type: legislation

text:
 27.4.2020
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 132/10
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2020/572 AL COMISIEI
 din 24 aprilie 2020
 privind structura de raportare care trebuie urmată pentru rapoartele de investigare a accidentelor și a incidentelor feroviare
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Directiva (UE) 2016/798 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 11 mai 2016 privind siguranța feroviară (1), în special articolul 24 alineatul (2),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Directiva (UE) 2016/798 oferă un cadru pentru asigurarea faptului că rezultatele investigațiilor privind accidentele și incidentele sunt diseminate de către organismele naționale de investigare (ONI) responsabile pentru raportarea cu privire la investigarea accidentelor și a incidentelor feroviare din întreaga Uniune, în conformitate cu articolul 22 din directivă.
 (2)
 Rapoartele privind investigațiile, precum și eventualele constatări și recomandări ulterioare oferă informații esențiale pentru îmbunătățirea în viitor a siguranței feroviare din spațiul feroviar unic european. În conformitate cu articolul 26 din Directiva (UE) 2016/798, recomandările privind siguranța trebuie puse în practică de către destinatari, iar măsurile luate trebuie raportate organismului de investigare.
 (3)
 O structură comună a raportului de investigare trebuie să faciliteze diseminarea rapoartelor. În acest scop, în conformitate cu articolul 37 alineatul (3) litera (e) din Regulamentul (UE) 2016/796 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului (2), a fost instituită o bază de date publică, gestionată sub responsabilitatea Agenției Uniunii Europene pentru Căile Ferate, care este accesibilă prin intermediul agenției.
 (4)
 Pentru a facilita accesul la informații utile și aplicarea acestora în cazul altor părți interesate din Europa, unele părți ale raportului sunt solicitate în două limbi europene.
 (5)
 Această structură trebuie să protejeze ONI împotriva interferențelor externe și să garanteze că investigația a fost efectuată în mod independent în conformitate cu articolul 21 alineatul (4) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798.
 (6)
 Rapoartele de investigare a accidentelor și a incidentelor de siguranță trebuie să asigure faptul că se pot trage învățăminte din accidentele și incidentele survenite în trecut. Ele trebuie să faciliteze identificarea riscurilor pentru siguranță și eliminarea în viitor a riscurilor pentru siguranță similare și să permită actorilor din sectorul feroviar să își revizuiască evaluarea riscurilor legate de operațiunile lor și să își actualizeze sistemele de management al siguranței atunci când este necesar, inclusiv atunci când trebuie adoptate măsuri corective, în temeiul punctului 7.1.3 din anexa I și a punctului 7.1.3 din anexa II la Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2018/762 al Comisiei (3). În acest scop, informațiile cuprinse în aceste rapoarte trebuie structurate, pentru a fi ușor accesibile.
 (7)
 Agenția Uniunii Europene pentru Căile Ferate (denumită în continuare „agenția”), care colectează rapoartele, trebuie să dispună de un instrument informatic adecvat care să ofere o accesare ușoară, adaptată la nevoile specifice ale utilizatorului (de exemplu, prin utilizarea de cuvinte-cheie).
 (8)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul comitetului menționat la articolul 28 alineatul (1) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Obiect și domeniu de aplicare
 Prezentul regulament stabilește o structură comună de raportare pentru investigațiile privind accidentele și incidentele menționate la articolul 20 alineatele (1) și (2) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798.
 Articolul 2
 Definiții
 În sensul prezentului regulament, se aplică următoarele definiții:
 1.
 „factor cauzal” înseamnă orice acțiune, omisiune, eveniment sau condiție ori o combinație a acestora care, dacă ar fi fost corectat(ă), eliminat(ă) sau evitat(ă), ar fi putut împiedica producerea accidentului sau incidentului, după toate probabilitățile;
 2.
 „factor contributiv” înseamnă orice acțiune, omisiune, eveniment sau condiție care afectează un accident sau incident prin creșterea probabilității de producere a acestuia, prin accelerarea efectului în timp sau prin sporirea gravității consecințelor, însă a cărui eliminare nu ar fi împiedicat producerea accidentului sau incidentului;
 3.
 „factor sistemic” înseamnă orice factor cauzal sau contributiv de natură organizațională, managerială, societală sau de reglementare care ar putea afecta accidente sau incidente similare și conexe în viitor, incluzând, mai ales, condițiile cadrului de reglementare, proiectarea și aplicarea sistemului de management al siguranței, competențele personalului, procedurile și întreținerea.
 Articolul 3
 Structura de raportare
 Fără a se aduce atingere dispozițiilor articolului 20 și ale articolului 24 alineatele (1) și (2) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798, rapoartele de investigare se emit urmând cât mai îndeaproape posibil structura stabilită în anexa I.
 Punctele 1, 5 și 6 din anexa I se redactează într-o a doua limbă europeană oficială. Această traducere trebuie să fie disponibilă cel târziu la 3 luni de la transmiterea raportului.
 Rapoartele se pun la dispoziția agenției în format digital care permite accesul la raport, la analiza și la indexarea digitală a acestuia.
 Articolul 4
 Tranziție
 În ceea ce privește accidentele și incidentele în cazul cărora, la data intrării în vigoare a prezentului regulament, fusese deja luată o decizie de lansare a investigației în conformitate cu articolul 22 alineatul (3) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798, organismul de investigare poate decide să urmeze structura de raportare stabilită în anexa I sau structura de raportare din anexa V la Directiva 2004/49/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului (4).
 Articolul 5
 Intrare în vigoare și aplicare
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 24 aprilie 2020.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 102.
 (2) Regulamentul (UE) 2016/796 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 11 mai 2016 privind Agenția Uniunii Europene pentru Căile Ferate și de abrogare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 881/2004 (JO L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 1).
 (3) Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2018/762 al Comisiei din 8 martie 2018 de stabilire a unor metode comune de siguranță privind cerințele sistemului de management al siguranței, în temeiul Directivei (UE) 2016/798 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului, și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (UE) nr. 1158/2010 și (UE) nr. 1169/2010 ale Comisiei (JO L 129, 25.5.2018, p. 26).
 (4) Directiva 2004/49/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 29 aprilie 2004 privind siguranța căilor ferate comunitare și de modificare a Directivei 95/18/CE a Consiliului privind acordarea de licențe întreprinderilor feroviare și a Directivei 2001/14/CE privind repartizarea capacităților de infrastructură feroviară și perceperea de tarife pentru utilizarea infrastructurii feroviare și certificarea siguranței (Directiva privind siguranța feroviară) (JO L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44)
 ANEXĂ
 Structura care trebuie urmată pentru raportare
 În conformitate cu articolul 24 alineatul (1) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798, rapoartele privind accidentele și incidentele trebuie să urmeze cât mai aproape posibil structura stabilită în prezenta anexă, adaptată la tipul și la gravitatea accidentului sau a incidentului. Este necesar, în principiu, să se completeze cu informații fiecare dintre titlurile 1-6, inclusiv subtitlurile marcate cu litere, acolo unde este relevant. În cazul în care nu sunt disponibile sau nu sunt necesare informații relevante, din cauza circumstanțelor accidentului sau incidentului, la titlurile sau subtitlurile corespunzătoare se înscrie mențiunea „nu se aplică”, care le identifică drept irelevante în contextul investigației respective. Această mențiune se poate face în mod agregat, fie la începutul, fie la sfârșitul titlului sau al subtitlului relevant.
 1. Rezumat
 Rezumatul este o parte integrantă a raportului și trebuie să fie suficient de explicit încât să poată fi citit în lipsa oricărui alt context.
 El trebuie să ofere o prezentare generală a datelor de bază ale accidentului sau incidentului: o scurtă descriere a accidentului sau incidentului; când, unde și cum s-a întâmplat; precum și o concluzie privind cauzele și consecințele sale. Rezumatul trebuie să menționeze toți factorii (cauzali, contributivi și/sau sistemici) identificați în urma investigației. Dacă este cazul, rezumatul trebuie să enumere recomandările privind siguranța și destinatarii acestora.
 2. Investigația și contextul acesteia
 Această parte a raportului trebuie să prezinte obiectivele și contextul investigației. Ea trebuie să menționeze orice factori, precum întârzierile, care ar putea avea un impact negativ sau ar putea influența în alt mod investigația sau concluziile sale.
 1.
 Decizia de a iniția o investigație:
 2.
 Motivarea deciziei de a iniția o investigație, de exemplu prin trimitere la articolul 20 alineatul (1) (accident grav) sau la articolul 20 alineatul (2) literele (a)-(d):
 3.
 Domeniul de aplicare și limitele investigației, inclusiv o justificare a acesteia, precum și o explicație a oricărei întârzieri care este considerată a fi un risc sau un alt impact asupra desfășurării investigației sau concluziilor acesteia:
 Informațiile privind domeniul de aplicare și limitele pot fi detaliate la punctul 4.
 4.
 O descriere agregată a capacităților tehnice și a funcțiilor din cadrul echipei de investigare, Printre acestea se numără cele care aparțin altor organisme de investigare sau părți externe implicate, precum și dovezi privind independența acestora față de părțile implicate în accident sau incident:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 5.
 O descriere a procesului de comunicare și de consultare instituit cu persoanele sau cu entitățile implicate în accident sau incident, pe parcursul investigației și în legătură cu informațiile furnizate:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 6.
 O descriere a nivelului de cooperare oferit de entitățile implicate:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 7.
 O descriere a metodelor și tehnicilor de investigație, precum și a metodelor de analiză aplicate pentru a stabili faptele și constatările menționate în raport. Faptele trebuie să stabilească cel puțin:
 —
 evenimentele și condițiile care au condus la producerea accidentului sau incidentului;
 —
 eventuali precursori care au condus la cele de mai sus;
 —
 instrucțiunile, procedurile obligatorii, mecanismele de feedback și/sau mecanismele de control care au condus la producerea accidentului sau incidentului sau au jucat în alt mod un rol în acest sens.
 De exemplu, interviuri, acces la documentație și înregistrări privind sistemul de exploatare,
 8.
 O descriere a dificultăților și a provocărilor specifice întâmpinate în decursul investigației.
 9.
 Orice interacțiune cu autoritățile judiciare, dacă este cazul.
 10.
 Dacă este cazul, orice alte informații relevante în contextul investigației.
 3. Descrierea accidentului sau incidentului
 Această parte a raportului trebuie să conțină o descriere detaliată a mecanismului de producere a accidentului sau incidentului, pe baza informațiilor colectate în timpul investigației desfășurate.
 (a) Producerea accidentului sau incidentului și informații de context:
 1.
 Descrierea tipului de accident sau de incident produs:
 2.
 Data, ora exactă și locul producerii accidentului sau incidentului;
 3.
 Descrierea locului unde s-a produs accidentul sau incidentul, inclusiv condițiile meteorologice și condițiile geografice din momentul producerii accidentului sau incidentului și dacă erau efectuate lucrări în locul respectiv sau în vecinătatea acestuia:
 4.
 Decese, vătămări și daune materiale:
 —
 călători, angajați sau contractanți, utilizatori ai trecerilor la nivel, intruși, alte persoane aflate pe peron, alte persoane care nu se aflau pe peron;
 —
 încărcătură, bagaje și alte bunuri;
 —
 material rulant, infrastructură și mediu.
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 5.
 Descrierea altor consecințe, inclusiv impactul producerii accidentului sau incidentului asupra activității regulate a actorilor implicați:
 6.
 Identificarea persoanelor, a funcțiilor acestora și a entităților implicate, inclusiv posibile interfețe cu contractanții și/sau cu alte părți relevante:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 7.
 Descrierea și identificatorii trenului (trenurilor), precum și compunerea acestuia (acestora), inclusiv materialul rulant implicat și numerele de înmatriculare ale acestuia:
 8.
 O descriere a părților relevante ale infrastructurii și sistemului de semnalizare – tip de cale ferată, sisteme de aparat de cale, centralizare, semnalizare, protecție a trenurilor:
 9.
 Dacă este cazul, orice alte informații relevante pentru descrierea accidentului sau incidentului și informații de context:
 (b) Descrierea faptică a evenimentelor:
 1.
 Lanțul evenimentelor care au dus la producerea accidentului sau incidentului, inclusiv:
 —
 măsurile luate de persoanele implicate;
 —
 funcționarea materialului rulant și a instalațiilor tehnice;
 —
 funcționarea sistemului de exploatare:
 De exemplu, punctul de plecare al unei călătorii cu trenul, începutul de tură a unui membru al personalului implicat
 De exemplu, măsurile luate de personal pentru controlul traficului și semnalizare, schimbul de mesaje verbale și ordinele scrise legate de producerea accidentului sau incidentului
 De exemplu, sistemul de control-comandă și semnalizare, infrastructura, echipamentele de comunicații, materialul rulant, întreținerea etc.
 2.
 Lanțul evenimentelor de la producerea accidentului sau incidentului până la sfârșitul acțiunilor serviciilor de salvare, inclusiv:
 —
 măsurile luate pentru protecția și securizarea locului unde s-a produs accidentul sau incidentul;
 —
 eforturile serviciilor de salvare și de urgență.
 De exemplu, declanșarea planului de urgență feroviar, declanșarea planului de urgență al serviciilor publice de salvare, al poliției și al serviciilor medicale și lanțul său de evenimente
 4. Analiza accidentului sau incidentului, dacă este necesar în ceea ce privește factorii contributivi individuali
 Această parte a raportului trebuie să analizeze faptele și constatările stabilite (adică performanța operatorilor, a materialului rulant și/sau a instalațiilor tehnice) care au cauzat producerea accidentului sau incidentului: Analiza trebuie să ducă la identificarea factorilor critici de siguranță care au provocat sau au contribuit în alt mod la producerea accidentului sau incidentului, inclusiv faptele identificate drept precursori. Un accident sau incident poate fi cauzat de factori cauzali, sistemici și contributivi care sunt la fel de importanți și care ar trebui să fie luați în considerare în cursul unei investigații.
 Analiza poate fi extinsă la condiții, mecanisme de feedback și/sau mecanisme de control de la nivelul întregului sistem feroviar, care au fost identificate ca influențând în mod activ dezvoltarea unor accidente sau incidente similare. Aceasta ar putea include funcționarea sistemelor de management al siguranței ale părților implicate și activitățile de reglementare care vizează certificarea și supravegherea.
 Următoarele elemente trebuie incluse pentru fiecare dintre evenimentele sau factorii (cauzali sau contributivi) identificați care par a fi critici din punctul de vedere al siguranței, în conformitate cu flexibilitatea oferită de structură (a se vedea mai sus).
 (a) Roluri și sarcini
 Fără a se aduce atingere articolului 20 alineatul (4) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798, această parte a raportului trebuie să ducă la identificarea și analizarea rolurilor și a sarcinilor entităților și persoanelor individuale, inclusiv, dacă este necesar, identificarea personalului relevant și a sarcinilor și funcțiilor definite ale acestuia, identificate ca fiind implicate, într-un mod critic din punctul de vedere al siguranței, în producerea accidentului sau incidentului sau în orice activitate care a condus la aceasta.
 1.
 Întreprinderea feroviară (întreprinderile feroviare) și/sau administratorul (administratorii) de infrastructură:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 2.
 Entitatea/entitățile responsabile cu întreținerea, atelierele de întreținere și/sau alți furnizori de servicii de întreținere:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 3.
 Producătorii de material rulant sau alți furnizori de produse feroviare:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 4.
 Autoritățile naționale de siguranță și/sau Agenția Uniunii Europene pentru Căile Ferate:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 5.
 Organismele notificate, organismele desemnate și/sau organismele de evaluare a riscurilor:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 6.
 Organismele de certificare a entităților responsabile cu întreținerea menționate la punctul 2:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 7.
 Orice altă persoană sau entitate relevantă pentru producerea accidentului sau incidentului, documentată sau nu în unul din sistemele relevante de management al siguranței sau menționată într-un registru sau într-un cadru juridic relevant:
 Dacă se acordă anonimat persoanelor sau entităților, vă rugăm să clarificați.
 De exemplu, deținătorii de vehicule, furnizorii de terminale, furnizorii de servicii de încărcare sau de umplere
 (b) Materialul rulant și instalațiile tehnice
 Factorii cauzali sau consecințele unui accident sau incident care au fost identificate ca fiind legate de starea materialului rulant sau a instalațiilor tehnice, inclusiv posibili factori contributivi legați de activități și decizii, precum:
 1.
 Provenind din proiectarea materialului rulant, a infrastructurii feroviare sau a instalațiilor tehnice:
 2.
 Provenind din instalarea și darea în exploatare a materialului rulant, infrastructurii feroviare sau instalației tehnice:
 3.
 Datorate producătorilor de material rulant sau altor furnizori de produse feroviare:
 4.
 Provenind din întreținerea și/sau modificarea materialului rulant sau a instalațiilor tehnice:
 5.
 Datorate entității/entităților responsabile cu întreținerea, atelierelor de întreținere și/sau altor furnizori de servicii de întreținere:
 6.
 Și orice alți factori sau alte consecințe considerate relevante în scopul investigației:
 (c) Factorii umani
 În cazul în care factorii cauzali sau contributivi ori consecințele unui accident sau incident au fost legate (legați) de acțiuni umane, se va acorda atenție circumstanțelor speciale și modului în care activitățile de rutină sunt exercitate de personal în timpul exploatării normale, precum și factorilor umani și organizaționali care pot influența acțiunile și/sau deciziile, inclusiv:
 1.
 Caracteristici umane și individuale:
 (a)
 formare și dezvoltare, inclusiv competențe și experiență;
 (b)
 circumstanțe medicale și personale cu influență asupra producerii accidentului sau a incidentului, inclusiv existența stresului fizic sau psihologic;
 (c)
 oboseală;
 (d)
 motivație și atitudine.
 2.
 Factori legați de locul de muncă;
 (a)
 concepția sarcinii;
 (b)
 proiectarea echipamentului cu impact asupra interfeței om-mașină;
 (c)
 mijloace de comunicare;
 (d)
 practici și procese;
 (e)
 norme de exploatare, instrucțiuni locale, cerințe privind personalul, prescripții de întreținere și standarde aplicabile;
 (f)
 timpul de lucru al personalului implicat;
 (g)
 practici de gestionare a riscurilor;
 (h)
 context, utilaje, echipamentele și instrucțiunile care modelează practicile de lucru.
 3.
 Factori organizaționali și sarcini:
 (a)
 planificarea și volumul de lucru al forței de muncă;
 (b)
 comunicații, informare și munca în echipă;
 (c)
 recrutare și selecție, resurse;
 (d)
 supravegherea și managementul performanței;
 (e)
 compensare (remunerație);
 (f)
 conducere, aspecte legate de ierarhie;
 (g)
 cultura organizațională;
 (h)
 aspecte juridice (inclusiv normele și reglementările UE și naționale relevante);
 (i)
 condițiile cadrului de reglementare și aplicarea sistemului de management al siguranței.
 4.
 Factori de mediu:
 (a)
 condiții de lucru (zgomot, iluminat, vibrații etc.);
 (b)
 condiții meteorologice și geografice;
 (c)
 lucrări desfășurate la sau în vecinătatea locului unde s-a produs accidentul sau incidentul.
 5.
 Și orice alt factor relevant în scopul investigației de la punctele 1, 2, 3, 4 de mai sus:
 (d) Mecanisme de feedback și de control, inclusiv gestionarea riscurilor și managementul siguranței, precum și procese de monitorizare.
 1.
 Condițiile cadrului de reglementare relevant:
 2.
 Procesele, metodele, conținutul și rezultatele activităților de evaluare a riscurilor și de monitorizare efectuate de oricare dintre actorii implicați: întreprinderi feroviare, administratori de infrastructură, entități responsabile cu întreținerea, ateliere de întreținere, alți furnizori de servicii de întreținere, producători și alți actori, precum și rapoartele de evaluare independente menționate la articolul 6 din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 402/2013 al Comisiei (1):
 3.
 Sistemul de management al siguranței al întreprinderii sau întreprinderilor feroviare implicate și al administratorului sau administratorilor de infrastructură implicați, inclusiv elementele de bază menționate la articolul 9 alineatul (3) din Directiva (UE) 2016/798 și în orice acte juridice de punere în aplicare ale UE:
 4.
 Sistemul de management al entității/entităților responsabile cu întreținerea și al atelierelor de întreținere, inclusiv funcțiile menționate la articolul 14 alineatul (3) și în anexa III la Directiva (UE) 2016/798, precum și în orice acte de punere în aplicare ulterioare
 5.
 Rezultatele supravegherii efectuate de autoritățile naționale de siguranță în conformitate cu articolul 17 din Directiva (UE) 2016/798
 6.
 Autorizațiile, certificatele și rapoartele de evaluare eliberate de agenție, de autoritățile naționale de siguranță sau de alte organisme de evaluare a conformității:
 —
 Autorizațiile de siguranță/certificatele de siguranță ale administratorului sau administratorilor de infrastructură implicați și ale întreprinderii sau întreprinderilor feroviare implicate;
 —
 Autorizațiile de dare în exploatare a instalațiilor fixe și autorizațiile de introducere pe piață a vehiculelor;
 —
 Entitatea responsabilă cu întreținerea și atelierele de întreținere (inclusiv certificarea).
 7.
 Alți factori sistemici
 (e) Accidente sau incidente anterioare cu caracter similar, dacă există
 5. Concluzii
 Concluziile trebuie să conțină:
 (a)
 Un rezumat al analizei și concluzii privind cauzele accidentului sau incidentului
 Concluziile trebuie să rezume identificarea factorilor cauzali și contributivi ai accidentului sau incidentului, inclusiv factorii sistemici, atât imediați, cât și mai complecși, precum și măsurile de siguranță lipsă sau inadecvate pentru care se recomandă măsuri compensatorii. În plus, ele trebuie să se refere la capacitatea organizațiilor implicate de a aborda aceste aspecte prin intermediul sistemelor lor de management al siguranței, pentru a preveni viitoare accidente și incidente.
 (b)
 Măsuri luate de la producerea accidentului sau incidentului
 (c)
 Observații suplimentare:
 Probleme de siguranță identificate în decursul anchetei care nu au relevanță pentru concluziile privind cauzele și consecințele unui accident sau incident.
 6. Recomandări privind siguranța
 După caz, această parte a raportului trebuie să stabilească recomandări privind siguranța, cu unicul scop de a preveni producerea unor accidente sau incidente similare în viitor.
 Absența recomandărilor trebuie explicată.
 Recomandările privind siguranța trebuie să se bazeze pe fapte stabilite și pe observații suplimentare referitoare la ele, precum și pe analiza acestora care conduce la concluzii privind cauzele și consecințele producerii unui accident sau incident care sunt relevante pentru siguranță.
 De asemenea, se pot emite recomandări privind siguranța în legătură cu observații suplimentare care nu au nicio legătură cauzală sau contributivă cu producerea accidentului sau incidentului.
 (1) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 402/2013 al Comisiei din 30 aprilie 2013 privind metoda de siguranță comună pentru evaluarea și aprecierea riscurilor și de abrogare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 352/2009 (JO L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 8).


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.11.2006
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 281/41
 Recours introduit le 25 septembre 2006 — Grèce/Commission
 (Affaire T-263/06)
 (2006/C 281/72)
 Langue de procédure: le grec
 Parties
 Partie requérante: Grèce (représentants: I. Halkias et G. Kanellopoulos)
 Partie défenderesse: Commission
 Conclusions de la/des partie(s) requérante(s)
 —
 annuler la décision de la Commission du 27 juillet 2006 écartant du financement communautaire certaines dépenses effectuées par les États membres au titre du Fonds européen d'orientation et de garantie agricole (FEOGA), section «garantie», notifiée sous le numéro C(2006) 3331 final et publiée sous le numéro 2006/554/CE (1);
 —
 alternativement, amender cette décision comme précisé en détail;
 —
 condamnerla Commission aux dépens.
 Moyens et principaux arguments
 Par la décision attaquée, prise dans le cadre de l'apurement des comptes en vertu du règlement (CEE) 729/70 (2), la Commission a exclu du financement communautaire, entre autres, certaines dépenses engagées dans le secteur des mesures d'accompagnement du développement rural par la République hellénique et déclarées dans le cadre du FEOGA, section «Garantie».
 La requérante invoque, comme clause générale de nullité de la décision no C(2006)3331 de la Commission, la violation d'une règle de forme essentielle de la procédure d'apurement des comptes prévue par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, alinéa 3, sous a), du règlement no 1663/95 (3). Elle soutient en particulier que la Commission a omis de mener avec les autorités helléniques un dialogue bilatéral concernant l'estimation de la pertinence des violations qui leur étaient imputées, ainsi que le préjudice financier subi par la Communauté européenne; alternativement, la requérante allègue que la Commission n'avait pas compétence rationae temporis pour appliquer les corrections financières litigieuses.
 (1) JO L 218 du 9 août 2006, p. 12.
 (2) Règlement (CEE) no 729/70 du Conseil, du 21 avril 1970, relatif au financement de la politique agricole commune, JO L 94 du 28 avril 1970, p. 13.
 (3) Règlement (CE) no 1663/95 de la Commission, du 7 juillet 1995, établissant les modalités d'application du règlement (CEE) no 729/70 du Conseil en ce qui concerne la procédure d'apurement des comptes du FEOGA, section «garantie», JO L 158 du 8 juillet 1995, p. 6.


text:
 15.6.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 171/20
 Odvolanie podané 9. apríla 2013: Rada Európskej únie proti rozsudku Všeobecného súdu (štvrtá komora) z 29. januára 2013 vo veci T-496/10, Bank Mellat/Európska rada
 (Vec C-176/13 P)
 2013/C 171/41
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Odvolateľka: Rada Európskej únie (v zastúpení: S. Boelaert a M. Bishop, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Ďalší účastníci konania: Bank Mellat, Európska komisia
 Návrhy odvolateľky
 —
 zrušiť rozsudok Všeobecného súdu (štvrtá komora) z 29. januára 2013 vo veci T-496/10,
 —
 rozhodnúť vo veci s konečnou platnosťou a zamietnuť žalobu, ktorú podala Bank Mellat proti napadnutým opatreniam,
 —
 uložiť Bank Mellat povinnosť nahradiť trovy konania, ktoré vznikli Rade v konaní na prvom stupni a v konaní o tomto odvolaní.
 Odvolacie dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Rada zastáva názor, že rozsudok Všeobecného súdu z 29. januára 2012 vo veci T-496/10, Bank Mellat/Rada obsahuje tieto právne vady:
 1.
 Všeobecný súd vo vzťahu k prípustnosti žaloby nesprávne uviedol, že Bank Mellat sa mohla odvolávať na ochranu a záruky základných práv bez ohľadu na to, či môže byť považovaná za odnož Iránskeho štátu,
 2.
 Všeobecný súd nesprávne konštatoval, že niektoré z dôvodov uvedených na zavedenie reštriktívnych opatrení proti Bank Mellat boli nedostatočne presné,
 3.
 Všeobecný súd nesprávne uplatnil judikatúru týkajúcu sa oznamovania informácie zo spisu Rady,
 4.
 Všeobecný súd nesprávne prijal názor, že dôvody uvedené na zavedenie reštriktívnych opatrení proti Bank Mellat nespĺňali podmienky pre uvedenie v príslušných právnych aktoch a neboli opodstatnené v rozsahu v akom:
 —
 nevenoval potrebnú pozornosť zisteniu Bezpečnostnej rady Spojených národov týkajúcemu sa uľahčovaniu transakcií pre iránske nukleárne, raketové a obranné subjekty zo strany Bank Mellat,
 —
 nevenoval potrebnú pozornosť skutočnosti, že dôkazy o podpore iránskych nukleárnych aktivít zo strany Bank Mellat pochádzajú z tajných zdrojov,
 —
 nesprávne konštatoval, že poskytovanie bankových služieb subjektu zapojenému do iránskych činností šírenia jadrových zbraní, ktoré Bank Mellat pripustila, pred tým, ako bol tento subjekt označený Bezpečnostnou radou OSN, nepostačovalo na odôvodnenie zavedenia reštriktívnych opatrení proti Bank Mellat.


type: wikipedia

text:
Dvidešimtas mūsų eros amžius – šimto metų laikotarpis, prasidėjęs 1901 metų sausio 1 dieną ir pasibaigęs 2000 metų gruodžio 31 dieną.
 Tūkstantmečiai: 1 tūkstantmetis – 2 tūkstantmetis – 3 tūkstantmetis
 Amžiai: XIX amžius – XX amžius – XXI amžius
 Dešimtmečiai: 1-as 2-as 3-as 4-as 5-as 6-as 7-as 8-as 9-as 10-as
 Įvykiai
 Mokslas, technologijos
 Pramoninė transporto ir kitų priemonių gamyba atpigino ir pagreitino gamybą. Automobilis tapo svarbiausia transporto priemone.
 Sunkesnių už orą aparatų panaudojimas skraidymui ir reaktyvinio variklio išradimas leido žymiai paspartinti tolimas keliones.
 Pradėtas kosmoso įsisavinimas: dirbtiniai palydovai, pilotuojami erdvėlaiviai, žmogaus išsilaipinimas Mėnulyje.
 Naujos žiniasklaidos priemonės (radijas, televizija, kinas) žymiai padidino informacijos sklaidą.
 Telefonas, o vėliau kompiuteris ir ypač internetas supaprastino bendravimą tarp viso pasaulio žmonių.
 Azoto trąšos, pesticidai ir herbicidai padidino žemės ūkio produktyvumą.
 Fizikos pasiekimai (reliatyvumo teorija, kvantinė mechanika) sąlygojo branduolinio ginklo, branduolinių reaktorių ir lazerių atradimus.
 Kosmologijoje išvystyta didžiojo sprogimo teorija.
 Buitiniai išradimai (skalbimo mašina, oro kondicionierius) padidino laisvo laiko kiekį ir kokybę vidurinės klasės Vakarų valstybių piliečiams.
 Svarbiausi amžiaus išradimai: antibiotikas, internetas.
 Karas, taika ir politika
 Antrasis būrų karas
 Pirmasis pasaulinis karas
 Ispanijos pilietinis karas
 Japonijos - Kinijos karas
 Ekonominė ir politinė situacija po Pirmojo pasaulinio karo leido išsivystyti fašizmui ir nacionalsocializmui, o vėliau privedė prie Antrojo pasaulinio karo ir jo metu vykdyto holokausto.
 Rusijos revoliucija po Pirmojo pasaulinio karo sudarė sąlygas komunizmui vystytis ir plėstis Rytų Europoje, Kinijoje, Kuboje.
 Po Antrojo pasaulinio karo susiformavo priešiški Rytų ir Vakarų blokai, prasidėjo penkiasdešimtmetį trukęs Šaltasis karas, su jo metu vykusiais konfliktais.
 Vietnamo karas
 Kubos krizė
 Po komunizmo žlugimo amžiaus pabaigoje Tarybų Sąjunga ir Jugoslavija subyrėjo į atskiras valstybes, Vokietija buvo suvienyta.
 Izraelio valstybės sukūrimas lėmė daugelį besitęsiančių konfliktų regione.
 Įvykiai Lietuvoje
 Atšauktas lietuviškos spaudos draudimas
 Nepriklausomybės deklaracija ir Lietuvos Respublikos įkūrimas
 Aneksuotas Klaipėdos kraštas
 Lenkijos okupuotas Vilniaus kraštas
 Tarybų Sąjungos okupuojama Lietuva
 Nepriklausomybės atkūrimas
 Dešimtmečiai ir metai


text:
 19.10.2015
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 346/35
 Tužba podnesena 31. kolovoza 2015. – Nizozemska protiv Komisije
 (Predmet T-501/15)
 (2015/C 346/40)
 Jezik postupka: nizozemski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Kraljevina Nizozemska (zastupnici: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman i H. Stergiou, agenti)
 Tuženik: Europska komisija
 Tužbeni zahtjev
 Tužitelj od Općeg suda zahtijeva da:
 —
 poništi odluku,
 —
 u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na financijsku korekciju u iznosu od 336 064,53 eura (2009.), 403 863,66 eura (2010.) i 230 786,49 eura (2011.) u vezi s, prema stajalištu Komisije, preblagim sustavom sankcija;
 —
 u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na financijsku korekciju u vezi s djelomičnom kontrolom triju SMR-a (statutory management requirements – zakonom propisani zahtjevi o upravljanju) 2009. (1 597 182 eura, 15,53 eura i 358,20 eura), četiriju SMR-a 2010. (1 630 540,68 eura i 6 520,50 eura) i četiriju SMR-a 2011. (1 631 326,51 eura) i u dijelu u kojem je riječ o ocjeni Europske komisije da je Nizozemska počinila povredu SMR-a 8.;
 —
 Europskoj komisiji naloži snošenje troškova postupka.
 Tužbeni razlozi i glavni argumenti
 Tužitelj zahtijeva djelomično poništenje Provedbene odluke Komisije (EU) 2015/1119 od 22. lipnja 2015. o isključenju iz financiranja Europske unije određenih izdataka nastalih za države članice u okviru Europskog fonda za jamstva u poljoprivredi (EFJP) i Europskog poljoprivrednog fonda za ruralni razvoj (EPFRR) (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2015) 4076) (SL L 182, str. 39.).
 U potporu tužbi tužitelj ističe dva tužbena razloga.
 1.
 Prvi tužbeni razlog: povreda članka 24. Uredbe (EZ) br. 73/2009 (1) i članka 71. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1122/2009 (2) utvrđivanjem da je, protivno tim odredbama, nizozemski sustav sankcija preblag.
 2.
 Drugi tužbeni razlog: povreda članaka 3., 4. i 5. Uredbe (EZ) br. 73/2009 na način da je protivno tim odredbama i načelu pravne sigurnosti utvrđeno da je Nizozemska provela djelomičnu kontrolu zakonom propisanog zahtjeva za upravljanje (SMR) 8. kako je definiran u Prilogu II. Uredbi (EZ) br. 73/2009. Tužitelj tvrdi da je Komisijino stajalište prema kojem nizozemski sustav sankcija ne ispunjava sve zahtjeve iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 21/2004 (3) i članaka 3., 4. i 5. Uredbe (EZ) br. 73/2009 pogrešno.
 (1) Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 73/2009 od 19. siječnja 2009. o utvrđivanju zajedničkih pravila za programe izravne potpore za poljoprivrednike u okviru zajedničke poljoprivredne politike i utvrđivanju određenih programa potpore za poljoprivrednike, o izmjeni uredaba (EZ) br. 1290/2005, (EZ) br. 247/2006, (EZ) br. 378/2007 i stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EZ) br. 1782/2003 (SL L 30, str. 16.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 3., svezak 19., str. 199.).
 (2) Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1122/2009 od 30. studenoga 2009. o utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila za provedbu Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 73/2009 u pogledu višestruke sukladnosti, modulacije i integriranog administrativnog i kontrolnog sustava, u okviru programa izravne potpore za poljoprivrednike predviđenih u navedenoj Uredbi, kao i za provedbu Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1234/2007 u pogledu višestruke sukladnosti u okviru programa potpore predviđenog za sektor vina (SL L 316, str. 65.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 3., svezak 20., str. 231.).
 (3) Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 21/2004 od 17. prosinca 2003. o uspostavi sustava za označivanje i registraciju ovaca i koza i izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 1782/2003 i direktiva 92/102/EEZ i 64/432/EEZ (SL L 5, str. 8.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 3., svezak 124., str. 112.).


jurisdiction: US

text:
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 Fish and Wildlife Service
 50 CFR Part 17
 [4500030115]
 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 10 Petitions
 AGENCY:
 Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION:
 Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.
 SUMMARY:
 We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on 10 petitions to list, reclassify, or delist fish, wildlife, or plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that six petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, and we are not initiating status reviews in response to these petitions. We refer to these as “not-substantial” petition findings. We also find that four petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
 DATES:
 When we conduct status reviews, we will consider all information that we have received. To ensure that we will have adequate time to consider submitted information during the status reviews, we request that we receive information no later than November 14, 2016. For information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), this would mean submitting the information electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
 ADDRESSES:
 Not-substantial petition findings: The not-substantial petition findings announced in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 2, below), or on the Service's Web site at http://ecos.fws.gov. Supporting information in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you have new information concerning the status of, or threats to, any of these species or their habitats, please submit that information to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
 Status reviews: You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated by one of the following methods:
 (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Table 1, below). You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
 (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Table 1, below]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
 We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more details).
 Table 1—List of “Substantial” Findings for Which a Status Review Is Being Initiated
 Common name
 Docket No.
 URL to Docket in Regulations.gov
 Florida scrub lizard
 FWS-R4-ES-2015-0087
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0087.
 Joshua tree
 FWS-R8-ES-2016-0088
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2016-0088.
 Lassics lupine
 FWS-R8-ES-2016-0089
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2016-0089.
 Lesser Virgin Islands skink
 FWS-R4-ES-2015-0098
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0098.
 Table 2—List of “Not Substantial” Findings
 Common name
 Docket No.
 URL to Docket in Regulations.gov
 Fourche Mountain salamander
 FWS-R4-ES-2016-0096
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2016-0096.
 American Pika
 FWS-R6-ES-2016-0091
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2016-0091.
 Ricord's rock iguana
 FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0092
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0092.
 Spectacled eider (delist)
 FWS-R7-ES-2016-0041
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2016-0041.
 Steller's eider (Alaska population) (delist)
 FWS-R7-ES-2016-0093
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2016-0093.
 Wyoming pocket gopher
 FWS-R6-ES-2016-0094
 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2016-0094.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Common name
 Contact person
 Florida scrub lizard
 Andreas Moshogianis, 404-679-7119; Andreas_Moshogianis@fws.gov.
 Fourche Mountain salamander
 Melvin Tobin, 501-513-4473; Melvin_Tobin@fws.gov.
 Joshua tree
 Mendel Stewart, 760-431-9440; Mendel_Stewart@fws.gov.
 Lassics lupine
 Bruce Bingham, 707-822-7201; Bruce_Bingham@fws.gov.
 Lesser Virgin Islands skink
 Andreas Moshogianis, 404-679-7119; Andreas_Moshogianis@fws.gov.
 American Pika
 Justin Shoemaker, 309-757-5800; Justin_Shoemaker@fws.gov.
 Ricords rock iguana
 Emily Weller, 703-358-2171; Emily_Weller@fws.gov.
 Spectacled eider
 Drew Crane, 907-786-3323; Drew_Crane@fws.gov.
 Steller's eider (Alaska population)
 Drew Crane, 907-786-3323; Drew_Crane@fws.gov.
 Wyoming pocket gopher
 Justin Shoemaker, 309-757-5800; Justin_Shoemaker@fws.gov.
 If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 Request for Information for Status Reviews
 When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassifying, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
 (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
 (a) Habitat requirements;
 (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
 (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
 (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends.
 (2) The five factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassifying, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both. The five factors are:
 (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
 (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
 (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
 (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
 (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
 (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
 If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (U.S.) species under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information for the species listed above in Table 1 (to be submitted as provided for in ADDRESSES) on:
 (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;
 (2) Where these features are currently found;
 (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
 (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
 (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat falls within the definition of “critical habitat” at section 3(5) of the Act.
 Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
 Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
 You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
 Background
 Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
 Our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) establish that the standard for substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently summarize the status review in our 12-month finding.
 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under Sections 4(a), 3(6), and 3(20), a species qualifies as an “endangered species” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above); a species qualifies as a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an “endangered species” within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range because of one or more of those five factors.
 In considering whether conditions described within one or more of the factors might constitute threats to a particular species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to those conditions to evaluate whether the species may respond to the conditions in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a condition and the species responds negatively, the condition qualifies as a stressor and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant the stressor is. If the stressor is sufficiently significant that it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act, the stressor constitutes a threat to the species. Thus, the identification of conditions that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these conditions may be operative threats that act on the species to a sufficient degree that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the Florida Scrub Lizard as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi): Florida.
 Petition History
 On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Florida scrub lizard, be listed under the Act as endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi) may be warranted, based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).
 The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0087 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the Fourche Mountain Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Fourche Mountain salamander (Plethodon fourchensis): Arizona.
 Petition History
 On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Fourche Mountain salamander, be listed under the Act as endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Fourche Mountain salamander (Plethodon fourchensis). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0096 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Fourche Mountain salamander may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0096 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the Joshua Tree as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia): Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah.
 Petition History
 On September 29, 2015, we received a petition dated September 28, 2015, from Taylor Jones (representing Wild Earth Guardians), requesting that Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree)—either as a full species (Yucca brevifolia) or as two infraspecific taxa—be listed as threatened and, if applicable, critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On December 8, 2015, in a letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that an emergency listing under Section 4(b)(7) of the Act was necessary. This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) may be warranted, based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20), including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).
 The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0088 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List Lassics Lupine as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei): California.
 Petition History
 On January 15, 2016, we received a petition, dated January 15, 2016, from David Imper, Sydney Carothers, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the California Native Plant Society, requesting that Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) be emergency listed as endangered and critical habitat designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition. On March 29, 2016, we sent the petitioners a letter notifying them of receipt of the petition. Because the Act does not provide for petitions to emergency list, we treat petitions to emergency list as regular petitions to list under the Act. However, in evaluating petitions to list, we consider whether emergency listing under Section 4(b)(7) of the Act is necessary. As a result, our letter notifying petitioners of receipt of the petition also informed them that we did not find that emergency listing was necessary.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) may be warranted, based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20), including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).
 The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0089 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the Lesser Virgin Islands Skink as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Lesser Virgin Islands skink (Spondylurus semitaeniatus): Virgin Islands.
 Petition History
 On February 11, 2014, we received a petition dated February 11, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Culebra skink, Mona skink, Monito skink, lesser Virgin Islands skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, Puerto Rican skink, greater Saint Croix skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, and lesser Saint Croix skink be listed as endangered and critical habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of this petition via email (from Doug Krofta to Collette Adkins Giese) on February 12, 2014. This finding addresses the lesser Virgin Islands skink. The Culebra skink, greater Saint Croix skink, Mona skink, Puerto Rican skink, Virgin Islands bronze skink, greater Virgin Islands skink, and lesser Saint Croix skink were addressed in a separate evaluation, which published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2016 (81 FR 1368). The Monito skink was addressed in a separate evaluation which published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14058).
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the lesser Virgin Islands skink (Spondylurus semitaeniatus) may be warranted, based on Factors C and D. However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either “endangered species” under section 3(6) of the Act or “threatened species” under section 3(20), including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) and any other factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, above).
 The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0098 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the American Pika as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Pika, American (Ochotona princeps): Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Canada (British Columbia and Alberta).
 Petition History
 On April 21, 2016, we received a petition dated April 14, 2016, from Mr. Timothy Eng, requesting that the American pika (Ochotona princeps) be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the American pika (Ochotona princeps). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0091 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the American pika may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the American pika or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0091 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List Ricord's Rock Iguana as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Ricord's rock iguana (Cyclura ricordii): Dominican Republic, Haiti.
 Petition History
 On March 17, 2016, we received a petition dated March 14, 2016, from Grupo Jaragua, International Iguana Foundation, International Reptile Conservation Foundation, and the Zoological Society of San Diego, requesting that Ricord's rock iguana (Cyclura ricordii) be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Ricord's rock iguana (Cyclura ricordii). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0092 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Ricord's rock iguana may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0092 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Spectacled Eider Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri): Alaska.
 Petition History
 On March 30, 2016, we received a petition dated January 29, 2016, from Tim Langer, Ph.D., requesting that the spectacled eider and Alaska-breeding Steller's eider be delisted due to error in information under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0041 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the spectacled eider may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0041 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Steller's Eider Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri) (Alaska Population): Alaska.
 Petition History
 On March 30, 2016, we received a petition dated January 29, 2016, from Tim Langer, Ph.D., requesting that the spectacled eider and Alaska-breeding Steller's eider be delisted due to error in information under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Alaska-breeding Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0093 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the Steller's eider may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0093 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Evaluation of a Petition To List the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
 Species and Range
 Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius): Colorado and Wyoming.
 Petition History
 On April 15, 2016, we received a petition dated April 6, 2016, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that Wyoming pocket gopher be listed as endangered and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
 Finding
 Based on our review of the petition, and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius). The basis and scientific support for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0094 under the Supporting Documents section. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Wyoming pocket gopher may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Wyoming pocket gopher or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Additional information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0094 under the Supporting Documents section.
 Conclusion
 On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Fourche Mountain salamander, American pika, Ricord's rock iguana, spectacled eider, Alaska-breeding Steller's eider, and the Wyoming pocket gopher do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews for these species.
 We have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Florida scrub lizard, Joshua tree, Lassics lupine, and lesser Virgin Islands skink present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Because we have found that these petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of each status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service finds that the petitioned action is warranted.
 It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider only the information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the “best scientific and commercial data available” to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a “substantial” 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
 References Cited
 A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Authors
 The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 Authority:
 The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
 Dated: September 1, 2016.
 James W. Kurth,
 Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. 2016-22071 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P