 guidelines) that do not require legislation to implement. More information about the conference is available here:
In December 2013, the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Recreational Fishing Group presented NMFS with a white paper on recreational fisheries perspectives. The paper included recommendations for possible changes to the MSA, as well as possible changes to fishing regulations and policy. The full report can be found here:
The General section of the NS guidelines, 50 CFR 600.305, describes the purpose of the NS guidelines and the importance of identifying fishery management objectives within a FMP, and defines words that are used throughout the NS guidelines. This section was last revised in 1998 (63 FR 24211, May 1, 1998). More recently, stakeholders, Councils, and NMFS have recognized the importance of re-evaluating the management objectives of FMPs on a regular basis, because the needs of the fishery may change over time. Examples of re-evaluations include Council discussions over allocation of catch among sectors of the fishery, and visioning projects that several Councils have initiated to identify long-term objectives for its fisheries. Measureable goals and objectives are an integral part of the adaptive fishery management system used in the United States, where such metrics are used to measure the performance of the management actions taken by the Councils (see,
The MSA provides for Federal fishery management authority in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1), and provides that each Council shall prepare an FMP for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management.
The question is how a Council should determine whether a fishery requires or is in need of conservation and management. The MSA and current NS guidelines indirectly touch upon this issue in several places, but NMFS believes that consolidating, streamlining, and clarifying guidance in the General section of the NS guidelines would be beneficial. NMFS believes that it is appropriate that guidance on which stocks need conservation and management should be contained separately from the 10 National Standard guidelines as it would be the basis for implementation of all the National Standards.
MSA section 302(h)(1) and other related provisions refer to a “fishery” and “conservation and management.” A “fishery” is “(A) one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics; and (B) any fishing for such stocks.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(13). The first part of the definition is nearly identical to the MSA's definition for “stock of fish”—“species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit.”
When developing an FMP, a Council must, among other things, describe the fishery (
The addition of MSA section 303(a)(15), which requires that all FMPs establish mechanisms for specifying ACLs and AMs, led to the most recent revision of the NS1 guidelines in 2009 (74 FR 3178, Jan. 16, 2009). The 2009 NS1 guidelines interpreted this requirement to mean that stocks and stocks complexes “in the fishery” need ACLs and AMs. The 2009 NS1 guidelines explained that as a default, all stocks in an FMP are considered “in the fishery” unless the Council identifies them as an ecosystem component (EC) species. FMPs are required to provide the mandatory measures described in MSA section 303(a), including ACLs and AMs, for only those “stocks in the fishery.” Although NMFS' interpretation has been that “stocks in the fishery” are in need of “conservation and management,” the NS1 guidelines do not specifically address the determination of whether a stock is in need of conservation and management.
The NS3 Guidelines address structuring appropriate management units for stocks and stock complexes and instruct that the choice of a management unit depends on the focus of the FMP's objectives, and may be organized around biological, geographic, economic, technical, social, or ecological perspectives. 50 CFR 600.320(d)(1). The NS3 guidelines also state that a management unit may contain stocks for which data is not available to specify MSY and OY or to establish management measures, so that data on those stocks may be collected.
The NS7 guidelines state that MSA requires Councils to prepare FMPs only for overfished fisheries and for other fisheries where regulation would serve some useful purpose and where the present or future benefits of regulation would justify the costs. 50 CFR 600.340(b)(2). The NS7 Guidelines provide seven criteria for determining whether a fishery needs management through regulations implementing an FMP.
In this action, NMFS proposes a new section specifically regarding “stocks that require conservation and management” (see proposed § 600.305(c)). Any stocks that are predominately caught in Federal waters and are overfished or subject to overfishing, or likely to become overfished or subject to overfishing, would be considered to require conservation and management and therefore must be included in an FMP (see proposed § 600.305(c)(1)). See
(1) The stock is an important component of the marine environment.
(2) The stock is caught by the fishery.
(3) Whether an FMP can improve or maintain the condition of the stocks.
(4) The stock is a target of a fishery.
(5) The stock is important to commercial, recreational, or subsistence users.
(6) The fishery is important to the Nation and to the regional economy.
(7) The need to resolve competing interests and conflicts among user
(8) The economic condition of a fishery and whether an FMP can produce more efficient utilization.
(9) The needs of a developing fishery, and whether an FMP can foster orderly growth.
(10) The extent to which the fishery could be or is already adequately managed by states, by state/Federal programs, by Federal regulations pursuant to other FMPs or international commissions, or by industry self-regulation, consistent with the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
When considering adding a new stock to an FMP or keeping an existing stock within an FMP, Councils should prepare a thorough analysis of the factors, and any additional considerations that may be relevant to the particular stock. No single factor is dispositive, but Councils should consider weighting the factors as follows. Factors (i-iii) should be considered first, as they address maintaining a fishery resource and the marine environment.
For stocks that do not require conservation and management, consistent with the current NS1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(5)(iii), proposed § 600.305(c)(3) would allow councils to continue to include such stocks in FMPs as ecosystem component (EC) species to collect data, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality consistent with NS9, protect their associated role in the ecosystem, or for other reasons. See also 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(12) (providing Councils the discretion to “include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations”).
Consistent with the current NS1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(7), proposed § 600.305(c)(4) would continue to provide that, where stocks may be identified in more than one FMP, Councils should choose which FMP will be the primary FMP in which reference points for the stock are established. In other FMPs, the stock may be identified as “other managed stocks” and management measures that are consistent with the objectives of the primary FMP can be established. Proposed § 600.305(c)(5) provides that Councils should, periodically, review their FMPs and the best scientific information available and determine if stocks are appropriately identified and if the FMP is meeting the conservation and management needs of their fisheries.
Because proposed § 600.305 consolidates text from several NS guidelines provisions, NMFS would make the following edits for consistency or to eliminate duplication:
• Move the definition of “target stock” from the current NS1 guidelines to the general definitions at proposed § 600.305(d)(11), and remove the definition of “stock and stock complexes” at § 600.305(c)(12).
• Remove the description of and use of the terms “in the fishery” and remove the criteria for “ecosystem component species” in the NS1 guidelines (see § 600.310 of this proposed action).
• Consistent with proposed §§ 600.305(c)(1)-(5), revise the NS1 guidelines at proposed § 600.310(d)(1) to state that stocks in need of conservation and management must have ACLs, other reference points, and accountability measures; but that other stocks identified within an FMP (
• Revise the NS3 guidelines to specify that stocks in the “management unit” are considered to require conservation and management (see § 600.320(d) of this proposed action).
• Remove current NS3 guidelines text at § 600.320(d)(1)(i)-(vi) which provides some cursory examples of ways to organize a management unit because proposed § 600.305(c)(1) now sets forth the factors to consider when deciding whether stocks require conservation and management.
• Revise current NS3 guidelines text at § 600.320(d)(2), which state that a management unit may contain, in addition to regulated species, stocks of fish which there is not enough information available to specify MSY and OY, or to establish management measures, so that data for one of these species may be collected under the FMP. The new guidelines would state that a management unit may contain stocks of fish for which there is not enough information available to specify MSY and OY or their proxies. Even if data are not available to specify MSY and OY or their proxies, that is not a reason to determine that a stock does not require conservation and management.
• Remove § 600.340(b) of the current NS7 guidelines as the majority of that guidance has been captured in the description of factors to consider under proposed § 600.305(c).
NMFS believes that the proposed revisions to § 600.305 and the NS1, NS3, and NS7 guidelines will not require Councils to revise their existing FMPs. NMFS is aware that Councils have identified stocks in their FMPs as “management unit species” or “stocks in the fishery.” Councils can still continue to use those terms and NMFS presumes that the stocks that have been identified as “management unit species” or “stocks in the fishery” are stocks that are in need of conservation and management and are required to have ACLs, other reference points, and AMs as described in the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines (see § 600.310(d)(1) of this proposed action) unless the two statutory exceptions apply (see § 600.310(h) of this proposed action).
Establishing ACLs for data-limited stocks can be challenging. In data-limited situations there remains a high degree of uncertainty in determining the appropriate catch level for the fishery, leading some to believe that ACLs for data-limited stocks are overly restrictive, and others to argue that they should be reduced further to limit the chance of overfishing. NMFS continually strives to advance the science that informs fisheries management. Over time, scientific information and stock assessment methods have improved, and NMFS has increased the number of stocks with stock assessments. However, NMFS acknowledges that the status of many stocks is unknown. Since passage of the ACL requirements, scientists have developed tools to evaluate and manage data-limited stocks. Some include catch based methods, depletion based methods, or abundance based methods (Carruthers
MSA section 303(a)(3) requires that FMPs assess and specify MSY. NMFS acknowledges that it may not be possible, based on the best scientific information available, to estimate MSY (as defined in the NS1 guidelines at § 600.310(e)(1)(i)) or MSY based proxies for some stocks. In such instances, proposed § 600.310(e)(2)(ii) provides that when data are not available to specify status determination criteria (SDCs) based on MSY or MSY proxies, alternative types of SDCs that promote sustainability of the stock or stock complex can be used. NMFS proposes adding to the examples provided for circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches for establishing reference points pursuant to the NS1 guidelines to address situations where data are not available to either set reference points based on MSY or MSY proxies, or manage to reference points based on MSY or MSY proxies (see § 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). However, note that § 600.310(h)(2) does not provide an exemption from any statutory requirements, including the requirement to establish ACLs; rather, it provides flexibility in the application of the NS1 guidelines. NMFS notes that existing § 600.310(h)(3) describes that one of the limited circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches to specification of reference points is harvests from aquaculture operations (
Stocks that require conservation and management can be grouped into stocks complexes and managed within a FMP. Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons. For example, stock complexes may be useful tools when stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted independent of one another, when there is insufficient data to measure a stock's status relative to its SDC, or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among their catch. In 2009, the NS1 guidelines defined stock complexes to mean a group of stocks that are sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management actions on the stocks is similar. 50 CFR 600.310(d)(8). However, this definition potentially limits the applicability of stock complexes in many of the circumstances in which they may be most useful, such as situations where stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted independent of one another, or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among their catch. Under these circumstances, stock complexes may not have similar life histories and vulnerabilities. To resolve this issue, NMFS is proposing to define stock complex more generally as a tool to manage groups of stocks within a FMP (see § 600.310(d)(2) of this proposed action) with consideration of geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and vulnerabilities to fishing pressure such that the impact of management actions on the stocks is similar (see § 600.310(d)(2)(i) of this proposed action).
Stock complexes are often created when there is not enough information to set reference points at the individual stock level. Therefore, the status of individual stocks within a complex is generally unknown. The current NS1 guidelines note that stock complexes can be comprised of many different combinations of indicator stocks and other stocks. In practice, few stock complexes are managed with indicator stocks. One reason for the dearth of indicator stocks is that, once a stock within a complex is assessed, it is often taken out of the complex and managed separately, rather than serving as the indicator for the complex. The current NS1 guidelines, while endorsing the use of indicator stocks, may be inadvertently contributing to the removal of assessed stocks from complexes by stating that MSY should be estimated on a stock-by-stock basis, whenever possible. §§ 600.310(d)(8) and (e)(1)(iii). To encourage the use of indicator stocks in stock complexes, NMFS is proposing to delete the afore-mentioned text in §§ 600.310(d)(8) and (e)(1)(iii). The proposed NS1 guidelines state that, where practicable, stock complexes should be comprised of one or more indicator stocks, each of which has SDC and ACLs (see § 600.310(d)(2)(ii)(B) of the proposed rule). These revisions are intended to reduce the practice of removing a stock from a complex once it has been assessed, so that the assessed stock can be used as an indicator for the complex, if it is practicable to do so. The revisions also help alleviate some of the discontinuities in how data-limited stock complexes are managed compared to data-rich multi-species fisheries. In mixed-stock fisheries, biological reference points are often specified for several of the stocks within the fishery and management measures are developed to prevent overfishing of each stock. Management measures for stocks that have lower productivities will restrict fishing effort for the overall mixed-stock fishery to some extent. However, in stock complex management the status of stocks within a complex is generally unknown and complexes often lack indicator species. Therefore, it possible that stocks that have lower productivities in the complex may experience occasional overfishing, since the status of these stocks are unknown. Encouraging the use of indicator species will likely reduce the probability that stocks within the complex could experience overfishing or become overfished. This is because the use of an indicator enhances the ability to discern the status of the complex, especially if the complex is of similar geographic distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management actions on the stocks is similar.
MSA section 303(a)(3) requires that each FMP include an estimate of MSY and OY for the fishery. The current NS1 guidelines do not provide guidance on describing MSY at the fishery level, but encourage specifying MSY at the stock level, while allowing it to be set for stock complexes. The current NS1 guidelines state that OY can be specified for a stock, stock complex, or fishery. In practice, Councils typically set MSY and other reference points for individual stocks when the data is available to do so. In data-limited situations, when it is not possible to specify single species reference points, stocks are often grouped into complexes.
A growing body of literature on ecosystem-based fisheries management has emphasized the importance of accounting for species interactions and environmental variability within fisheries management. Councils are increasingly working toward developing ecosystem-based fisheries management programs. These ecosystem-based considerations can be incorporated in a number of ways, including single species stock assessments and models that estimate MSY for an aggregate group of stocks. The phrase “aggregate group of stocks” refers to a group of stocks, such as: a stock complex; all of the stocks caught within a fishery; or some sub-component of a fishery. To further facilitate the Councils' use of ecosystem approaches to management, the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines introduce the concept of aggregate MSY estimates and describe how the concept can be used as an optional tool in fisheries management. In this action, NMFS would revise § 600.310(e)(1) to state that MSY may be specified for the fishery as a whole. Proposed § 600.310(e)(1)(iv) further
The MSA defines the terms overfished and overfishing together as “a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the MSY on a continuing basis.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(34). The NS1 guidelines define overfishing and overfished separately, where the term “overfishing” refers to the fishing mortality rate or total catch, and the term “overfished” refers to a biomass condition. 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)(i)(B) and (E). The NS1 overfished definition, unlike the statutory definition, gives no consideration to the “rate or level of fishing mortality” when determining if a stock is overfished. Rather the criteria to determine an overfished status, called the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), is defined as the level of biomass below which the stock or stock complex is considered to be overfished. Therefore, a stock may be determined to be overfished when overfishing has not occurred. Stakeholders have noted that the term “overfished” implies that fishing is the sole cause for a decline in stock biomass, when factors such as habitat and other environmental conditions may bear greater responsibility for the stock's biomass decline. Similarly, the 2013 NRC report recognized that the rate at which a fish stock rebuilds depends on ecological and other environmental conditions such as climate change, in addition to the fishing-induced mortality. However, separating out the impacts of environmental change from the impacts of fishing on a stock is a difficult task.
To address these concerns, NMFS proposes adding the term “depleted” to the NS1 guidelines to describe those stocks whose biomass has declined as a result of habitat and other environmental conditions, as opposed to fishing pressure. The proposed revision to the guidelines state that an overfished stock or stock complex is considered depleted when it has not experienced overfishing at any point over a period of two generation times of the stock and its biomass has declined below MSST, or when a rebuilding stock or stock complex has reached its targeted time to rebuild and the stock's biomass has shown no significant signs of growth despite being fished at or below catch levels that are consistent with the rebuilding plan throughout that period (see § 600.310(e)(2)(i)(F) of this proposed action). The time periods chosen (
Additionally, NMFS proposes minor revisions to the definitions of “overfished” and “MSST” to improve clarity and reduce redundancy, and to clearly show that the MSST is a reference point used to determine if a stock is overfished (see § 600.310(e)(2)(i)(G) of this proposed action). These revisions together will not result in any change to how the terms `overfished' and `MSST' are used; the revisions are proposed only to improve clarity in the definitions.
The MSA defines “overfishing” as a “rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the MSY on a continuing basis.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(34). The MSA does not specify a timeframe for determining overfishing, but the current NS1 guidelines state that overfishing should be determined by comparing annual rates of fishing mortality (F) to the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) or annual catch to the overfishing limit (OFL). 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)(i)(B)-(C). In either case, under the current guidelines, overfishing determinations are made for the most recent year for which there is information. For example, if the F-based approach is used, the last available year of data in a stock assessment will be used to determine whether a stock will be declared subject to overfishing.
NMFS first adopted an annual approach to overfishing in its 1998 revision to the NS Guidelines. See 63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998. In those revisions, NMFS required Councils to establish status determination criteria for determining overfishing; in particular, NMFS required the establishment of a MFMT. Fishing in excess of the MFMT for a period of 1 or more years would constitute overfishing (63 FR 24230). Prior to these revisions, NMFS had deliberately chosen not to “mandate a particular form for all specific overfishing definitions,” leaving it to the discretion of the Councils to decide how to determine if overfishing was occurring. See 54 FR 30826, 30829 (response to comment 7), July 24, 1989. NMFS based the decision to take a more prescriptive approach in 1998 on the legislative changes made by Congress in the 1996 amendments to the MSA, which NMFS viewed as changing the statute's emphasis on and timeframe for addressing overfishing. See 63 FR 24215 (response to comment 2), May 1, 1998. When Congress amended the MSA in 2007 to add new ACL and AM requirements, NMFS revised its requirements for SDCs, providing the option to Councils to either compare annual fishing mortality rates against the MFMT or the annual level of catch against the OFL. 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)(i)(B)-(C); see also 74 FR 3192 (response to comment 27), Jan. 16, 2009, (describing relative advantages of each methodology).
These current methods for determining overfishing do not consider the extent to which F exceeded the MFMT or catch exceeded the OFL. For
To address this issue, NMFS is proposing to give Councils the option to use a method for determining the overfishing status of a stock that is based on a multi-year approach (that may not exceed 3 years) that examines whether a stock's ability to produce MSY over the long term has been jeopardized (see § 600.310(e)(2)(ii)(A) of the proposed action). The proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines would still allow Councils to have overfishing SDCs that are based on single year comparisons of F to MFMT or catch to OFL. A Council may develop overfishing SDCs that use a multi-year approach, so long as it provides a comprehensive analysis based on the best scientific information available that supports that the approach will not jeopardize the capacity of the fishery to produce the MSY on a continuing basis. The rationale for choosing 3 years as a maximum, versus some shorter or longer time period, was based on the fact that many stocks (57 percent) are assessed every 1, 2, or 3 years. Thus it is NMFS's assumption that using a 2- or 3-year time period will be sufficiently long as to capture the recent impacts of fishing on a stock and help smooth out retrospective bias in our understanding of stock status. Additionally, using a 2- or 3-year time period will dampen the effects of outliers within the data and help provide a more consistent determination of when the capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis has been jeopardized. A single year's data point may not reflect the overall status of the stock. Were Councils to use a longer time period, there could be a longer delay between exceeding limit reference points and a subsequent management response, which could jeopardize the stocks ability to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
Although the current approach to single year overfishing determinations has been in place since 1998 and has the benefit of simplicity in calculation and use, NMFS believes that multi-year overfishing SDCs can, in appropriate cases, be used effectively to protect the stock while providing stability to the fishery. Multi-year overfishing SDCs, if used, would be based on the best scientific information available and would not impact the timeliness of Council and agency response to any overfishing. ACL and AM mechanisms are in place for all fisheries, and they would continue to constrain fishing mortality on an annual basis. The multi-year approach would only be used for overfishing determinations, where the focus appropriately is on the impact of fishing over a set period of time and the capacity of the stock to produce MSY.
The MSA defines OY as an “amount of fish which: (A) Will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; (B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and (C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.” 16 U.S.C. 1802(33). Setting and describing OY continues to be a challenge for fishery managers. OY is specified in several different ways by Councils (
Prior to the requirement for ACLs, the concept of treating OY as a target was prominent in fisheries management. The Sustainable Fisheries Act, passed in 1996, revised the definition of OY to its current definition—notably these revisions required that OY can only be reduced from MSY upon consideration of any relevant economic, social or ecological factors. When NMFS revised the NS1 guidelines in 1998 (63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998), OY was described as a target reference point which should be set safely below limit reference points, and preference was placed on specifying OY in terms of numbers or weight of fish. Councils were encouraged to specify OY control rules, and Restrepo
NMFS received many comments in response to the ANPR requesting that NMFS provide further guidance to the Councils on addressing the economic, social, and ecological factors used in determining OY. NMFS believes that one impediment to Councils addressing these factors is the perception that the Councils must quantify their analysis of these factors. Such an analysis may not be possible in all cases, so NMFS proposes revising § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(A) to provide that where it is not possible to specify OY quantitatively, Councils may instead provide a qualitative description of OY that explains how OY accounts for the economic, ecological, and social factors that are important to the fishery.
In the comments received on the NS1 ANPR, several stakeholders asked for clarification of the relationship of OY to the ACL framework—a relationship that is not discussed in the current guidelines. In response to these comments, proposed § 600.310(f)(4)(iv) of the NS1 guidelines includes a new explanation of the relationship between OY and the ACL framework. The dual goals of NS1 are to prevent overfishing and achieve OY on a continuing basis. The ABC is an upper limit on catch and is designed to prevent overfishing. ACLs (or ACTs if used) can be reduced from ABC based upon OY considerations for the fishery. Additionally, economic, social, or ecological trade-offs may be evaluated when determining the risk policy for an ABC control rule.
While OY is a long-term average amount of desired yield, there is, for each year, an amount of fish that is
NMFS proposes to remove current § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(C) (which states that all catch must be counted against OY, including that resulting from bycatch, scientific research, and all fishing activities) and instead incorporate the concept within § 600.310(e)(2)(ii)(C) of the proposed action by stating that where practicable, all sources of mortality should be accounted for in the evaluation of stock status. The current language implies that catch accounting occurs at the level of OY, while in practice it typically occurs at the level of the ACL. However, the concept of accounting for all sources of mortality is critical to fisheries management; therefore NMFS proposes to retain the concept but incorporate it within the guidance on SDCs. NMFS uses the term “where practicable” because it recognizes that data on scientific research catch may not always be available. To the extent that data is available on scientific research catch, it should be accounted for within the system of reference points. For example, it could be accounted for within stock assessments, as a set-aside within the ACL framework, or by other methods.
NMFS is also proposing minor revisions and consolidations of redundant guidance. To remove repetition and improve clarity, NMFS proposes merging the guidance on determining the greatest benefits to the Nation and the considerations for economic, ecological, and social (EES) factors (currently contained in § 600.310(e)(3)(ii)-(iv)) together into a paragraph on assessing OY (see § 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of the proposed action). Both are important for assessing OY. Additionally, NMFS proposes minor revisions to the guidance on the total allowable level of foreign fishing and domestic annual harvest at § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(D) and (H) to improve clarity and consolidate it with the rest of the guidance on foreign fishing (see § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(A) and (B) of this proposed action). NMFS also proposes removing § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(G) (stating that there should be a mechanism in the FMP for periodic reassessment of OY), and instead explain in proposed § 600.310(e)(3)(iii) that, consistent with MSA section 302(h)(5), the assessment and specification of OY should be reviewed on a continuing basis, so that it is responsive to the changing circumstances in the fishery. Lastly, NMFS proposes that for internationally managed stocks, fishing levels that are agreed upon by the U.S. at the international level are consistent with achieving OY (see § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(D) of this proposed action).
In general, NMFS proposes revisions to the guidance regarding ABC in section § 600.310(f) to minimize redundancy and improve clarity. For example, the ABC control rule (§ 600.310(f)(4)) was moved forward in the guidelines (see § 600.310(f)(2) of this proposed action) so that the guidance on ABC control rules is provided before the guidance on specifying ABC, and statements about providing a proxy for the uncertainty in estimate of MSY (§ 600.310(e)(1)(v)) was moved to the ABC control rule section of the guidelines to consolidate guidance on accounting for uncertainty (see § 600.310(f)(2)(ii) of this proposed action). More substantial revisions to the ABC guidance are listed below.
NMFS proposes to modify the definition of the annual catch limit (ACL) to improve clarity. The ACL is currently defined as the level of annual catch of a stock or stock complex that serves as a basis for invoking AMs. ACL cannot exceed the ABC, but may be divided into sector-ACLs. 50 CFR 600.310(f)(2)(iv). This definition, while accurate, failed to include reference to the fact that an ACL is a limit on the total annual catch for a stock or stock complex. NMFS proposes clarifying that an ACL is a limit on the total annual catch for a stock or stock complex, which cannot exceed the ABC, that serves as the basis for invoking AMs. An ACL may be divided into sector-ACLs (see § 600.310(f)(1)(iii) of this proposed action).
NMFS also proposes adding three new definitions for the following terms: control rule, management uncertainty, and scientific uncertainty (see § 600.310(f)(1)(iv)-(vi) of this proposed action). These terms are currently used throughout the guidelines, but were never separately defined. To reduce redundancy, NMFS proposes deleting the ABC control rule and ACT control rule definitions, since these definitions were very similar to the definitions of ABC and ACT, and there is a more general definition of control rule provided. Lastly, NMFS is proposing to move the definition of “ACT” to § 600.310 (g)(4) of this proposed rule, because ACTs are a type of AM, and thus better suited in the AMs section of the guidelines.
Section 302(g)(1)(B) of the MSA states that the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for each Council shall provide its Council with ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for ABC. 16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B). In 2009, the NS1 guidelines described ABC as the level of a stock or stock complex's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the overfishing limit and any other scientific uncertainty, and should be specified based on the ABC control rule. When these provisions began to be implemented in 2009, Councils were uncertain as to whether or not the SSC could specify the ABC without input from the Council on its risk preferences. At that time, NMFS referred Councils and their SSCs to the response to comments section of the 2009 final guidelines, which noted that the “SSC must recommend an ABC to the Council after the Council advises the SSC what would be the acceptable probability that a catch equal to the ABC would result in overfishing. This risk policy is part of the required ABC control rule.” 74 FR at 3191-92 (response to comment 42), Jan. 16, 2009. NMFS also addressed this issue within its NS1 guidelines frequently asked questions document, which was published online (
When the NS1 provisions began to be implemented in 2009, Councils were interested in using alternative methods to specify ABC, which were not based on “the probability that an actual catch equal to the stock's ABC would result in overfishing” even though such an approach could be calculated. In particular, in their comment to the NS1 ANPR, the North Pacific Council expressed interest in using a decision theoretic approach, which is similar in concept but is not the same as the probabilistic approach (Thompson 2011). Thompson (2011) suggests that the use of a decision theoretic approach may actually be more effective at accounting for scientific uncertainty than the recommended probabilistic approach.
To address the above issues, NMFS is proposing revisions to existing guidance on ABC control rules to state that the Council's risk policy could be based, on an acceptable probability (at least 50 percent) that catch equal to the stock's ABC will not result in overfishing, but other appropriate methods can be used. When determining the risk policy, Councils could consider the economic, social, and ecological trade-offs between being more or less risk averse. (See § 600.310(f)(2)(i) of this proposed action.) References to the Council's risk policy were also included in the definition of ABC (see § 600.310(f)(1)(ii)).
In practice, the management system described in the NS1 guidelines has led managers to adjust ABCs and ACLs in lock-step with assessment results through the use of control rules. A manager's understanding about the status of a stock may change from one assessment to another, but some of that change could be due to scientific uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty, particularly regarding the data from the most recent years within the assessment, can produce perceived fluctuations in stock abundance that do not match the actual, but unknown, status of the stock (NRC 1998). In the time period between stock assessments, Councils often hold ACLs constant because, absent stock forecasts, information is lacking on which to justify changes to the ACL. The result is that an ACL could be left unchanged for several years when there is no assessment update, but upon completion of a new assessment, reference points could change dramatically (Methot 2014). This type of dramatic change could be the result of a changed understanding of the stock or due to a change in the level of scientific uncertainty; it may be extremely difficult to parse the cause of such changes.
Making large reductions in catch limits to prevent overfishing may cause negative short-term impacts on fishery participants, while large increases in catch limits due to a favorable assessment result may have negative short-term impacts by flooding markets and reducing profitability. Patrick
NMFS proposes revising the NS1 guidelines to allow Councils to develop an ABC control rule that would phase in changes to the ABC over a period of time not to exceed 3 years, so long as overfishing is prevented (see § 600.310 (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this action). The rationale for choosing 3 years is similar to that described in Section IX of this preamble. For example, choosing a shorter time frame may not be that helpful in stabilizing catches, while a longer time frame that spans multiple stock assessments does not seem logical or transparent.
Phase-in approaches to management are currently being used successfully elsewhere in the world. For example, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) currently adjusts its quotas according to a “slow up/full down” policy. Under IPHC policy, 1/3 of the indicated annual increases are taken and 100 percent of decreases are taken (Hare and Clark 2008, Hare 2011). Similarly, multi-annual plans for some European Union marine fisheries limit annual change in catch quota to 15 percent (Marchal
The term carry-over is often used in the context of catch share programs, where unused allocation from one year can be carried over to the next. Historically, carry-over provisions have allowed fishermen to carry over a portion of the quota they had available at the end of the year. Carry-over provisions can reduce the likelihood that quotas are exceeded by minimizing incentives to catch every last pound. Similarly, carry-over provisions can relieve pressure on fishermen to fish in potentially unsafe conditions to ensure full utilization of quota. The amount of carry-over historically allowed has been relatively small compared to the total ACL, and could well be offset, in a typical year, with under-harvest by other fishermen.
Some Councils have expressed interest in carrying over significant levels of catch that could result in the previously specified ACL and in some cases the ABC being exceeded. The NS1 guidelines currently do not provide any guidance regarding carry-over. In
NMFS proposes minor revisions to consolidate and clarify the guidance on accountability measures (see § 600.310(g) of this proposed action).
Additionally, NMFS proposes moving the guidance on AMs that is currently contained in § 600.310(h)(1) into paragraphs (f) and (g) of the NS1 guidelines. Specifically, NMFS proposes adding “if sector-ACLs are used, sector-AMs should also be specified” to § 600.310(f)(4)(ii) of this proposed action. This concept is currently in § 600.310(h)(1)(iv) and was moved into the discussion of sector-ACLs to improve clarity. NMFS also proposes to add “the FMP should identify what sources of data will be used to implement AMs (
NMFS also proposes to consolidate the guidance regarding the ACL performance standard from current §§ 600.310(g)(3) and (g)(4) into one section (see § 600.310(g)(7) of this proposed action). However, the guidance regarding the performance standard remains the same; if catch exceeds the ACL for a given stock or stock complex more than once in the last four years, the system of ACLs and AMs should be reevaluated, and modified if necessary to improve its performance and effectiveness.
NMFS also proposes to clarify in the guidance for AMs when ACL is exceeded that the type of AM chosen by a Council will likely vary depending on the sector of the fishery, status of the stock, the degree of the overage, recruitment patterns of the stock, or other pertinent information (see § 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action). For example, some stocks have highly variable recruitment and when environmental conditions are favorable, the catches may exceed the ACL because the abundance of the stock is higher than anticipated. When deciding on the appropriate AM, Councils could consider if higher than expected recruitment played a role in catches exceeding the ACL. Another example of how the type of AM may vary is that a Council may choose to use a more stringent AM as the biomass of the stock declines.
Lastly, within the guidance on AMs for when the ACL is exceeded, NMFS proposes that, if an ACL is set equal to zero and the AM for the fishery is a closure that prohibits fishing for a stock, additional AMs are not required if (1) only small amounts of catch or bycatch occur, and (2) that catch or bycatch is unlikely to result in overfishing (see § 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action). Under these circumstances, NMFS believes that a closure that prohibits fishing for a stock is an adequate AM for a fishery, and in some cases, it may be the only option available for a Council.
NMFS is proposing minor revisions to reduce redundancy and improve clarity within § 600.310(h). NMFS proposes to remove the guidance on stock complexes and indicator stocks within current paragraph (h) because it is redundant; similar guidance is contained in § 600.310(d)(2)(ii) of the proposed action.
NMFS proposes to remove current §§ 600.310(h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii), because they are redundant with the guidance in §§ 600.310(f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii), respectively, of this proposed action. As described above in preamble section XII, NMFS proposes to remove the guidance on AMs in current §§ 600.310(h)(1)(iii) and (iv), and consolidate it into §§ 600.310(g)(1) and (f)(4)(ii), respectively, of this proposed action to improve clarity.
The MSA provides a statutory exception to the requirements for ACLs and AMs for “a fishery for species that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to overfishing of that species.” 16 U.S.C. 1853. Section 600.310(h)(2) of the current NS1 guidelines further explains that the life cycle exception applies to “a stock for which the average length of time it takes for an individual to produce a reproductively active offspring is approximately 1 year and that individual has only one breeding season in its lifetime.” NMFS believes that the current guidance is confusing and that the requirement to only have one breeding season in a lifetime is overly restrictive. Some short lived species have multiple breeding cycles in a lifetime. NMFS proposes to revise this exception to apply to “a stock for which the average age of spawners in the population is approximately 1 year or less” (see § 600.310(h)(1)(i) of the proposed action). NMFS believes that this is a more scientifically correct description of a species that has a life cycle of approximately 1 year.
Lastly, as described above in preamble section V, NMFS proposes amending the “Flexibility in application of NS1 guidelines” provision of the guidelines by adding two additional examples of circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches to specification of reference points as those described in the NS1 guidelines (see § 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action).
The topic of rebuilding plans has been discussed extensively in a number of public forums. NMFS received several comments in response to the NS1 ANPR stating that the 10-year rebuilding requirement is arbitrary and expressing a desire for more flexibility in meeting the statutory rebuilding requirements, while other commenters supported the use of the 10-year rebuilding requirement. Similar comments were provided at the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries III conference held in Washington, DC, in 2013. The National Research Council also published a report on U.S. rebuilding plans in 2013 (NRC 2013), which provided several findings and recommendations on improving rebuilding guidance. Below is a summary of the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines related to providing flexibility in developing effective rebuilding plans.
When the biomass of a stock has declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis, the stock is considered overfished. Section 304(e)(4) of the MSA requires Councils to specify a time period for rebuilding overfished stocks within 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the
In the past, Councils have had difficulties calculating T
NMFS does not expect that drastically different estimates of T
MSA section 304(e)(7) requires the Secretary to review rebuilding plans to ensure that adequate progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding affected fish stocks is being made. 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). The current NS1 guidelines do not provide any guidance on this provision, and NMFS received several comments in response to the ANPR requesting additional guidance on this provision. NMFS proposes adding guidance to clarify that the review of rebuilding progress could include the review of recent stock assessments, comparisons of catches to the ACL, or other appropriate performance measures. NMFS also proposes that the Secretary may find that adequate progress in rebuilding is not being made if: F
NMFS also proposes clarifying that, while a stock or stock complex is rebuilding, revising rebuilding timeframes (
The NS1 guidelines provide guidance on emergency actions and interim measures to reduce overfishing that can be taken under sections 304(e)(6) and 305(c) of the MSA. NMFS is proposing to delete §§ 600.310(j)(4)(i) and (ii) because: (1) The guidance simply repeats the language in the MSA; (2) NMFS has separately published a policy on implementing the provisions of MSA 305(c) (NMFS Policy Directive 01-101-07, Policy Guidelines on the Use of Emergency Rules, 62 FR 44421 (Aug. 21, 1997)); and (3) NS1 guidance should only provide guidance on the 304(e)(6) provisions of the MSA, because it pertains to rebuilding stocks. NMFS proposes to clarify in § 600.310(j)(4) of this proposed action that the Secretary's ability to implement interim measures to reduce, but not necessarily end, overfishing should rarely be used and require that the following three criteria be met before the interim measure can be used: (1) The interim measure is needed to address an unanticipated and significantly changed understanding of the stock's status; (2) ending overfishing immediately is expected to result in severe social and/or economic impacts to a fishery; and (3) the interim measures will at least ensure that the stock will increase its current biomass through the duration of the interim measure.
Due to scientific uncertainty in the biomass estimate of fish stocks, occasionally a stock is identified as overfished, but is later determined to have never been overfished. The recent NRC (2013) study on rebuilding estimated that approximately 30 percent of rebuilding stocks are later discovered to have never been overfished. In the past, it has been NMFS' policy that once a rebuilding plan has been implemented, the rebuilding plan cannot be discontinued until the stock has rebuilt to B
However, NMFS realizes that rebuilding stocks are sometimes restricted to relatively low F
In § 600.310(j)(2), NMFS proposes deleting text that referred to the 2010 and 2011 implementation dates for ACLs and AMs, given that these deadlines have passed and all 46 FMPs have implemented ACLs and AMs (see §§ 600.310(j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this proposed action). NMFS also proposes adding guidance to clarify that, when a Council is notified that a stock or stock complex is undergoing overfishing, it should work with its SSC to ensure that the ABC is set appropriately to end overfishing. Councils should evaluate the cause of the overfishing, address the issue that caused overfishing, and reevaluate their ACLs and AM to make sure they are adequate (see § 600.310(j)(2)(i) of this proposed action).
Since the reauthorization of the MSA in 2007, many recreational stakeholders have commented that the ACL requirements of the MSA do not recognize the different ways in which recreational and commercial fisheries are managed and prosecuted. The recreational community has provided comments through a variety of forums, such as: the 2012 NS1 ANPR; NMFS's Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's White Paper on Recommendations for MSA by the Recreational Working Group; NMFS's Recreational Regional Roundtable discussions of 2013; Managing Our Nations Fisheries III (2013); The Commission on Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Management, A Vision for Managing America's Saltwater Recreational Fisheries (Morris and Deal 2014); and NMFS Recreational Saltwater Fishing Summits in 2010 and 2014. In general, the recreational community has expressed an interest in increased fishing opportunities; having the opportunity to catch larger fish; flexibility in setting ACLs for recreational fisheries; managing for greater abundance; and, managing forage fish more conservatively to improve the resiliency of recreationally important fish stocks. While not highlighted in a separate or specific section, these issues are addressed in various sections of this proposed rule.
NMFS recognizes that recreational and commercial sectors of a fishery will sometimes have different objectives for a fishery. Existing guidelines note that it is the Councils' responsibility to integrate the objectives of these various sectors or fishery participants into their fishery management plans, and prioritize among these objectives when they are in conflict (see §§ 600.305(b) and 600.310(e)(3)). However, in practice the process of identifying and prioritizing the objectives of a fishery are rarely reexamined once defined; there are some exceptions like the Mid-Atlantic and South-Atlantic Councils' recent visioning processes (for more information on these projects, see:
The MSA requires ACLs and AMs for all managed fisheries; however, the NS1 guidelines do not require Councils to specify or implement AMs in the same manner among the sectors of a fishery. For example, in several cases, Councils have chosen to monitor the commercial catch using daily or weekly reporting mechanisms and use in-season management measures to close the commercial sector when it is expected to reach its ACL. In contrast, in some recreational fisheries, catch can only be monitored in 2-month increments, and ACL overages can only be addressed through post-season AMs. So as not to be constrained to one type of AM, the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Councils have developed conditional AMs that implement different AMs depending on the status of the stock and/or degree of ACL overage. These conditional AMs provide flexibility in managing sectors of the fishery differently. NMFS encourages the use of conditional AMs and proposes clarifying that the type of AM chosen by a Council will likely vary depending on the sector of the fishery, the status of the stock, degree of overage, recruitment patterns of the stock, and other pertinent information (see § 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action).
NMFS also recognizes that an impediment to implementing ACLs for many recreationally important fish stocks is the lack of life history information to calculate MSY (or a standard proxy), as well as the lack of timely information on the catch levels of the stock. As noted above in section V of the preamble, NMFS is proposing to revise the NS1 guidelines to make clear that, when data are not available to specify MSY or MSY proxies, alternative types of SDCs that promote sustainability of the stock or stock complex can be used (see § 600.310(e)(2)(ii) of this proposed action). For example, SDCs could be based on recent average catch, fish densities derived from visual census surveys, length/weight frequencies or other methods. NMFS also proposes to allow alternative approaches to satisfying the NS1 requirements for stocks for which data are not available to either set MSY or MSY based reference points or manage to MSY or MSY based reference points (see § 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action).
NMFS understands that many of the fish stocks captured in recreational fisheries are not targeted, but retained because they are valued by the fishermen. In the current NS1 guidelines, these “often retained” non-target stocks are considered to be “in the fishery” and are therefore required to have ACLs. Many stakeholders including recreational fishery participants have noted that, while these non-target stocks are often retained, many of these stocks may not be in need of conservation and management. As noted above in section IV of the preamble, NMFS is revising its guidance on stocks in the fishery and ecosystem component species to provide further guidance to Councils in determining whether stocks require conservation and management based on several factors. Therefore, some non-target fish stocks may no longer need ACLs based on this proposed rule.
Some stakeholders have also recommended that, where appropriate,
NMFS is not proposing any new revisions to the NS guidelines related to forage fish, as the importance of forage fish to fisheries and the marine ecosystem was adequately highlighted in the 2009 revisions of the NS1 guidelines. For example, in current § 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(C), NMFS notes that maintaining adequate forage for all components of the ecosystem is one consideration that could be taken by the Council when determining the greatest benefit to the Nation. Additionally, current § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(C) describes that, when specifying OY, consideration should be given to managing forage stocks for higher biomass than B
For clarity and convenience to the reader, this proposed rule would revise § 600.305 (National Standard General), § 600.310 (National Standard 1 guidelines), § 600.320 (National Standard 3 guidelines) and § 600.340 (National Standard 7 guidelines) in their entirety. The following describes the changes to these guidelines that are being proposed, and a tracked changes copy of the proposed rule is also available at:
In the proposed revisions to § 600.305, paragraph (b)—
In the proposed revisions to § 600.310, paragraph (b)—
In the proposed revisions to § 600.320, paragraphs (d)—
In the proposed revisions to § 600.340, paragraphs (b)—
A complete list of all the references cited in this final action is available online at:
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The purpose of the rule is to facilitate compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve optimum yield (OY) without establishing new requirements or requiring the Councils or Secretary to revise their Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). The objectives of the rule are to improve and clarify the guidance within the NS guidelines, address concerns that have been raised during the implementation of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), and provide flexibility to address fishery management issues. Pursuant to MSA section 301(b), the NS guidelines are advisory in nature and do not have the force and effect of law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the legal basis for the rule.
Small entities include “small businesses,” “small organizations,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.” The Small Business Administration has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111), commercial shellfish harvesters (NAICS code 114112), other commercial marine harvesters (NAICS code 114119), for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210), marinas (NAICS code 713930), seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 424460), and seafood processors (NAICS code 311710). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For commercial shellfish harvesters, the other qualifiers apply and the receipts threshold is $5.5 million. For other commercial marine harvesters, for-hire businesses, and marinas, the other qualifiers apply and the receipts threshold is $7.5 million. A business primarily involved in seafood processing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual employment not in excess of 500 employees for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For seafood
The actions in this rule make technical changes to the general section to the National Standard Guidelines, and the Guidelines for National Standard 1 (NS 1), National Standard 3 (NS 3), and National Standard 7 (NS 7). Specifically, this rule would: (1) Revise the general section of the NS guidelines regarding the importance of identifying fishery management objectives within an FMP, (2) consolidate guidance on identifying whether stocks need conservation and management, (3) revise the guidelines to provide flexibility in managing data limited stocks, (4) revise the guidance on stock complexes to encourage the use of complexes and indicator stocks, (5) revise the guidelines to promote the use of aggregate MSY estimates, (6) revise the guidelines by adding a definition for a depleted stock, (7) revise the guidelines to allow multi-year overfishing determinations, methods to phase-in adjustments to ABC, and methods to carry-over of all or some of an unused portion of the ACL, (8) revise guidance on OY to improve clarity and describe the role of OY under the ACL framework, (9) revise the acceptable biological catch (ABC) guidance, (10) revise guidance on AMs, (11) revise guidance on establishing ACL and AM mechanisms, and (12) provide flexibility in rebuilding stocks.
Because the proposed changes to the guidelines do not create new requirements and thus are technical in nature, this rule would allow but does not require the Councils or the Secretary to make changes to their FMPs. Further, because the guidelines do not directly regulate any entities, the proposed changes will not directly alter the behavior of any entities operating in federally managed fisheries, and thus no direct economic effects on commercial harvesting businesses, for-hire businesses, marinas, seafood dealers/wholesalers, or seafood processors are expected to result from this action. Therefore, no small entities would be directly affected by this rule.
As a result of the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. Because this rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant adverse economic effect on the profits of a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This rule would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(2) In developing FMPs, the Councils have the initial authority to ascertain factual circumstances, to establish management objectives, and to propose management measures that will achieve the objectives. The Secretary will determine whether the proposed management objectives and measures are consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. The Secretary has an obligation under section 301(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to inform the Councils of the Secretary's interpretation of the national standards so that they will have an understanding of the basis on which FMPs will be reviewed.
(3) The national standards are statutory principles that must be followed in any FMP. The guidelines summarize Secretarial interpretations that have been, and will be, applied under these principles. The guidelines are intended as aids to decision-making; FMPs formulated according to the guidelines will have a better chance for expeditious Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. FMPs that are in substantial compliance with the guidelines, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law must be approved.
(b)
(2) To reflect the changing needs of the fishery over time, Councils should reassess the objectives of the fishery on a regular basis.
(3) How objectives are defined is important to the management process. Objectives should address the problems of a particular fishery. The objectives should be clearly stated, practicably attainable, framed in terms of definable events and measurable benefits, and based upon a comprehensive rather than a fragmentary approach to the problems addressed. An FMP should make a clear distinction between objectives and the management measures chosen to achieve them. The objectives of each FMP provide the context within which the Secretary will judge the consistency of an FMP's conservation and management measures with the national standards.
(c)
(i) The stock is an important component of the marine environment.
(ii) The stock is caught by the fishery.
(iii) Whether an FMP can improve or maintain the condition of the stocks.
(iv) The stock is a target of a fishery.
(v) The stock is important to commercial, recreational, or subsistence users.
(vi) The fishery is important to the Nation and to the regional economy.
(vii) The need to resolve competing interests and conflicts among user groups and whether an FMP can further that resolution.
(viii) The economic condition of a fishery and whether an FMP can produce more efficient utilization.
(ix) The needs of a developing fishery, and whether an FMP can foster orderly growth.
(x) The extent to which the fishery could be or is already adequately managed by states, by state/Federal programs, by Federal regulations pursuant to other FMPs or international commissions, or by industry self-regulation, consistent with the policies and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(2) When considering adding a new stock to an FMP or keeping an existing stock within an FMP, Councils should prepare a thorough analysis of the factors, and any additional considerations that may be relevant to the particular stock. No single factor is dispositive, but Councils should consider weighting the factors as follows. Factors in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section should be considered first, as they address maintaining a fishery resource and the marine environment.
(3) Councils may choose to identify stocks within their FMPs as ecosystem component (EC) species (see § 600.310(d)(1)) if they do not require conservation and management. EC species may be identified at the species or stock level, and may be grouped into complexes. Consistent with National Standard 9, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) section 303(b)(12), and other applicable MSA sections, management measures can be adopted in order to, for example, collect data on the EC species, minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality of EC species, protect the associated role of EC species in the ecosystem, or for other reasons.
(4) A stock or stock complex may be identified in more than one FMP. In this situation, the relevant Councils should choose which FMP will be the primary FMP in which reference points for the stock or stock complex are established. In other FMPs, the stock or stock complex may be identified as “other managed stocks” and management measures that are consistent with the objectives of the primary FMP can be established.
(5) Councils should periodically review their FMPs and the best scientific information available and determine if the stocks are appropriately identified. As appropriate, stocks should be reclassified within a FMP, added to or removed from an existing FMP, or added to a new FMP, through a FMP amendment that documents the rationale for the decision.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(a)
(b)
(i) Specifying maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY;
(ii) Specifying status determination criteria (SDC) so that overfishing and overfished determinations can be made for stocks and stock complexes that require, or are in need of, conservation and management;
(iii) Preventing overfishing and achieving OY, incorporation of scientific and management uncertainty in control rules, and adaptive management using annual catch limits (ACL) and measures to ensure accountability (
(iv) Rebuilding stocks and stock complexes.
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(A) Each Regional Fishery Management Council shall establish an SSC as described in section 302(g)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(B) Each SSC shall provide its Regional Fishery Management Council recommendations for ABC as well as other scientific advice, as described in Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(B).
(C) The Secretary and each Regional Fishery Management Council may establish a peer review process for that Council for scientific information used to advise the Council about the conservation and management of a fishery (see Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(E)). If a peer review process is established, it should investigate the technical merits of stock assessments and other scientific information to be used by the SSC or agency or international scientists, as appropriate. For Regional Fishery Management Councils, the peer review process is not a substitute for the SSC and should work in conjunction with the SSC. For the Secretary, which does not have an SSC, the peer review process should provide the scientific information necessary.
(D) Each Council shall develop ACLs for each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the “fishing level recommendations” of its SSC or peer review process (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(h)(6)). The SSC recommendation that is the most relevant to ACLs is ABC, as both ACL and ABC are levels of annual catch.
(3)
(4)
(c)
(1) MSY and SDC (see paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section).
(2) OY at the stock, stock complex, or fishery level and provide the OY specification analysis (see paragraph (e)(3) of this section).
(3) ABC control rule (see paragraph (f)(2) of this section).
(4) Mechanisms for specifying ACLs (see paragraph (f)(4) of this section).
(5) AMs (see paragraph (g) of this section).
(6) Stocks and stock complexes that have statutory exceptions from ACLs and AMs (see paragraph (h)(1) of this section) or which fall under limited circumstances which require different approaches to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section).
(d)
(2)
(i) At the time a stock complex is established, the FMP should provide, to the extent practicable, a full and explicit description of the proportional composition of each stock in the stock complex. Stocks may be grouped into complexes for various reasons, including where stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot be targeted independent of one another; where there is insufficient data to measure a stock's status relative to SDC; or when it is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among their catch. Where practicable, the group of stocks should have a similar geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and vulnerabilities to fishing pressure such that the impact of management actions on the stocks is similar. The vulnerability of individual stocks should be considered when determining if a particular stock complex should be established or reorganized, or if a particular stock should be included in a complex.
(ii)
(B) Where practicable, stock complexes should include one or more indicator stocks (each of which has SDC and ACLs). Otherwise, stock complexes may be comprised of: Several stocks without an indicator stock (with SDC and an ACL for the complex as a whole), or one or more indicator stocks (each of which has SDC and management objectives) with an ACL for the complex
(C) If an indicator stock is used to evaluate the status of a complex, it should be representative of the typical vulnerability of stocks within the complex. If the stocks within a stock complex have a wide range of vulnerability, they should be reorganized into different stock complexes that have similar vulnerabilities; otherwise the indicator stock should be chosen to represent the more vulnerable stocks within the complex. In instances where an indicator stock is less vulnerable than other members of the complex, management measures should be more conservative so that the more vulnerable members of the complex are not at risk from the fishery.
(D) More than one indicator stock can be selected to provide more information about the status of the complex.
(E) When indicator stocks are used, the stock complex's MSY could be listed as “unknown,” while noting that the complex is managed on the basis of one or more indicator stocks that do have known stock-specific MSYs, or suitable proxies, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section.
(e)
(i)
(B)
(C)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(B) When data are insufficient to estimate MSY directly, Councils should adopt other measures of reproductive potential that can serve as reasonable proxies for MSY, F
(C) The MSY for a stock or stock complex is influenced by its interactions with other stocks in its ecosystem and these interactions may shift as multiple stocks in an ecosystem are fished. Ecological and environmental information should be taken into account, to the extent practicable, when assessing stocks and specifying MSY. Ecological and environmental information that is not directly accounted for in the specification of MSY can be among the ecological factors considered when setting OY below MSY.
(D) As MSY values are estimates or are based on proxies, they will have some level of uncertainty associated with them. The degree of uncertainty in the estimates should be identified, when practicable, through the stock assessment process and peer review (see § 600.335), and should be taken into account when specifying the ABC Control rule (see paragraph (f)(2) of this section).
(2)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(ii)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(C) Where practicable, all sources of mortality including that resulting from bycatch, scientific research catch, and all fishing activities should be accounted for in the evaluation of stock status with respect to reference points.
(iii)
(A) If environmental changes cause a stock or stock complex to fall below its MSST without affecting its long-term reproductive potential, fishing mortality must be constrained sufficiently to allow rebuilding within an acceptable time frame (see also paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section). SDC should not be respecified.
(B) If environmental, ecosystem, or habitat changes affect the long-term reproductive potential of the stock or stock complex, one or more components of the SDC must be respecified. Once SDC have been respecified, fishing mortality may or may not have to be reduced, depending on the status of the stock or stock complex with respect to the new criteria.
(C) If manmade environmental changes are partially responsible for a stock or stock complex's biomass being below MSST, in addition to controlling fishing mortality, Councils should recommend restoration of habitat and other ameliorative programs, to the extent possible (see also the guidelines issued pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for Council actions concerning essential fish habitat).
(iv)
(A) Is based on the best scientific information available;
(B) Contains the elements described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section;
(C) Provides a basis for objective measurement of the status of the stock or stock complex against the criteria; and
(D) Is operationally feasible.
(3)
(i)
(B) In NS1, use of the phrase “achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery” means: Producing, from each stock, stock complex, or fishery, an amount of catch that is, on average, equal to the Council's specified OY; prevents overfishing; maintains the long term average biomass near or above B
(ii)
(iii)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(iv)
(A) The OY can be expressed in terms of numbers or weight of fish, and either as a single value or a range. When it is not possible to specify OY quantitatively, OY may be described qualitatively.
(B) The determination of OY is based on MSY, directly or through proxy. However, even where sufficient scientific data as to the biological characteristics of the stock do not exist, or where the period of exploitation or investigation has not been long enough for adequate understanding of stock dynamics, or where frequent large-scale fluctuations in stock size diminish the meaningfulness of the MSY concept, OY must still be established based on the best scientific information available.
(C) An OY established at a fishery level may not exceed the sum of the MSY values for each of the stocks or stocks complexes within the fishery. Aggregate level MSY estimates could be used as a basis for specifying OY for the fishery (see paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section). When aggregate level MSY is estimated, single stock MSY estimates can also be used to inform single stock management. For example, OY could be specified for a fishery, while other reference points are specified for individual stocks in order to prevent overfishing on each stock within the fishery.
(D) For internationally-managed stocks, fishing levels that are agreed upon by the U.S. at the international level are consistent with achieving OY.
(v)
(A) The OY specification is the basis for establishing any total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF).
(B) Part of the OY may be held as a reserve to allow for domestic annual harvest (DAH). If an OY reserve is established, an adequate mechanism should be included in the FMP to permit timely release of the reserve to domestic or foreign fishermen, if necessary.
(C)
(D)
(E)
(f)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(2)
(ii) The ABC control rule must articulate how ABC will be set compared to the OFL based on the scientific knowledge about the stock or stock complex and taking into account scientific uncertainty (see paragraph (f)(1)(vi) of this section). The ABC control rule should consider reducing fishing mortality as stock size declines below B
(A)
(B)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(h)
(1)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(1) Sources of fishing mortality (both landed and discarded), including commercial and recreational catch and bycatch in other fisheries;
(2) Description of the data collection and estimation methods used to quantify total catch mortality in each fishery, including information on the management tools used (
(3) Description of the methods used to compile catch data from various catch data collection methods and how those data are used to determine the relationship between total catch at a given point in time and the ACL for stocks and stock complexes that require conservation and management.
(j)
(i) Overfishing is occurring;
(ii) A stock or stock complex is overfished;
(iii) A stock or stock complex is approaching an overfished condition; or
(iv) Existing remedial action taken for the purpose of ending previously identified overfishing or rebuilding a previously identified overfished stock or stock complex has not resulted in adequate progress.
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(A)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(C)
(ii) Council action addressing an overfished fishery must allocate both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among sectors of the fishery.
(iii) For fisheries managed under an international agreement, Council action addressing an overfished fishery must reflect traditional participation in the fishery, relative to other nations, by fishermen of the United States.
(iv)
(v) While a stock or stock complex is rebuilding, revising rebuilding timeframes (
(vi) If a stock or stock complex has not rebuilt by T
(4)
(i) The interim measures are needed to address an unanticipated and significantly changed understanding of the status of the stock or stock complex;
(ii) Ending overfishing immediately is expected to result in severe social and/or economic impacts to a fishery; and
(iii) The interim measures will ensure that the stock or stock complex will increase its current biomass through the duration of the interim measures.
(5)
(i) The Secretary determines that the stock was not overfished in the year that the overfished determination (see MSA section 304(e)(3)) was based on; and
(ii) The biomass of the stock is not currently below the MSST.
(6)
(k)
(1) Develop recommendations for domestic regulations to address the relative impact of the U.S. fishing vessels on the stock. Council recommendations should be submitted to the Secretary.
(2) Develop and submit recommendations to the Secretary of State, and to the Congress, for international actions that will end overfishing in the fishery and rebuild the affected stocks, taking into account the relative impact of vessels of other nations and vessels of the United States on the relevant stock. Councils should, in consultation with the Secretary, develop recommendations that take into consideration relevant provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NS1 guidelines, including section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of this section, and other applicable laws. For highly migratory species in the Pacific, recommendations from the Western Pacific, North Pacific, or Pacific Councils must be developed and submitted consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act section 503(f), as appropriate.
(3)
(l)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(m)
(1) Such action will result in long-term net benefits to the Nation;
(2) Mitigating measures have been considered and it has been demonstrated that a similar level of long-term net benefits cannot be achieved by modifying fleet behavior, gear selection/configuration, or other technical characteristic in a manner such that no overfishing would occur; and
(3) The resulting rate of fishing mortality will not cause any stock or stock complex to fall below its MSST more than 50 percent of the time in the long term, although it is recognized that persistent overfishing is expected to cause the affected stock to fall below its B
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(1) The range and distribution of the stocks, as well as the patterns of fishing effort and harvest.
(2) Alternative management units and reasons for selecting a particular one. A less-than-comprehensive management unit may be justified if, for example, complementary management exists or is planned for a separate geographic area or for a distinct use of the stocks, or if the unmanaged portion of the resource is immaterial to proper management.
(3) Management activities and habitat programs of adjacent states and their effects on the FMP's objectives and management measures. Where state action is necessary to implement measures within state waters to achieve FMP objectives, the FMP should identify what state action is necessary, discuss the consequences of state inaction or contrary action, and make appropriate recommendations. The FMP should also discuss the impact that Federal regulations will have on state management activities.
(4) Management activities of other countries having an impact on the fishery, and how the FMP's management measures are designed to take into account these impacts. International boundaries may be dealt with in several ways. For example:
(i) By limiting the management unit's scope to that portion of the stock found in U.S. waters;
(ii) By estimating MSY for the entire stock and then basing the determination of OY for the U.S. fishery on the portion of the stock within U.S. waters; or
(iii) By referring to treaties or cooperative agreements.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)