Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Justice Programs Office
Parole Commission
Labor-Management Standards Office
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
In rule document E9–19392 beginning on page 44914 in the issue of Monday, August 31, 2009, make the following correction:
1. On page 44914, in the first column, under the
2. On page 44967, in § 431.296, in the third and fourth lines, “[Insert date 3 years from the date of publication of this final rule]” should read “August 31, 2012”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S–20 and S–21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD clarifies certain compliance requirements. This AD results from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
This AD is effective September 23, 2009.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 15, 2009 (74 FR 10469, March 11, 2009).
We must receive comments on this AD by November 9, 2009.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1, fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590.
On January 9, 2009, we issued AD 2009–02–06, amendment 39–15796 (74 FR 10469, March 11, 2009), for certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S–20 and S–21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2009–02–06, January 9, 2009, amendment 39–15796 (74 FR 10469, March 11, 2009), we have determined that we need to clarify certain compliance requirements in the existing AD, as follows:
• We have inserted a new paragraph (g)(1) in this AD to state that while the service bulletin specifies compliance times in terms of the “date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.” This paragraph appeared in the original NPRM, but was inadvertently removed from AD 2009–02–06.
• We removed the reference to the “Accomplishment Instructions” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007, from paragraph (g) of this AD. Paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD do not all refer to text located in the service bulletin Accomplishment Instructions.
• We added a reference to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007, to paragraph (i) of this AD to provide the locations of “Part 3” and “Part 5,” as referenced in that paragraph of the AD.
This AD retains all the requirements of AD 2009–02–06. Since AD 2009–02–06 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table:
We are issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs that could be registered in the United States in the future. This AD revises AD 2009–02–06. This AD retains the requirements of the existing AD and clarifies certain compliance requirements. Since no new airplanes are affected by this AD and there are no new required actions, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 23, 2009.
(b) This AD revises AD 2009–02–06.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) This AD results from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within
(g) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007.
(1) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Condition” column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007, refers to total flight cycles “at the date given on this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of April 15, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009–02–06).
(3) Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for instructions for removing damage and repairing cracking: Before further flight, remove the damage or repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(4) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(h) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as specified by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspection or an HFEC hole/edge inspection for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringer S–20 and S–21; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as specified by paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin.
(i) Doing the repair in Part 3 or the preventative modification in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(k) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1279, dated December 18, 2007, on April 15, 2009 (74 FR 10469, March 11, 2009).
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1, fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Arlington, TX. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at Arlington Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Arlington Municipal Airport.
0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321–7716.
On June 24, 2009, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 2,000 feet MSL for the safety and management of IFR operations at Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Arlington Municipal Airport, excluding the portion east of a line between lat. 32°43′48″ N.; long. 97°05′06″ W.; and lat. 32°38′10″ N.; long. 97°3′26″ W., and lat. 32°36′16″ N.; long. 97°03′31″ W., and excluding that airspace within the Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class D airspace at Grand Prairie, TX. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at Grand Prairie Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Grand Prairie Municipal Airport.
0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321–7716.
On June 24, 2009, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 2,000 feet MSL for IFR operations at Grand Prairie Municipal Airport, Grand Prairie, TX, for the safety and management of IFR operations.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not including 2,000 feet MSL within a 3.8-mile radius of Grand Prairie Municipal Airport, excluding the portion west of a line between lat. 32°45′00″ N.; long. 97°05′28″ W., and lat. 32°38′10″ N.; long. 97°3′26″ W., and excluding that portion north of a line between lat. 32°45′00″ N; long. 97°05′28″ W.; and lat. 32°45′00″ N.; long. 97°00′10″ W., and excluding that airspace within the Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Neligh, NE. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Antelope County Airport, Neligh, NE. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Antelope County Airport.
0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321–7716.
On June 24, 2009, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antelope County Airport, Neligh, NE, for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it adds controlled airspace at Antelope County Airport, Neligh, NE.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Antelope County Airport and within 3.3 miles either side of the 193° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 10.2 miles south of the airport, and within 2.2 miles either side of the 013° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 10.1 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes a low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) route, designated T–265, in the Chicago/Rockford International Airport, IL, terminal area. This route allows for more effective utilization of airspace and enhances the management of aircraft operations in the Chicago/Rockford International Airport, IL, terminal area west of Chicago, IL.
Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
On Wednesday, December 24, 2008, the FAA published in the
One commenter suggested the FAA establish a similar T-route between Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA. The commenter based his discussion on the icing conditions pilots experience while flying in that area during the winter months, as they comply with published minimum en-route altitudes between the cities. The comment received provided no substantive information relative to the proposed T–265 RNAV route and falls outside the scope of this rulemaking action. However, the commenter's remarks will be shared with the FAA Western Service Area for their consideration in future airway actions, as appropriate.
The second commenter opposed the proposed route, stating it was too far west of Chicago to be very helpful to general aviation aircraft. The commenter further stated general aviation needed T-routes to help skirt by or through controlled airspace to save air-miles.
T–265 was proposed to establish an RNAV route to efficiently manage transient air traffic through the Chicago/Rockford International Airport approach control airspace and remain clear of the Chicago Class B high density airspace area. As a practical matter, the Chicago/Rockford approach control air traffic controllers cannot route air traffic across the northwest corner of the Chicago Class B as this would impact the JANESVILLE FIVE instrument approach procedure into Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Further complicating use of this airspace are the planned actions underway to establish a system of arrival and departure instrument procedures to and from the west into Chicago O'Hare, the second busiest airport in the national airspace system. As a result of the high volume of air traffic operations and the existing and planned instrument procedures supporting Chicago O'Hare International Airport arrivals and departures, transient instrument flight rules aircraft traveling north or south around the Chicago Class B high density airspace area have to file either east of Chicago over Lake Michigan or west of Chicago through the Chicago/Rockford International Airport approach control airspace. For aircraft opting to fly west of Chicago, the proposed T–265 route is the same route of flight currently being issued by Chicago/Rockford approach control air traffic controllers to re-route airborne aircraft through their controlled airspace around the Chicago Class B airspace area.
The FAA has determined that establishing T–265 will maximize the efficient use of airspace west of Chicago, and save flying miles for general aviation pilots transiting around the Chicago Class B airspace area.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing route T–265 in the Chicago/Rockford International Airport, IL, terminal area. The route is intended to be used by GNSS-equipped aircraft that are capable of filing flight plane equipment code “/G.” The route will be depicted in blue on the appropriate IFR en route low altitude charts. The FAA is taking this action to enhance safety and to facilitate the flexible and efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR operations transitioning through the Chicago/Rockford International terminal airspace area west of Chicago, IL.
Low altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The low altitude RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes a low altitude Area Navigation route (T-Route) at Rockford, IL.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a, 311b, and 311k. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule revises two existing License Exceptions concerning exports and reexports of gift parcels to Cuba and of personal baggage taken by individuals leaving the United States for travel to Cuba. It also creates a new License Exception authorizing the export and reexport to Cuba of certain donated consumer communications devices, including certain computers and software, mobile phones, and satellite receivers. Finally, this rule revises the scope of existing licensing policy regarding certain telecommunications links including satellite radio and satellite television services. These actions are among those directed by the President on April 13, 2009 to enhance the free flow of information to and from Cuba and to promote contacts between Americans and their relatives who reside in Cuba as a means of encouraging positive change in Cuba and are consistent with the ongoing support the United States has provided to individuals and nongovernmental organizations that support democracy-building efforts in Cuba. These actions do not suspend or terminate the United States embargo of Cuba.
Although there is no comment period for this final rule, BIS welcomes any comments from the public on the amendments made by this rule. Comments may be submitted by e-mail directly to BIS at
Anthony Christino, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance at (202) 482–4252.
The United States maintains a comprehensive embargo on trade with Cuba. Pursuant to that embargo, all items that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) require a license for export or reexport to Cuba unless authorized by a License Exception. BIS administers export and reexport restrictions on Cuba consistent with the goals of the embargo and with relevant legislation, including the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (LIBERTAD). Accordingly, BIS may issue specific or general authorizations for limited types of transactions that support the goals of United States policy while the embargo remains in effect.
On April 13, 2009, the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take certain actions to enhance the free flow of information to and from Cuba and to promote contacts between Americans and their relatives who reside in Cuba as a means of encouraging positive change in Cuba. In doing so, the President noted the United States policy of promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba and stated that “measures that decrease dependency of the Cuban people on the Castro regime and that promote contact between Cuban-Americans and their relatives in Cuba are means to encourage positive change in Cuba.” The policy of promoting human rights and democracy in Cuba has long been reflected in legislation. LIBERTAD's
This rule implements the portions of the President's directive that relate to the regulations of the Department of Commerce by changing the existing License Exceptions “Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (GFT)” and “Baggage (BAG),” creating a new License Exception “Consumer Communications Devices (CCD)” and revising the scope of licensing policy applicable to certain telecommunications links and satellite radio and satellite television services.
The changes made by this rule are intended to update, consistent with LIBERTAD and other relevant legislation, certain provisions of the United States embargo of Cuba to: (i) Address the impact of economic and technological changes that have taken place in recent years; and (ii) ensure that the embargo continues to support the goals of promoting democracy in Cuba and providing support for the Cuban people. None of the changes made by this rule suspend or terminate the United States embargo of Cuba.
License Exception Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (GFT) (§ 740.12 of the EAR) generally authorizes, among other things, exports and reexports of gift parcels by an individual (donor) addressed to an individual or to a religious, educational or charitable organization (donee) for the use of the donee or the donee's immediate family. Prior to the publication of this rule, items eligible for export or reexport to Cuba in gift parcels were limited to food (including vitamins); medicines; medical supplies and devices (including hospital supplies and equipment for the handicapped); receive-only radio equipment for reception of commercial/civil AM/FM and short wave publicly available frequency bands, and batteries for such equipment; and mobile phones covered by Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 5A991 or 5A992, software for those phones covered by ECCN 5D992, and batteries, memory cards, chargers and other accessories for such mobile phones. Additionally, the License Exception restricted recipients in Cuba to identified family members of the donor (grandparents, parents, siblings, children and grandchildren). Except for gift parcels of food, the License Exception restricted a donor to sending only one gift parcel per month to the same household in Cuba. The License Exception also limited the combined total domestic retail value of all items other than food included in a gift parcel to $400.
This rule revises License Exception GFT to add clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, soap-making equipment, and non-sensitive items normally sent as gifts between individuals as items eligible for export or reexport to Cuba in gift parcels. The rule largely retains the restriction that precludes items listed in specific entries on the Commerce Control List. However, the rule does allow inclusion of consumer communications devices controlled by ECCNs 4A994, 4D994, 5A991, 5A992, 5D991, and 5D992. These devices, which are described in more detail in the discussion of the new License Exception for consumer communications devices below, are widely available consumer products, such as personal computers, that facilitate communications.
This rule also revises License Exception GFT to remove requirements that the donee be a member of the immediate family of the donor and that only one gift parcel per month be sent to the same household in Cuba. As revised, License Exception GFT authorizes a donor to send one gift parcel per month to any individual (other than certain Cuban Government or Cuban Communist Party officials) or to a charitable, educational, or religious organization in Cuba that is not administered or controlled by the Cuban government. For example, hospitals or schools administered or controlled by the Cuban Government are not eligible recipients under this License Exception. Further, this rule revises the License Exception to increase the combined total domestic retail value of all items included in a gift parcel from $400 to $800.
Prior to publication of this rule, and since 2004, the terms of License Exception BAG imposed a 44-pound weight limit on the personal baggage of most travelers from the United States to Cuba. This rule removes that limit. This change implements the President's directive to lift weight restrictions on accompanied baggage.
This rule does not remove or relax any other restrictions that apply to License Exception BAG. The regulations continue to require that individuals leaving the United States temporarily (i.e., traveling) must bring back items exported or reexported under this License Exception unless they consume the items abroad or are otherwise authorized to dispose of them under the EAR.
Prior to publication of this rule, with the exception of certain items authorized by License Exception GFT, the export or reexport to Cuba of donated consumer communications devices required an individual validated license.
This rule creates a narrowly tailored License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) to authorize the export and reexport to Cuba of donated consumer communications devices that are necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba. In generally authorizing the export or reexport of donated consumer communication devices to Cuba through a new License Exception, this rule strengthens the United States' commitment to the support of individuals and organizations to promote nonviolent democratic change in Cuba, consistent with the goals of LIBERTAD and the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, and recognizes that recent changes in communications technology have facilitated the widespread dissemination of information and personal communications in ways that have become increasingly essential for democratic movements across the world. This rule is also consistent with the President's goal, as stated in his April 13 memorandum, to promote contacts between Americans and their relatives who reside in Cuba as a means of encouraging positive change in Cuba.
New License Exception CCD authorizes the export or reexport of specific commodities and software that are widely available for retail purchase and that are commonly used to exchange information and facilitate interpersonal communications. However, consistent with 22 U.S.C. 6005(a), this new License Exception does not authorize U.S.-owned or controlled entities in third countries to
The items authorized for export or reexport under the new License Exception are commodities and software (except “encryption source code”) related to basic personal communications devices that are widely available for retail purchase in the United States. These items include: Mobile phones, including cellular and satellite telephones; subscriber information module (SIM) cards; personal digital assistants; laptop and desktop computers and peripherals such as monitors, graphics accelerator cards, data storage devices and media such as disk drives, flash drives, writable compact disks and floppy disks, keyboards, mice, and printers including commodities possessing IEEE 802.15.1 “Bluetooth” wireless personal area networking (WPAN) capability; Internet connectivity devices including those possessing IEEE 802.11 “Wi-Fi” and IEEE 802.16 “WiMax” wireless capabilities; satellite-based television and radio receivers; digital music and video players and recorders; personal two-way radios; digital cameras and memory cards therefor; and batteries, chargers, carrying cases and similar accessories for the equipment authorized by this rule. This rule also authorizes the export and reexport of basic software for laptop and desktop computers such as: Computer operating systems and software (except “encryption source code”) that enable activities such as word processing, producing spread sheets, producing graphics presentations, sending and receiving e-mail, Web browsing or developing relational databases. When applicable, the rule describes these items as they are classified on the Commerce Control List:
• Computers classified under ECCN 4A994.b or designated EAR99 that do not exceed an adjusted peak performance of 0.02 weighted teraflops;
• Disk drives and solid state storage equipment classified as ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Input/output control units (other than industrial controllers designed for chemical processing) designated EAR99;
• Graphics accelerators and graphics coprocessors designated EAR99;
• Monitors classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Printers classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Modems classified under ECCNs 5A991.b.2 or 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Network access controllers and communications channel controllers classified under ECCN 5A991.b.4 or designated EAR99;
• Keyboards, mice and similar devices designated EAR99;
• Mobile phones, including cellular and satellite telephones, personal digital assistants, and subscriber information module (SIM) cards and similar devices classified under ECCNs 5A992 or 5A991 or designated EAR99;
• Memory devices classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• “Information security” equipment, “software” (except “encryption source code”) and peripherals classified under ECCNs 5A992 or 5D992 or designated EAR99;
• Digital cameras and memory cards classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Television and radio receivers classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Recording devices classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
• Batteries, chargers, carrying cases, and accessories for the equipment described above that are designated EAR99; and
• “Software” (except “encryption source code”) classified under ECCNs 4D994, 5D991 or 5D992 or designated EAR99 to be used for equipment described above.
This change implements the President's directive to authorize, consistent with national security concerns, the export or reexport to Cuba of donated personal communications devices through a license exception.
Prior to publication of this rule, § 746.2(b)(2) of the EAR stated that export of “Telecommunications commodities may be authorized on a case-by-case basis, provided the commodities are part of an FCC-approved project and are necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications between the United Sates and Cuba.”
This rule revises the text of § 746.2(b)(2) of the EAR to ensure that the licensing policy allows for case-by-case review of exports or reexports of all items necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications links, including satellite radio and satellite television, between the United States and Cuba consistent with the President's April 13, 2009 directive. The scope of items eligible for export or reexport now includes any item (commodity, technology, or software) necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications links between the United States and Cuba, including links established through third countries, and including links to provide satellite radio or satellite television services to Cuba. In making this change, BIS notes that the establishment of links through third countries may be necessary to establish efficient and adequate links between the United States and Cuba. These changes are consistent with the goal of enhancing communications to promote democracy in Cuba.
Although individual gift parcels may be eligible for export pursuant to License Exception GFT, as set forth in § 740.12(a) of the EAR, consolidated shipments of multiple gift parcels are not eligible for export under this License Exception. BIS has issued a number of licenses to parties authorizing them to export consolidated shipments of gift parcels to Cuba. As part of this rule, BIS is amending General Order No. 4, found in Supplement No. 1 to part 736 of the EAR, to authorize such license holders to export consolidated shipments of all gift parcels that are eligible for License Exception GFT as of the effective date of this rule. This modification is appropriate because some previously-issued licenses for consolidated shipments limit the eligible commodities and software, eligible recipients, or limits on frequency or dollar value based on the restrictions of License Exception GFT in place at the time the consolidation license was issued. The amended General Order does not, however, increase the total value of exports permitted under, or extend the expiration date of, any license. Amending the General Order to modify existing licenses in such a manner will facilitate implementation of the policy underlying this rule by
Section 740.2(a)(6) of the EAR precludes use of any License Exception to export or reexport to Cuba unless the License Exception is listed in the License Exception paragraph pertaining to Cuba in part 746. This rule revises § 746.2(a)(1) to list the new “Consumer Communications Devices” License Exception that this rule creates.
Although not related to the President's April 13, 2009 directive, this rule also makes ineligible for inclusion in gift parcels to any destination items listed on the Commerce Control List with “encryption items” (EI) as a reason for control. BIS is making this change because of the sensitivity of such items. Items controlled for EI reasons employ sophisticated encryption techniques and have not been designated as “mass market” items by the United States Government. Such items are not eligible for export or reexport under License Exception GFT because they are not normally exchanged between individuals as gifts. However, because of the potential use of items controlled for EI reasons by persons abroad to harm U.S. national security, foreign policy and law enforcement interests, BIS is adding EI as a reason for control that explicitly precludes use of License Exception GFT to any destination. The other reasons for control that trigger this preclusion are national security, nuclear nonproliferation, chemical and biological weapons and missile technology.
1. This rule has been determined to be a significant rule under Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information that has been approved by OMB under control number 0694–0088, which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS–748P. Miscellaneous and recordkeeping activities account for 12 minutes per submission. BIS believes that this rule will make no material change to the number of submissions or to the burden imposed by this collection.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (
Exports.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
General Order No. 4 of June 13, 2008, as amended on September 3, 2009, amending existing licenses for exports of consolidated gift parcels to Cuba due to changes in License Exception GFT.
(b) Notwithstanding any statements to the contrary on the license itself, licenses authorizing the export to Cuba of consolidated gift parcels described in paragraph (a) of this order that are valid on September 3, 2009 authorize the export of consolidated shipments to Cuba of gift parcels that comply with the requirements of License Exception GFT found in § 740.12(a) of the EAR as of September 3, 2009.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(A)
(
(
(
(
(B)
(iii)
(A) Except for gift parcels of food to Cuba, not more than one gift parcel may be sent from the same donor to the same donee in any one calendar month.
(B) There is no frequency limit on gift parcels of food to Cuba.
(C) Parties seeking authorization to exceed the frequency limit due to compelling humanitarian concerns (
(iv)
(v)
(A) No gift parcel may be sent to any of the following officials of the Cuban Government: ministers and vice-ministers; members of the Council of State; members of the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People's Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; or members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).
(B) No gift parcel may be sent to any of the following officials or members of the Cuban Communist Party: members of the Politburo; the Central Committee; Department Heads of the Central Committee; employees of the Central Committee; and the secretaries and first secretaries of provincial Party central committees.
(C) No gift parcel may be sent to organizations administered or controlled by the Cuban Government or the Cuban Communist Party.
(a)
(b)
(1) Computers designated EAR99 or classified under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 4A994.b that do not exceed an adjusted peak performance of 0.02 weighted teraflops;
(2) Disk drives and solid state storage equipment classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(3) Input/output control units (other than industrial controllers designed for chemical processing) designated EAR99;
(4) Graphics accelerators and graphics coprocessors designated EAR99;
(5) Monitors classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(6) Printers classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(7) Modems classified under ECCNs 5A991.b.2, or 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(8) Network access controllers and communications channel controllers classified under ECCN 5A991.b.4 or designated EAR99;
(9) Keyboards, mice and similar devices designated EAR99;
(10) Mobile phones, including cellular and satellite telephones, personal digital assistants, and subscriber information module (SIM) cards and similar devices classified under ECCNs 5A992 or 5A991 or designated EAR99;
(11) Memory devices classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(12) “Information security” equipment, “software” (except “encryption source code”) and peripherals classified under ECCNs 5A992 or 5D992 or designated EAR99;
(13) Digital cameras and memory cards classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(14) Television and radio receivers classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(15) Recording devices classified under ECCN 5A992 or designated EAR99;
(16) Batteries, chargers, carrying cases and accessories for the equipment described in this paragraph that are designated EAR99; and
(17) “Software” (except “encryption source code”) classified under ECCNs 4D994, 5D991 or 5D992 or designated EAR99 to be used for equipment described in this paragraph (b).
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xiii) Commodities and software authorized under License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) (
(b) * * *
(2) Items may be authorized for export or reexport to Cuba on a case-by-case basis, provided the items are necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications links between the United States and Cuba, including links established through third countries, and including the provision of satellite radio or satellite television services to Cuba.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to make revisions to three sections that are used by the United States Government as the basis for placing persons onto the Entity List. These three sections specified license requirements for exports and reexports to persons listed on the Entity List, however; the sections were silent regarding whether or not the scope of the licensing requirements included transfers (in-country). This rule adds transfers (in-country) to the scope of the license requirements under each of the three sections. As a result of adding transfers (in-country) to these three end-user controls, all of the end-use and end-user controls that are used as a regulatory basis for placing persons on the Entity List now specify that the scope of the license requirements includes exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country).
The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to parties identified on the Entity List require a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and that availability of License Exceptions in such transactions is limited.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694–AE54, by any of the following methods:
Send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
Elizabeth Scott Sangine, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce,
The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to parties identified on the Entity List require a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and that availability of license exceptions in such transactions is limited. Persons are placed on the Entity List on the basis of certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) of the EAR.
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from or changes to the Entity
The rationale for the extension of this license requirement to include transfers (in-country) is that the United States Government's objective in placing a person on the Entity List on the basis of one of the end-user controls in part 744 of the EAR is to have an opportunity to review any transaction involving items subject to the EAR prior to shipment or transfer (in-country) to a listed person. Regardless of the form of the transaction (export, reexport, or transfer (in-country)), the United States Government believes it is important to review all transactions involving persons listed on the Entity List prior to the initiation of a transaction with a listed person and/or receipt by the listed person of an item in a transaction.
In publishing this rule, the United States Government is achieving the export control objective of allowing the United States Government to have prior review of any transaction involving items subject to the EAR and persons included on the Entity List. This prior review is important because the United States Government does not want these end-users of concern (
This rule also clarifies that prior to the publication of this rule, persons added to the Entity List on the basis of their involvement in the activities described in sections 744.2, 744.3 and 744.4, as described above, were subject to licensing requirements applicable to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country).
This rule makes the following revisions to the Export Administration Regulations:
In Section 744.10 (Restrictions on Certain Entities in Russia), this rule expands the scope of this end-user control by adding transfer (in-country) to the license requirements of this end-user control. With the publication of this rule, the license requirements for this end-user control apply to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country). Specifically, this rule revises the second sentence of paragraph (a) to specify that a license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR to such entities (
In Section 744.11 (License Requirements that Apply to Entities Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy Interests of the United States), this rule expands the scope of this end-user control by adding transfer (in-country) to the license requirements of this end-user control. With the publication of this rule, the license requirements for this end-user control apply to exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country). To broaden the scope of this end-user control, this rule makes three changes to this section. First, this rule revises the first sentence of the introductory text of this section to specify that transfers (in-country) are within the scope of the foreign policy controls that BIS may impose under this section. Second, this rule revises the first sentence of paragraph (a) to specify that for the license requirements of this section, a license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR to an entity that is listed on the Entity List in an entry that contains a reference to this section (
In Section 744.20 (License Requirements that Apply to Certain Sanctioned Entities), this rule expands the scope of this end-user control by adding transfer (in-country) to the license requirements of this end-user control. With the publication of this rule, the license requirements for this end-user control apply to exports, reexports and transfers (in-country). Specifically, this rule revises the introductory text of paragraph (a) to specify that a license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR to such entities (
In Supplement No. 4 to part 744 (The Entity List) of the EAR, this rule revises the introductory text of the Entity List to specify that the license requirements for these entities includes exports, reexports and transfers (in-country), unless otherwise stated. This clarification is needed because now all of the sections of part 744 that provide the regulatory basis for adding a person to the Entity List include license requirements for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country), unless otherwise specifically stated in an entry on the Entity List for a listed person.
Consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (EAA), a foreign policy report was submitted to Congress on August 11, 2009, notifying Congress of the imposition of foreign policy-based licensing requirements reflected in this rule.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 13, 2009, 74 FR 41325 (August 14, 2009), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) * * * A license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR to such entities.
(c)
BIS may impose foreign policy export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) license requirements, limitations on availability of license exceptions, and set license application review policy based on the criteria in this section. * * *
(a) * * *A license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR to an entity that is listed on the Entity List in an entry that contains a reference to this section. * * *
(b)
(5) Engaging in conduct that poses a risk of violating the EAR when such conduct raises sufficient concern that the End-User Review committee believes that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) involving the party and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denial enhances BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.
BIS may impose, as foreign policy controls, export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) license requirements and set licensing policy with respect to certain entities that have been sanctioned by the State Department. * * *
(a) * * * A license is required, to the extent specified on the Entity List, to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any item to such entities.
(b) License Exceptions. No license exception may be used to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to such entities unless specifically authorized on the Entity List.
(c) Licensing policy. Applications to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to such entities will be reviewed according to the licensing policy set forth on the Entity List.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations under sections 401(a)(9) and 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to permit a governmental plan to comply with the required minimum distribution rules by using a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the statute. These regulations affect administrators of, employers maintaining, participants in, and beneficiaries of governmental plans.
Concerning the regulations, Cathy V. Pastor or Michael P. Brewer at (202) 622–6090 (not a toll-free number).
Section 401(a)(9) provides required minimum distribution rules for a qualified trust under section 401(a). In general, under these rules, distribution of each participant's entire interest must begin by April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (1) the calendar year in which the participant attains age 70
IRAs described in section 408, section 403(b) plans, and eligible deferred compensation plans under section 457(b), also are subject to the required minimum distribution rules of section 401(a)(9) pursuant to sections 408(a)(6) and (b)(3), 403(b)(10), and 457(d)(2), respectively, and the regulations under those sections. In 2002, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under sections 401(a)(9), 403(b), and 408 in the
In 2004, the IRS and the Treasury Department replaced the temporary regulations with final regulations under § 1.401(a)(9)–6 (69 FR 33288). The final regulations contain a “grandfather rule” in Q&A–16, which provides that annuity distribution options provided under the terms of a governmental plan (within the meaning section 414(d)) as in effect on April 17, 2002, are treated as satisfying the requirements of section 401(a)(9) if they satisfy a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the provisions of section 401(a)(9). In addition, Q&A–17 provides that, for distributions from any defined benefit plan or annuity contract during 2003, 2004, and 2005, the payments could satisfy a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9) in lieu of § 1.401(a)(9)–6. For governmental plans, § 1.401(a)(9)–6, Q&A–17, extended this reasonable good faith standard to the end of the calendar year that contains the 90th day after the opening of the first legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after June 15, 2004, if such 90th day is later than December 31, 2005.
In 2003, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 457(b) in the
In 2007, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations under section 403(b) in the
Section 1.408–8, Q&A–1, provides, with certain exceptions, that in order to satisfy section 401(a)(9) for purposes of determining required minimum distributions, the rules of § 1.401(a)(9)–1 through 1.401(a)(9)–9 must be applied.
Section 823 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109–280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA 06), instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations under which, for all years to which section 401(a)(9) applies, a governmental plan, within the meaning of section 414(d), shall be treated as having complied with section 401(a)(9) if such plan complies with a reasonable good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9).
On July 10, 2008, the IRS and Treasury Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–142040–07) in the
The final regulations amend the regulations under section 401(a)(9) to treat a governmental plan, within the meaning of section 414(d), as having complied with the rules of section 401(a)(9) if the governmental plan applies a reasonable and good faith interpretation of section 401(a)(9). The same rule applies to an eligible 457(b) plan maintained by a government. In addition, this rule applies to a section 403(b) contract that is part of a governmental plan, and the regulations under section 403(b) are amended accordingly. The final regulations also make conforming amendments to the regulations under section 401(a)(9) that eliminate other special rules for
These regulations are effective on September 8, 2009 and apply to all plan years to which section 401(a)(9) applies.
It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because §§ 1.401(a)(9)–1 and 1.403(b)–6 do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal authors of these regulations are Michael P. Brewer and Cathy V. Pastor, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
A–2. * * *
(d)
The revisions and addition are as follows:
(e)
(2) * * * Consequently, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), the distribution rules in section 401(a)(9) are applied to section 403(b) contracts in accordance with the provisions in § 1.408–8 for purposes of determining required minimum distributions.
(8)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations providing guidance on employer comparable contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) under section 4980G of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) as amended by sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (the Act). The final regulations also provide guidance relating to the manner and method of reporting and paying the excise tax under sections 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, and 4980G of the Code. These final regulations would affect employers that contribute to employees' HSAs and Archer MSAs, employers or employee organizations that sponsor a group health plan, and certain third parties such as insurance companies or HMOs or third-party administrators who are responsible for providing benefits under the plan.
Concerning the final regulations as they relate to sections 4980E or 4980G, Mireille Khoury at (202) 622–6080; and concerning the final regulations as they relate to section 4980B or 4980D, Russ Weinheimer at (202) 622–6080 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might 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.
This document contains final amendments to the Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 54) under section 4980G of the Code, as amended by Sections 302 and 305 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (the Act), Public Law 109–432, under paragraph (d) of section 4980G of the Code, as enacted by section 306 of the Act, and under Section 4980E of the Code.
Under section 4980G, an excise tax is imposed on an employer that fails to make comparable contributions to the HSAs of its employees. On July 31, 2006, final regulations on comparability were published in the
This document also contains final amendments to the Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 54) under sections 4980B and 4980D. Under section 4980B, group health plans maintained by an employer with 20 or more employees must comply with continuation coverage requirements. If a plan does not satisfy these requirements, an excise tax is imposed of $100 per day per affected beneficiary. Final regulations under section 4980B have been published, including provisions concerning the excise tax, but no return filing requirement has previously been imposed.
On July 16, 2008, proposed regulations (REG–120476–07) were published in the
Paragraph (d) of section 4980G provides an exception to the comparability rules that allows, but does not require, employers to make larger contributions to the HSAs of nonhighly compensated employees than the employer makes to the HSAs of highly compensated employees. The final regulations address this exception to comparability in § 54.4980G–4 and provide that employer contributions to the HSAs of nonhighly compensated employees may be larger than employer contributions to the HSAs of highly compensated employees with comparable coverage during a period. Conversely, employer contributions to the HSAs of highly compensated employees may not exceed employer contributions to the HSAs of nonhighly compensated employees with comparable coverage during a period.
The comparability rules still apply with respect to contributions to the HSAs of all nonhighly compensated employees who are comparable participating employees (eligible individuals who are in the same category of employees with the same category of high deductible health plan (HDHP) coverage) and an employer must make comparable contributions to the HSA of each nonhighly compensated employee who is a comparable participating employee during the calendar year. Similarly, the comparability rules still apply with respect to contributions to the HSAs of all highly compensated employees who are comparable participating employees and an employer must make comparable contributions to the HSA of each highly compensated employee who is a comparable participating employee during the calendar year. Collectively bargained employees are disregarded for purposes of section 4980G, as are HSA contributions made through a cafeteria plan.
For purposes of section 4980G(d), highly compensated employee is defined under section 414(q) and includes any employee who was (1) a five-percent owner at any time during the year or the preceding year; or (2) for the preceding year, (A) had compensation from the employer in excess of $110,000 (for 2009, indexed for inflation) and (B) if elected by the employer, was in the group consisting of the top 20 percent of employees when ranked based on compensation. Nonhighly compensated employees are employees that are not highly compensated employees.
Section 305 of the Act provides that individuals who are eligible individuals
Employers are not required to make these greater than pro-rata contributions and may instead pro-rate contributions based on the number of months that an individual was both employed by the employer and an eligible individual. However, if an employer contributes more than the monthly pro-rata amount for the calendar year to the HSA of any employee who is a mid-year eligible individual, the employer must then contribute, on an equal and uniform basis, a greater than pro-rata amount to the HSAs of all comparable participating employees who are mid-year eligible individuals. Likewise, if the employer contributes the maximum annual contribution amount for the calendar year to the HSA of any employee who is a mid-year eligible individual, the employer must contribute that same amount to the HSAs of all comparable participating employees who are mid-year eligible individuals.
Section 302(a) of the Act provides for qualified HSA distributions.
The regulations prescribe the manner and method of paying the excise taxes imposed under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G. The final regulations, like the proposed regulations, provide that these excise taxes must be reported on Form 8928, “Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code.” The excise tax under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E or 4980G must be paid at the time prescribed for filing of the excise tax return (without extensions). With respect to the excise tax under section 4980B or 4980D for employers and third parties such as insurers or third party administrators, the return is due on or before the due date for filing the person's Federal income tax return. An extension to file the person's income tax return does not extend the date for filing Form 8928. With respect to the excise tax under section 4980B or 4980D for multiemployer or specified multiple employer health plans, the return is due on or before the last day of the seventh month after the end of the plan year. Finally, with respect to the excise tax under section 4980E or 4980G for noncomparable contributions, the return is due on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the calendar year in which the noncomparable contributions were made. The final regulations also provide guidance regarding the place for filing these excise tax returns, the signing of these excise returns, and the time and place for paying the tax shown on such returns.
Two comments were received regarding the reporting and filing of the excise taxes under sections 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, and 4980G. One commentator was concerned that the noncompliance period under section 4980B or 4980D could extend beyond the due date for filing the excise tax return and suggested that the due date be extended to 90 days after the end of the noncompliance period. It is true that the noncompliance period under section 4980B, for example, could extend over four or more taxable years of the person responsible for payment of the tax. Therefore, extending the due date until 90 days after the end of the noncompliance period would in some cases defer the obligation to pay the excise tax for over four years, which would not be in the interest of sound tax administration. As such, the final regulations do not adopt this change.
Another commentator noted that the excise tax might be due before the person responsible for paying it had even discovered that a failure under section 4980B or 4980D had occurred. However, this concern is mitigated by the fact that sections 4980B and 4980D provide that the excise tax does not apply for any period for which the responsible party did not know, or exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, that the failure existed. Also, under sections 4980B and 4980D, the excise tax does not apply if the failure is corrected (that is, the failure is retroactively undone to the extent possible and the affected beneficiary is placed in a financial position as good as the beneficiary would have been had the failure not occurred).
Finally, a commentator also stated that there are some uncertainties about the application of the excise tax rules to various situations that could arise under section 4980B. The commentator suggested that the filing and payment requirement for the excise tax under section 4980B should not apply until additional guidance was issued that addressed these uncertainties. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the statutory and regulatory provisions in this area provide appropriate guidance. Therefore, the final regulations do not adopt this comment.
The guidance in the proposed regulations relating to the excise taxes imposed under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G was contained in Q & A–11 in § 4980B–2, Q & A–1 in § 4980D–1, Q & A–1 in § 4980E–1, and Q & A–5 in § 4980G–1. The final regulations provide additional clarifying information relating to the guidance previously provided in these Q &As,
The sections of these regulations that provide guidance on employer comparable contributions to HSAs under section 4980G apply to employer contributions made on or after January 1, 2010.
The sections of these regulations that provide guidance relating to the excise tax under sections 4980B, 4980D, 4980E and 4980G apply to any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010.
It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal authors of these final regulations are Mireille Khoury and Russ Weinheimer, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), Internal Revenue Service. However, personnel from other offices of the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 54.4980G–6 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4980G.
Section 54.4980G–7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4980G. * * *
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) * * * But
The additions read as follows:
(h)
(i)
On January 1, 2010, Employer Q contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSAs of employees who are eligible individuals with family HDHP coverage. In mid-March of the same year, Employer Q hires Employee A, an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage. On April 1, 2010, Employer Q contributes $1,000 to the HSA of Employee A. In September of the same year, Employee B becomes an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage. On October 1, 2010, Employer G contributes $1,000 to the HSA of Employee B. Employer Q does not make any other contributions for the 2010 calendar year. Employer Q's contributions satisfy the comparability rules.
For the 2010 calendar year, Employer R only has two employees, Employee C and Employee D. Employee C, an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage, works for Employer R for the entire calendar year. Employee D, an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage works for Employer R from July 1st through December 31st. Employer R contributes $1,200 for the calendar year to the HSA of Employee C and $600 to the HSA of Employee D. Employer R does not make any other contributions for the 2010 calendar year. Employer R's contributions satisfy the comparability rules.
(j)
(b)
In 2010, Employer A contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer A makes no contribution to the HSA of any full-time highly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer A's HSA contributions for calendar year 2010 satisfy the comparability rules.
In 2010, Employer B contributes $2,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer B also contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time highly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer B's HSA contributions for calendar year 2010 satisfy the comparability rules.
In 2010, Employer C contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer C contributes $2,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time highly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer C's HSA contributions for calendar year 2010 do not satisfy the comparability rules.
In 2010, Employer D contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. Employer D also contributes $1,000 to the HSA of each full-time highly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with self-only HDHP coverage. In addition, the employer contributes an additional $500 to the HSA of each nonhighly compensated employee who participates in a wellness program. The nonhighly compensated employees did not receive comparable contributions, and, therefore, Employer D's HSA contributions for calendar year 2010 do not satisfy the comparability rules.
In 2010, Employer E contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time non-management nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage. Employer E also contributes $500 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time management nonhighly compensated employee who is an eligible individual with family HDHP coverage. The nonhighly compensated employees did not receive comparable contributions, and, therefore, Employer E's HSA contributions for calendar year 2010 do not satisfy the comparability rules.
(b)
In 2010, Employer F contributes $1,000 for the calendar year to the HSA of each full-time employee who is an eligible individual with self plus one HDHP coverage. Employer F contributes $1,500 for the calendar year to the HSA of each employee who is an eligible individual with self plus two HDHP coverage. The deductible for both the self plus one HDHP and the self plus two HDHP is $2,000. Employee A, an eligible individual, is a nonhighly compensated employee with self plus one coverage. Employee B, an eligible individual, is a highly compensated employee with self plus two coverage. For the 2010 calendar year, Employer F contributes $1,000 to Employee A's HSA and $1,500 to Employee B's HSA. Employer F's HSA contributions satisfy the comparability rules.
Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, any person liable for tax under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G of the Code shall file a return with respect to the tax on Form 8928. The return must include the information required by Form 8928 and the instructions issued with respect to it.
Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, any return, statement, or other document required to be made with respect to a tax imposed by section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G of the Code or the regulations under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E, or 4980G must be signed by the person required to file the return, statement, or other document, or by the persons required or duly authorized to sign in accordance with the regulations, forms, or instructions prescribed with respect to such return, statement, or document. An individual's signature on such return, statement, or other document shall be prima facie evidence that the individual is authorized to sign the return, statement, or other document.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, the return required by § 54.6011–2 must be filed at the place specified in the forms and instructions provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
Effective for any Form 8928 that is due on or after January 1, 2010, the tax shown on any return which is imposed under section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E or 4980G shall, without assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the time and place for filing such return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). For provisions relating to the time and place for filing such return,
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to implement the President's initiative of April 13, 2009, to promote greater contact between separated family members in the United States and Cuba and to increase the flow of remittances and information to the Cuban people. These amendments also implement provisions of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.
Assistant Director for Compliance, Outreach & Implementation,
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (“CACR”), were issued by the U.S. Government on July 8, 1963, under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5
In response to Section 621 of the Appropriations Act, which prohibited the expenditure of Fiscal Year 2009 appropriated funds to administer, implement, or enforce the July 2004 CACR amendments related to family travel, OFAC issued a general license and a new statement of specific licensing policy on its Web site. These new provisions, which were issued on March 11, 2009, reverted to the family travel policy that had been in place immediately prior to the July 2004 amendments. This March 11 general license authorized one trip per year to visit a broader category of “close relatives” (including, for example, aunts, uncles, cousins, and second cousins) who were nationals of Cuba. The March 11 general license contained no limit on the duration of such a visit and increased the authorized expenditures in Cuba to match the expenditures allowed for all other authorized categories of travel—the current State Department per diem for Havana (for use anywhere in Cuba) plus amounts for additional transactions directly incident to visiting close relatives in Cuba. The general license also authorized family travelers to be accompanied by persons who share a common dwelling as a family with them. For visits to family who were not nationals of Cuba, the March 11 statement of specific licensing policy provided for case-by-case authorization of visits to the broader category of “close relatives” without the former exigent circumstances limitation.
OFAC is amending section 515.561 to reflect the March 11 general license issued on OFAC's Web site and to further expand this authorization by removing the once per year frequency limitation, so that family travelers can now visit their close relatives as often as they wish. OFAC also is extending this authorization to close relatives of U.S. Government employees assigned to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Accordingly, prior paragraph (a) of section 515.561 is replaced by two new general licenses. New paragraph (a)(1) of section 515.561 contains a general license authorizing the travel-related transactions set forth in section 515.560(c) and additional transactions that are directly incident to visiting a close relative who is a national of Cuba, as that term is defined in section 515.302. New paragraph (a)(2) of section 515.561 provides this same authorization for visits to a close relative who is a U.S. Government employee assigned to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.
The term “close relative” is defined in new section 515.339 as any individual related to a person by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person or from a common ancestor with that person. Both new general licenses contained in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 515.561 authorize persons who share a common dwelling as a family with a licensed family traveler to accompany the licensed traveler on a family visit.
OFAC also is amending section 515.561 to reflect the March 11 statement of specific licensing policy published on OFAC's Web site with respect to visits to family members who are not nationals of Cuba. Accordingly, the specific licensing policy in paragraph (b) of section 515.561 is amended to apply to visits to “close relatives” (as defined in new section 515.339) and to remove the requirement that certain exigent circumstances must exist for a license to be issued.
OFAC is amending section 515.560(c)(2) by removing the $50 per day limit on living expenses in Cuba, as well as the $50 per trip limit on transportation-related expenses within Cuba, that formerly applied to licensed family visits. New section 515.560(c)(2) authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident to travel anywhere in Cuba, including payment of living expenses and the acquisition in Cuba of goods for personal consumption there, that do not exceed the “maximum per diem rate,” as established by the Department of State for Havana, Cuba, in effect at the time travel to Cuba takes place. The current “maximum per diem rate” may be found on the Department of State's Office of Allowances Web site (
OFAC is amending paragraph (b) of section 515.570, which authorizes two separate one-time emigration-related remittances, to increase the value limit of each of these remittances from $500
To track the amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 515.570, and subject to certain conditions, OFAC is amending paragraph (c) of section 515.570 to authorize unlimited remittances from an inherited blocked account in a banking institution in the United States to the account holder if s/he is a close relative of the decedent, as defined in new section 515.339, as well as limited emigration-related remittances from inherited blocked accounts. As noted above, amended paragraph (c) also authorizes remittances of up to $300 in any consecutive three-month period from any blocked account (including an account with funds other than inherited funds) to a Cuban national in a third country who is an individual in whose name, or for whose beneficial interest, the account is held.
OFAC also is amending paragraph (c)(4)(i) and paragraph (d)(2) of section 515.560. The changes to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of section 515.560 increase from $300 to $3,000 the total amount of family remittances an authorized traveler may carry to Cuba. The changes to paragraph (d)(2) of section 515.560 increase from $300 to $3,000 the amount of funds received as remittances that a national of Cuba departing the United States may carry.
New paragraph (c) of section 515.542 authorizes all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to enter into, and make payments under, contracts with non-Cuban telecommunications services providers, or particular individuals in Cuba, for services provided to particular individuals in Cuba, such as a contract for cellular telephone service for a phone owned and used by a particular individual in Cuba, provided that the individual is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in sections 515.337 and 515.338, respectively. The authorization in new paragraph (c) includes, but is not limited to, payment for activation, installation, usage (monthly, pre-paid, intermittent, or other), roaming, maintenance, and termination fees.
Newly added paragraph (d)(1) of section 515.542 contains a general license authorizing transactions incident to the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services linking the United States and Cuba, including but not limited to fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities. Newly added paragraph (d)(2) provides a statement of specific licensing policy with respect to transactions incident to the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services linking third countries and Cuba, including but not limited to fiber-optic cable and satellite facilities, provided that such facilities are necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba. Additional newly added paragraphs set out certain reporting requirements and clarifications.
Travel-related transactions incident to these new authorizations in section 515.542 are addressed by amendments to sections 515.564 and 515.533. New paragraph (a)(3) of section 515.564 provides a general license authorizing, with certain conditions, the travel-related transactions set forth in section 515.560(c) and additional transactions that are directly incident to participation in professional meetings for the commercial marketing of, sales negotiation for, or performance under contracts for the provision of the telecommunications services, or the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services, authorized by the general licenses in section 515.542. With respect to those commercial telecommunications transactions that will require Commerce-authorized exports of telecommunications-related items, new paragraph (f) of section 515.533 provides a general license authorizing, with certain conditions, the travel-related transactions set forth in section 515.560(c) and additional transactions that are directly incident to the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing in Cuba of telecommunications-related items that have been authorized for commercial export or re-export to Cuba by the Department of Commerce.
OFAC is amending paragraph (c) of section 515.505 to eliminate this unintended limitation by replacing the requirement that the individual be a national of Cuba “who has been paroled into the United States” with a requirement that the individual be a national of Cuba “who is lawfully present in the United States in a non-visitor status.” A sentence is added to paragraph (c) explaining that the term
In recent years, OFAC increasingly has had to address situations where Cuban nationals have permanently left Cuba, and in some cases have lived outside of Cuba for many years, but are unable to provide the type or quantity of evidence required by paragraph (b) of section 515.505. In some of these cases, the relevant foreign government maintains a policy that allows the Cuban national to reside there permanently, but that government does not issue documentation officially recognizing the Cuban national as a “permanent resident.” In other cases, the Cuban national may have left Cuba too recently to establish permanent residence in a third country, but other evidence, such as the circumstances under which the Cuban national left Cuba, clearly demonstrates that s/he either does not intend to, or would not be welcome to, return to Cuba. To address the cases that may warrant the issuance of a license but where the applicant cannot meet the evidentiary burden required by former paragraph (b), OFAC is revising that paragraph to allow for increased consideration of, and favorable licensing actions based upon, other evidence.
Because the amendments of the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505–0164. 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 control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of Assets, Cuba, Currency, Foreign trade, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Travel restrictions.
18 U.S.C. 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001–6010; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App 1–44; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (22 U.S.C. 6082); Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549; Pub. L. 111–8, 123 Stat. 524; E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR, 1938–1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943–1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.
For purposes of this part, the term
For purposes of this part, the term
(a) For purposes of this part, the term
(b)
(a) * * *
An individual unblocked pursuant to this paragraph does not become blocked again merely by leaving the United States. An individual unblocked national remains unblocked unless and until the individual thereafter becomes domiciled in or a permanent resident of Cuba, meets any of the criteria in § 515.302(a)(2) through (5), or is a “specially designated national” of Cuba, as that term is defined in § 515.306 of this part.
(b)
An individual unblocked pursuant to this paragraph remains unblocked unless and until the individual thereafter becomes domiciled in or a permanent resident of Cuba, meets any of the criteria in § 515.302(a)(2) through (5), or is a “specially designated national” of Cuba, as that term is defined in § 515.306 of this part.
(c)
(e) * * *
(2)
(a) All transactions ordinarily incident to the exportation of items from the United States, or the reexportation of 100% U.S.-origin items from a third country, to any person within Cuba are authorized, provided that:
This paragraph does not authorize transactions related to travel to, from, or within Cuba. See paragraphs (e) and (f) for general licenses, and paragraph (g) for a statement of specific licensing policy, with respect to such transactions.
(e)
(1) The traveler is regularly employed by a producer or distributor of the agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices or by an entity duly appointed to represent such a producer or distributor;
(2) The traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time, travel, or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full work schedule; and
(3) The traveler submits to OFAC at least 14 days in advance of each departure to Cuba a written report identifying both the traveler and the producer or distributor and describing the purpose and scope of such travel. Within 14 days of return from Cuba, the traveler shall submit a written report describing the business activities conducted, the persons with whom the traveler met in the course of such activities, and the expenses incurred. Such reports must be captioned
(f)
(1) The traveler is regularly employed by a telecommunications services provider that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction or by an entity duly appointed to represent such a provider;
(2) The traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time, travel, or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full work schedule; and
(3) The traveler submits to OFAC at least 14 days in advance of each departure to Cuba a written report identifying both the traveler and the telecommunications services provider that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and describing the purpose and scope of such travel. Within 14 days of return from Cuba, the traveler shall submit a written report describing the business activities conducted, the persons with whom the traveler met in the course of such activities, and the expenses incurred. Such reports must be captioned “Section 515.533(f) Report” and faxed to 202/622–1657 or mailed to the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
(g)
(a) All transactions of common carriers incident to the receipt or transmission of mail between the United States and Cuba are authorized.
(b) All transactions, including but not limited to payments, incident to the provision of telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba, the provision of satellite radio or satellite television services to Cuba, or the entry into and performance under roaming service agreements with telecommunications services providers in Cuba, by a telecommunications services provider that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized. This paragraph does not authorize any transactions addressed in paragraphs (c), (d), (f) or (g) of this section, nor does it authorize the entry into or performance of a contract with or for the benefit of any particular individual in Cuba.
(c) All persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to enter into, and make payments under, contracts with non-Cuban telecommunications services providers, or particular individuals in Cuba, for telecommunications services provided to particular individuals in Cuba, provided that such individuals in Cuba are not prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337 of this part, or prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338 of this part. The authorization in this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, payment for activation, installation, usage (monthly, pre-paid, intermittent, or other), roaming, maintenance, and termination fees.
(d)(1)
(2)
(e) Any entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction relying on paragraph (b), (c), (d)(1), or (d)(2) of this section shall notify OFAC in writing within 30 days after commencing or ceasing to offer such services, as applicable, and shall furnish by January 15 and July 15 of each year semiannual reports providing the total amount of all payments made to Cuba or a third country related to any of the services authorized by this section during the prior six months. These notifications and reports must be captioned “Section 515.542 Notification” or “Section 515.542 Report” and faxed to 202/622–6931 or mailed to the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
(f) For the purposes of this section, the term
(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the exportation or re-exportation of any items to Cuba. For the rules related to authorization of exports and re-exports to Cuba, see §§ 515.533 and 515.559 of this part.
(h) For an authorization of travel-related transactions that are directly incident to the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing in Cuba of telecommunications-related items that have been authorized for commercial export to Cuba by the U.S. Department of Commerce, see § 515.533(f) of this part. For an authorization of travel-related transactions that are directly incident to participation in professional meetings for the commercial marketing of, sales negotiation for, or performance under contracts for the provision of the telecommunications services, or the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services, authorized by paragraphs (b), (c), or (d)(1) of this section, see paragraph (a)(3) of section 515.564 of this part. Nothing in this § 515.542 authorizes transactions related to travel to, from, or within Cuba.
(a) * * *
(1) Family visits (general and specific licenses) (
(4) Professional research and professional meetings (general and specific licenses) (
(12) Certain export transactions that may be considered for authorization under existing Department of Commerce regulations and guidelines with respect to Cuba or engaged in by U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign firms (general and specific licenses) (
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(4) * * *
(i) The total of all family remittances authorized by § 515.570(a) does not exceed $3,000, and
(d) A blocked Cuban national permanently resident outside the United States who is departing the United States may carry currency, as that term is defined in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, as follows:
(1) The amount of any currency brought into the United States by the Cuban national and registered with U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon entry;
(2) Up to $3,000 in funds received as remittances by the Cuban national during his or her stay in the United States; and
(a)
(2) Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and persons traveling with them who share a common dwelling as a family with them are authorized to engage in the travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and additional transactions directly incident to visiting a close relative, as defined in § 515.339 of this part, who is a U.S. Government employee assigned to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.
(b)
(a) * * * (1)
(2)
(3)
(i) The traveler is regularly employed by a telecommunications services provider that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction or by an entity duly appointed to represent such a provider; and
(ii) The traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time, travel, or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full work schedule.
(a)
(1) The remittances are not made from a blocked source. Certain remittances from blocked accounts are authorized pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) The recipient is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337 of this part, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338 of this part; and
(3) The remittances are not made for emigration-related purposes. Remittances for emigration-related purposes are addressed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)
(1) Up to $1,000 per payee on a one-time basis to Cuban nationals for the purpose of covering the payees'
(2) Up to an additional $1,000 per payee on a one-time basis to Cuban nationals for the purpose of enabling the payees to emigrate from Cuba to the United States, including for the purchase of airline tickets and payment of exit or third-country visa fees or other travel-related fees. These remittances may be sent only once the payees have received valid visas issued by the State Department or other approved U.S. immigration documents. A remitter must be able to provide the visa recipients' full names, dates of birth, visa numbers, and visa dates of issuance.
(c) Provided the recipient is not a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337 of this part, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338 of this part, certain remittances from blocked sources are authorized as follows:
(1) Funds deposited in a blocked account in a banking institution in the United States held in the name of, or in which the beneficial interest is held by, a national of Cuba as a result of a valid testamentary disposition, intestate succession, or payment from a life insurance policy or annuity contract triggered by the death of the policy or contract holder may be remitted:
(i) To that national of Cuba, provided that s/he is a close relative, as defined in § 515.339 of this part, of the decedent;
(ii) To that national of Cuba as emigration-related remittances in the amounts and consistent with the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Up to $300 in any consecutive three-month period may be remitted from any blocked account in a banking institution in the United States to a Cuban national in a third country who is an individual in whose name, or for whose beneficial interest, the account is held.
(d)
(1) Remittances by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including but not limited to non-governmental organizations and individuals, to independent non-governmental entities in Cuba, including but not limited to pro-democracy groups, civil society groups, and religious organizations, and to members of such groups or organizations;
(2) Remittances from a blocked account to a Cuban national in excess of the amount specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; or
(3) Remittances by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to a person in Cuba, directly or indirectly, for transactions to facilitate non-immigrant travel by an individual in Cuba to the United States under circumstances where humanitarian need is demonstrated, including but not limited to illness or other medical emergency.
For the rules relating to the carrying of remittances to Cuba, see § 515.560(c)(4) of this part. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are prohibited from engaging in the collection or forwarding of remittances to Cuba unless authorized pursuant to § 515.572. For a list of authorized U.S. remittance service providers other than depository institutions, see Authorized Providers of Air, Travel and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba available from OFAC's Web site (
(a) * * *
(3)
A suggested form for the collection of information showing compliance with the remittance provisions in § 515.570 is available from OFAC's Web site (
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending the existing special anchorage area at Perth Amboy, New Jersey, at the junction of the Raritan River and Arthur Kill. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide for a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 20 meters in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on the Raritan River and Arthur Kill, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.
This rule is effective October 8, 2009.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2008–0047 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard, telephone 718–354–4195, e-mail
On May 8, 2008, the Coast Guard published in the
During times of tidal shifts, vessels moored near the edge of this special anchorage area were found swinging out into the Raritan River Cutoff and the Raritan River Federal Channels. Since moored vessels in a special anchorage area are exempt from the Inland Rules of the Road [Rule 30 (33 U.S.C 2030) and Rule 35 (33 U.S.C. 2035)], vessels swinging out into these Federal Channels create a high risk of collision with larger commercial vessels that transit past this special anchorage area, especially at night and during times of inclement weather. Also, when larger commercial vessels maneuver to avoid a collision with recreation vessels that swing out into these channels it creates a hazardous, close-quarters passing situation with other larger commercial vessels operating within these Federal Channels.
On May 8, 2008, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity” in the
The Coast Guard received one letter commenting on the SNPRM. Those comments are discussed below.
The Coast Guard received one letter commenting on the SNPRM. The commenter requested that only the Raritan Yacht Club main telephone number (732–826–2277) or VHF Channel 9 be published for mooring placement requests, and that the other telephone number be removed because it is a personal number. Additionally, due to revisions made to the NPRM, the commenter withdrew the previous request for a public hearing. The Coast Guard agrees with these comments. The contact information in the regulation will be revised to reflect this comment.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this rule requires recreational vessels to anchor a greater distance from the Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan River Federal Channels. As displayed on the government navigation charts, the current boundaries of the special anchorage area and adjacent Federal Channels nearly overlap. This rule greatly reduces the possibility of marine casualties, pollution incidents, or human fatalities that could be caused by these recreational vessels anchoring within, or near, the Federal Channels and causing a collision with any of the approximately 5,000 commercial vessels that transit the Raritan River Cutoff Channel on an annual basis. Vessel transit statistics from the ACOE Navigation Data Center are available online at:
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational vessels intending to anchor immediately adjacent to Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan River Federal Channels, which could cause a marine casualty, pollution incident, or human fatality due to a commercial vessel colliding with the anchored or moored recreational vessel(s). This rule will also affect commercial vessels by reducing the possibility that they will encounter hazardous, close-quarters passing conditions created by recreational vessels within the channels. However, the requirements contained within the rule will not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons: the revised special anchorage area requires vessels
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), in the SNPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 34(f), of the Instruction. This rule involves the expansion of a Special Anchorage Area. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph 34(f) as it is a Special Anchorage Area. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
(d) * * *
(10)
(i) This area is limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length and is primarily for use by recreational craft on a seasonal or transient basis. These regulations do not prohibit the placement of moorings within the anchorage area, but requests for the placement of moorings should be directed to the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet Captain (telephone 732–826–2277 or VHF Channel 9) to ensure compliance with local and State laws. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, will at any time extend beyond the limits of the area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited seaward of the pier head line. Mariners are encouraged to contact the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet Captain for any additional ordinances or laws and to ensure compliance with additional applicable State and local laws.
(ii) [Reserved]
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the SR1A Bridge across the Hampton River at mile 0.0, at Hampton, New Hampshire. This temporary deviation allows the SR1A Bridge to remain in the closed position for 10 hours to facilitate bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 15, 2009.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2009–0795 and are available online at
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (617) 223–8364,
The SR1A Bridge, across the Hampton River at mile 0.0, at Hampton, New Hampshire, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water and 26 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.697.
The waterway predominantly supports recreational vessels of various sizes.
The bridge owner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate necessary bridge maintenance.
Under this temporary deviation the SR1A Bridge may remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 15, 2009. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Witt Penn Bridge at mile 3.1, across the Hackensack River, at Jersey City, New Jersey. Under this temporary deviation the Witt Penn Bridge may remain in the closed position for 45 days to facilitate necessary bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from September 8, 2009 through October 22, 2009.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG–2009–0735 and are available online at
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 668–7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
The Witt Penn Bridge, across the Hackensack River at mile 3.1 has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723.
The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels, and commercial vessels of various sizes.
The owner of the bridge, New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate the replacement of sheaves and wire ropes at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the Witt Penn Bridge, mile 3.1, across the Hackensack River may remain in the closed position for bridge maintenance from September 8, 2009 through October 22, 2009. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. This deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users.
The contractor will have a crane barge located at the bridge. The crane barge will move out of the main channel upon request after at least a 9 hour advance notice is given by calling the bridge at 201–795–0631.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule with request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone around Seal Island, Maine from the shoreline out to the 60 foot depth curve. This safety zone prohibits persons and vessels from entering the designated area around Seal Island unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Northern New England. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters around Seal Island by protecting mariners from the hazards of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) found in the area.
This interim rule is effective September 8, 2009. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 7, 2009. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 30, 2009.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2009–0595 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
If you have questions on this interim rule, call or e-mail Chief Petty Officer Randy Bucklin, Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, Waterways Management Division; telephone 207–741–5440, e-mail
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2009–0595), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before September 30, 2009 using one of the four methods specified under
The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because a notice and comment period would be impractical due to the time needed to conduct a notice and comment period is contrary to the immediate need to implement this safety zone because of the imminent hazards posed by the Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC). Further, the expeditious implementation of this rule is in the public interest because it will help ensure the safety of those anchoring, fishing and other users of the waterway from the dangers of the MEC.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Seal Island located to the east of Matinicus Island off of the coast of Maine was used as an aerial bombing and target range by the United States Government. The use as a bombing and target range ceased; however, recent exploration of the island and the surrounding waters led to the discovery of various munitions and explosives of concern that present safety hazards to those who may come in contact with them. Some of these MECs are located on Seal Island as well as in the shallow water immediately surrounding it. A danger zone currently exists around the island however it is only enforced during times of active aerial bombing exercises which no longer occur. The regulation for the danger zone can be found in 33 CFR 334.10.
This regulation will establish a fixed safety zone around the perimeter of the affected portions of Seal Island out to the 60 foot depth curve so as to ensure mariners do not come into close proximity with MECs near Seal Island. This safety zone is necessary to protect vessels and persons from the hazards associated with MEC.
This rule creates the following safety zone for: “Seal Island Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC).” The safety zone is for all navigable waters of the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of Seal Island, in approximate location latitude 43°53′00″ N, longitude 068°44′00″ W, extending from the shoreline out to the 60 foot depth curve. The 60 foot curve can be found on various nautical charts and is readily apparent on NOAA Chart 13303, Approaches to Penobscot Bay.
Entry into these zones by any person or vessel will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Northern New England, or his designated representatives. Persons desiring to enter the safety zone may request permission to enter from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via VHF Channel 16 or by contacting the Sector Northern New England Command Center at (207) 741–5465.
The Coast Guard advises that entry into, transiting, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, conducting salvage operations, remaining within or anchoring in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Northern New England or his designated representatives.
The “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Northern New England to act on his behalf.
We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: the safety zone will cover only a small portion of the navigable waters around Seal Island allowing vessels to operate in all other portions of the approaches to Penobscot Bay. In addition, vessels may be authorized to enter the zone with permission of the Captain of the Port Northern New England.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit, fish, dive, or anchor in a portion of the Gulf of Maine around Seal Island.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone and operate in all other portions of the approaches to Penobscot Bay in the Gulf of Maine. Before the effective period, we
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available for review in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2) Entry into, transiting, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, conducting salvage operations, remaining within or anchoring in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Northern New England or his designated representatives.
(3) The “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Northern New England to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Northern New England or his designated representative at the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Command Center via VHF Channel 16 or by phone at (207) 741–5465 to request permission.
(5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zones must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Northern New England or his designated representatives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon the navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, San Diego, CA, in support of a paddling regatta near the Ocean Beach Pier. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective on September 13, 2009.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2009–0383 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 619–278–7262, e-mail
On June 29, 2009 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety zone; Paddle for Clean Water; San Diego; California in the
The Surfrider Foundation San Diego Chapter is sponsoring the Paddle for Clean Water. The event will consist of 900 to 1000 participants paddling around the Ocean Beach Pier. The sponsor will provide rescue vessels, as well as perimeter safety boats for the duration of this event. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced on September 13, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The limits of the safety zone will be as follows:
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W;
32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W;
32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W;
32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the shoreline to
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W.
This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W;
32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W;
32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W;
32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the shoreline to
32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the Command Center (COMCEN). The COMCEN may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or (619) 278–7033.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is adding Priority Mail Contract 16 to the Competitive Product List. This action is consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal operations. Republication of the lists of market dominant and competitive products is also consistent with new requirements in the law.
Effective September 8, 2009 and is applicable beginning August 17, 2009.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202–789–6820 and
The Postal Service seeks to add a new product identified as Priority Mail Contract 16 to the Competitive Product List. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the Request.
On July 24, 2009, the Postal Service filed a formal request pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2009–55.
In support of its Request, the Postal Service filed the following materials: (1) A redacted version of the contract which, among other things, provides that the contract will expire 1 year from the effective date, which is proposed to be the day that the Commission issues all regulatory approvals;
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Mary Prince Anderson, Acting Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to coverage of institutional costs, and will increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Request, Attachment C, at 1. W. Ashley Lyons, Manager, Regulatory Reporting and Cost Analysis, Finance Department, certifies that the contract complies with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the supporting data and the unredacted contract, under seal. In its Request, the Postal Service maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, certain terms and conditions, and financial projections, should remain confidential.
In Order No. 260, the Commission gave notice of the two dockets, appointed a public representative, and provided the public with an opportunity to comment.
Comments were filed by the Public Representative.
The Public Representative states that each “element of 39 U.S.C. 3633(a) appears to be met by Priority Mail Contract 16.
The Public Representative notes that the Postal Service has duties to provide packaging and labels.
With respect to confidentiality, the Public Representative believes that “[t]o comply with Order No. 247 in Docket[s] MC2009–30 and CP2009–40, the Postal Service should include with its filing a redacted copy of the Governors' Decision and certification.”
The Public Representative concurs that the Postal Service provides adequate justification for maintaining confidentiality in this case.
In response to the Public Representative's Comments, the Postal Service filed an errata to address uncertainties or correct errors of its Request as to adding Priority Mail Contract 16 to the Competitive Product List as a separate product.
The Errata includes: (a) A revised contract to clarify the term intended by the parties is 3 years, instead of 1 year; (b) a revised second page, along with the other original pages, again filed under seal, and a redacted copy; and (c) a revised page that corrects a typographic error on the Request at Attachment C, so as to change the reference to Priority Mail Contract 16, instead of 14. Errata at 1. The Postal Service further replies that it complies with the Governors' Decision requiring recitation of any postage payment method required; pointing out that since “a particular postage payment is not required, * * * none is stated.”
The Commission has reviewed the Request, the contract, the financial analysis provided under seal that accompanies it, the comments filed by the Public Representative, and the Errata.
[T]he Postal Service exercises sufficient market power that it can effectively set the price of such product substantially above costs, raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or decrease output, without risk of losing a significant level of business to other firms offering similar products.
The Commission is further required to consider the availability and nature of enterprises in the private sector engaged in the delivery of the product, the views of those who use the product, and the likely impact on small business concerns. 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(3).
The Postal Service asserts that its bargaining position is constrained by the existence of other shippers who can provide similar services, thus precluding it from taking unilateral action to increase prices without the risk of losing volume to private companies. Request, Attachment C, para. (d). The Postal Service also contends that it may not decrease quality or output without risking the loss of business to competitors that offer similar expedited delivery services.
No commenter opposes the proposed classification of Priority Mail Contract 16 as competitive. Having considered the statutory requirements and the support offered by the Postal Service, the Commission finds that Priority Mail Contract 16 is appropriately classified as a competitive product and should be added to the Competitive Product List.
Based on the data submitted, the Commission finds that Priority Mail Contract 16 should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products' contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an initial review of proposed Priority Mail Contract 16 indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products.
Furthermore, the Public Representative's assessment of Order No. 247 is well-taken. Public Representative Comments at 3–4. Subsequently, the Commission issued Order No. 266, which clarified the policy regarding self-contained docket filings.
In conclusion, the Commission approves Priority Mail Contract 16 as a new product. The revision to the Competitive Product List is shown below the signature of this order and is effective upon issuance of this order.
1. Priority Mail Contract 16 (MC2009–36 and CP2009–55) is added to the Competitive Product List as a new product under Negotiated Service Agreements, Domestic.
2. The Postal Service shall notify the Commission of the scheduled termination date and update the Commission if termination occurs prior to that date, as discussed in this order.
3. The Secretary shall arrange for the publication of this order in the
Administrative practice and procedure; Postal Service.
By the Commission.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; Technical Correction.
On June 16, 2009, regulations to include State Response Programs and Tribal Response Programs under Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as among the Environmental Program Grants eligible for inclusion in a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) were published. Those final rules included technical errors which this action corrects.
This rule is effective on September 8, 2009.
The mailing address of the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., MC 5105T, Washington, DC 20460.
Virginia Fornillo, Office of Solid Waste
EPA's regulations implementing Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) are found at 40 CFR 35.101, 40 CFR 35.130–35.138, 40 CFR 35.501 and 40 CFR 35.530–35.538. On June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28443) EPA published in the
The Administrative Procedure Act provides that matters relating to agency grants are not subject to prior notice and opportunity for comment, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is issuing these technical corrections as final rules.
This final rule corrects a technical error and does not otherwise change the requirements in the final rule. As a technical correction, this action is not subject to the statutory and Executive Order review requirements. For information about the statutory and Executive Order review requirements as they related to the final rule,
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Grant programs—environmental protection, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission grants a petition for rulemaking filed by Fisher Broadcasting—Idaho TV, L.L.C. (“Fisher”), the licensee of KBCI–DT, channel 28, Boise, Idaho, requesting the substitution of channel 9 for channel 28 at Boise.
This rule is effective September 8, 2009.
Joyce L. Bernstein, Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television, Television broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This document amends NHTSA's regulation specifying the order of succession to the Administrator. We have determined at the present time that a change in the order of succession better serves the agency's mission.
You may contact Maria Arsenlis at 202–366–9153.
The mission of NHTSA is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. This final rule, which amends NHTSA's regulation specifying the order of succession to the Administrator, is a matter relating to agency management or personnel. We have determined at this time that a change in the order of succession better serves the public interest and the agency's mission. The Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety is responsible for overseeing all of NHTSA's rulemaking, enforcement, and research programs, as well as NHTSA's National Center for Analysis.
Notice and the opportunity for comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the amendment is effective immediately upon publication in the
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
(a) The following officials, in the order indicated, shall act in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 3346–3349 as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the case of the absence or disability or in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Administrator, until a successor is appointed:
(1) Deputy Administrator;
(2) Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety;
(3) Chief Counsel;
(4) Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic Injury Control; and
(5) Senior Associate Administrator for Policy and Operations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to fully use the 2009 total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka mackerel in these areas specified for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 3, 2009, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 10, 2009. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., September 17, 2009.
Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by 0648–XR43, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed the directed fishery for Atka mackerel by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea on September 1, 2009.
NMFS has determined that approximately 476 mt of the 2009 Atka mackerel TAC for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2009 TAC of Atka mackerel in these areas specified for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for Atka mackerel by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 3, 2009. Pursuant to § 679.25(b), the Regional Administrator considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the catch per unit of effort and the rate of harvest and, (2) the economic impacts on fishing businesses affected in the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of the Atka mackerel fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 1, 2009. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30–day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Atka mackerel fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until September 17, 2009.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Apple Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes, to clarify existing policy provisions to better meet the needs of insured producers, and to reduce vulnerability to program fraud, waste, and abuse. The proposed changes will be effective for the 2011 and succeeding crop years.
Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business November 9, 2009 and will be considered when the rule is to be made final.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, titled “Apple Crop Provisions”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., CST, Monday through Friday, except holidays, at 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133–4676.
Erin Albright, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141–6205, telephone (816) 926– 7730.
This rule has been determined to be non-significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the OMB.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563–0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising § 457.158, Apple Crop Insurance Provisions, to be effective for the 2011 and succeeding crop years. Several requests have been made for changes to improve the coverage offered, address program integrity issues, simplify program administration, and improve clarity of the policy provisions.
The proposed changes are as follows:
1. FCIC proposes to remove the paragraph immediately preceding section 1 which refers to the order of priority in the event of a conflict. This same information is contained in the Basic Provisions. Therefore, it is duplicative and should be removed in the Crop Provisions.
2. Section 1—FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “apple production” to reference “fresh apple production and processing apple production” to be consistent with the proposed changes to revise the names of the defined terms of “fresh apples” and “processing apples” to “fresh apple production” and “processing apple production.”
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “damaged apple production” to remove the reference to “within each lot, bin, bushel, or box, as applicable.” Questions have been raise regarding whether claims for indemnity, including appraisals and quality adjustment determinations, were required to be completed for each lot, bin, bushel, or box of damaged apples rather than on a unit basis. This change is being made to clarify that damage is determined on a unit basis.
FCIC proposes to revise the name of the defined term “fresh apples” to “fresh apple production” for clarification. FCIC also proposes to revise the definition to require insureds to certify and, if requested by their approved insurance provider, provide verifiable records to prove at least 50 percent of their fresh apple acreage was sold as fresh apples in one or more of the three most recent crop years. FCIC also proposes to revise the definition to clarify insureds must follow the recommended cultural practices generally in use for fresh apple acreage in the county as determined by agricultural experts. These revisions will help ensure processing apple production is not insured as fresh apple production.
FCIC proposes to revise the name of the defined term “processing apples” to “processing apple production” for clarification. FCIC also proposes to revise the definition to clarify processing apple production is apples from insurable acreage failing to meet the fresh apple production requirements.
FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “type” to refer to a category of apples as designated in the Special Provisions. This change is being made to allow for type changes in the future.
FCIC proposes to delete the definition of “lot.” With the removal of any reference to “lot” in the definition of “damaged apple production,” this term will no longer be needed and is no longer recognized by the apple industry.
FCIC also proposes to delete the definition of “varietal group.” With the removal of the term in the definition of “type” and section 2(b), this term will no longer be needed.
3. Section 2—FCIC proposes to revise section 2(b) to allow optional units by type as specified in the Special Provisions. Different types may have significantly different management practices, production risks and uses.
4. Section 3—FCIC proposes to add a new section 3(a) to allow the insured to select different coverage levels for all fresh apple acreage in the county and for all processing apple acreage in the county.
FCIC also proposes to revise redesignated section 3(c)(1) to revise the list of possible effects on yield potential to include all of the items currently listed in section 3(c).
FCIC proposes to revise redesignated section 3(d) to add provisions to specify if the insured fails to notify the insurance provider by the production reporting date of an event or action that occurs during the crop year that may reduce the yield potential, any loss of production from such acreage will result in an appraisal for uninsured causes. The yield used to establish the insured's production guarantee will be reduced for the subsequent crop year. FCIC also proposes to revise redesignated section 3(d) to remove the list of possible effects on yield potential and to add language that refers back to section 3(c)(1)–(4), which currently contains the possible effects on yield potential. Removing the list of possible effects on yield potential in redesignated section 3(d) eliminates redundancy.
5. Section 6—FCIC proposes to revise the second sentence in section 6 to clarify that only acreage qualifying as fresh apple production is eligible for the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment provisions contained in section 14. This revision will help ensure processing apple production is not insured or adjusted as fresh apple production.
6. Section 7—FCIC proposes to add a new section 7(d) to clarify the insured crop is apples grown for either fresh apple production or processing apple production as defined in section 1.
7. Section 11—FCIC proposes to add a new section 11(a) to clarify the insured must leave representative samples for appraisal purposes if required by the insurance provider in accordance with the Basic Provisions.
8. Section 12—FCIC proposes to revise the Basic Coverage example in section 12 and move it to follow section 12(b)(7) to be consistent with the proposed example in section 14.
FCIC proposes to remove the current section 12(d) and move the provisions to a new section 14(d). FCIC also proposes to add a new section 12(d) to state any apple production not graded prior to sale or storage will be considered as production to count. Since harvest ends the insurance period, no coverage is provided for any subsequent damage that occurs after the apple production is sold or placed in storage. Provisions have been added to make this clear.
9. Section 14—FCIC proposes to revise section 14(a) to specify that insureds who select the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment cannot receive less than the indemnity due under section 12.
FCIC proposes to revise section 14(b)(4) to clarify that production to count under the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment will include all appraised and harvested production from all of the fresh apple acreage in the unit.
FCIC proposes to revise section 14(b)(5) to clarify the percent of damaged appraised or harvested apple production is applied within the applicable unit.
FCIC proposes to revise section 14(b)(5)(v) by adding the phrase “or better” after the phrase “U.S. Fancy” to clarify if any fresh apple production is sold as U.S. Fancy or better, all such sold production will be included as production to count under the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment.
FCIC also proposes to add a new section 14(c) to state if any production is not graded prior to sale or storage, it will be considered as production to count. As stated above, since harvest ends the insurance period, no coverage is provided for any subsequent damage that occurs after the apple production is sold or placed in storage. Provisions have been added to make this clear.
FCIC proposes to add a new section 14(d) to add provisions that any adjustments that reduce your production to count under the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment will not be applied when determining production to count for actual production history (APH) purposes. These provisions were previously contained in section 12(d), but since they are applicable to the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment, they are more appropriately included here.
FCIC proposes to revise the example in section 14 to clarify loss calculations under the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment to include all appraised and harvested production for all of the unit's fresh apple acreage.
Crop insurance, Apple, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2011 and succeeding crop years as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 457 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
2. Amend § 457.158 as follows:
a. Revise the introductory text;
b. Remove the paragraph immediately preceding section 1;
c. Add definitions in section 1 for “fresh apple production” and “processing apple production;” remove the definitions of “fresh apples,” “lot,” “processing apples,” and “varietal group;” revise the definitions of “apple production” and “type;” and amend the definition of “damaged apple production” by removing the phrase “, within each lot, bin, bushel, or box, as applicable,” from both paragraphs (a) and (b);
d. Revise section 2(b);
e. Amend section 3 by redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as (b), (c), and (d) respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a);
f. Revise sections 3(b)(1) and 3(c);
g. Amend section 6 by removing the phrase “Blocks of apple acreage grown for processing are” and adding the phrase “Any acreage not qualifying for fresh apple production is” in its place in the second sentence;
h. Amend section 7(b)(3) by removing the word “and” after the semicolon at the end;
i. Amend section 7(c) by removing the period at the end and replacing it with “; and”;
j. Add a new section 7(d);
k. Amend section 11 by redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (b), redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as (1), (2), and (3) respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a);
l. Revise the Basic Coverage Example in section 12 and move it to follow section 12(b)(7);
m. Revise section 12(d);
n. Amend section 14(a) by adding at the end of the paragraph the following sentence, “Insureds who select this option cannot receive less than the indemnity due under section 12.”;
o. Amend section 14(b)(3) by removing the phrase “fresh apples” and adding the phrase “fresh apple production” in its place and removing the phrase “processing apples” and adding the phrase “processing apple production” in its place;
p. Revise section 14(b)(4);
q. Revise section 14(b)(5) introductory text;
r. Amend section 14(b)(5) by adding the word “one” after the phrase “percent for each full” in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii);
s. Amend section 14(b)(5)(v) by adding the phrase “or better” after the phrase “if you sell any of your fresh apple production as U.S. Fancy”;
t. Add new sections 14(c) and (d);
u. Revise the Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment example; and
The revised and added text reads as follows:
The apple crop insurance provisions for the 2011 and succeeding crop years are as follows:
1. Definitions.
2. Unit Division.
(b) By type as specified in the Special Provisions.
3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities.
(a) You may select only one coverage level for all fresh apple acreage and only one coverage level for all processing apple acreage.
(c) * * *
(1) Any event or action that could impact the yield potential of the insured crop including, interplanted perennial crop, removal of trees, any damage, change in practices, or any other circumstance that may reduce the expected yield upon which the insurance guarantee is based, and the number of affected acres;
(d) We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee based on our estimate of such event or action of any of the items listed in section 3(c)(1) through (4) as indicated below. If the event or action occurred:
(1) Before the beginning of the insurance period, we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the current crop year as necessary. If you fail to notify us of any
(2) Or may occur after the beginning of the insurance period and you notify us by the production reporting date, we will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the current crop year as necessary; or
(3) Or may occur after the beginning of the insurance period and you fail to notify us by the production reporting date, we will appraise your production in accordance with section 12(c)(1)(ii). We will reduce the yield used to establish your production guarantee for the subsequent crop year.
7. Insured Crop.
(d) That are grown for:
(1) Fresh apple production; or
(2) Processing apple production.
11. Duties In the Event of Damage or Loss.
(a) In accordance with the requirements of section 14 of the Basic Provisions, you must leave representative samples in accordance with our procedures.
12. Settlement of Claim.
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
Basic Coverage example:
You have a 100 percent share in one basic unit with 10 acres of fresh apples and 5 acres of processing apples designated on your acreage report, with a 600 bushel per acre production guarantee for both fresh and processing apples, and a price election of $9.10 per bushel for fresh apples and $2.50 per bushel for processing apples. You harvest 5,000 bushels of fresh apples and 1,000 bushels of processing apples all grading U.S. No. 1 Processing or better. Your indemnity will be calculated as follows:
(d) Any apple production not graded prior to the earlier of the time apples are placed in storage, or the date the apples are delivered to a packer, processor, or other handler will not be considered damaged apple production and will be considered production to count.
14. Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment.
(b) * * *
(4) In lieu of sections 12(c)(1)(iii), (iv) and (2), the production to count will include all appraised and harvested production from all of the fresh apple acreage in the unit.
(5) If appraised or harvested fresh apple production within the applicable unit is damaged to the extent that more than 20 percent of the apple production does not grade U.S. Fancy or better the following adjustments will apply:
(c) Any apple production not graded prior to the earlier of the time apples are placed in storage, or the date the apples are delivered to a packer, processor, or other handler will not be considered damaged apple production and will be considered production to count under this option.
(d) Any adjustments that reduce your production to count under this option will not be applicable when determining production to count for APH purposes.
Optional Coverage for Quality Adjustment:
You have a 100 percent share in 10 acres of fresh apples designated on your acreage report, with a 600 bushel per acre guarantee, and a price election of $9.10 per bushel. You harvest 5,000 bushels of apples from your designated fresh apple acreage, but only 2,650 of those bushels grade U.S. Fancy or better. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise and amend the regulations at 7 CFR part 1485 used to administer the Market Access Program (MAP) by updating and merging the application requirements and the activity plan requirements to reflect the Unified Export Strategy (UES) system currently in place; clarifying the eligibility of activities designed to address international market access issues; modifying the list of eligible and ineligible contributions; revising the portions of the regulation regarding evaluations, contracting procedures, and the compliance review and appeals process; eliminating the Export Incentive Program/Market Access Program (EIP/MAP) as a separate subcomponent; and making other administrative changes for clarity and program integrity.
Comments concerning this proposed rule must be received by November 9, 2009 to be assured consideration.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Comments may be inspected in Suite 400, Portals Building, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. A copy of this proposed rule is available through the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) home page at:
Mark Slupek by phone at (202) 720–4327, by fax at (202) 720–9361, or by e-mail at
On May 23, 2007, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and public hearing in the
CCC proposes to add a separate paragraph to note explicitly the applicability of other Federal statutes and regulations to the activities of MAP participants. CCC also proposes to add new definitions and to delete obsolete definitions. Of note, CCC proposes to clarify the definitions of U.S. agricultural commodity, brand promotion, CCC, contribution, credit memo, expenditure, generic promotion, supergrade, and small-sized entity. CCC proposes to remove the definitions of activity plan, activity plan amendment request (APAR), deputy administrator, division director, EIP/MAP, EIP/MAP participant, eligible commodity, exported commodity, unfair trade practice, U.S. commercial entity, and U.S. industry contribution. CCC proposes to add definitions of administrative expenses or costs, approval letter, brand participant, UES Web site, FAS Web site, notification, program agreement, program year, temporary contractor, U.S. for-profit entity, and UES.
CCC proposes to modify the language that describes the application process and activity plan. CCC proposes to update and merge the list of application requirements and the activity plan requirements to better reflect the UES system that has been in place for several years.
CCC proposes to modify the lists of reimbursable and non-reimbursable activities to clarify the reimbursability of certain activities,
CCC proposes to modify the list of reimbursable activities to include development and use of Web sites; production of business cards that target a foreign audience; expenditures associated with conducting international staff conferences; expenditures related to copyright, trademark, or patent registration; leasing storage space overseas for storing program materials; and business class travel to be more consistent with the federal travel regulation.
Throughout the program's history, certain domestic administrative costs have been reimbursable for regional or national groupings of state departments of agriculture. CCC proposes to broaden this eligibility to allow for domestic administrative costs for the Intertribal Agriculture Council, which is a similar grouping of Native American and Alaskan tribes.
CCC proposes to modify the list of non-reimbursable activities to make ineligible expenditures on activities that include derogatory references or negative comparisons to other U.S. agricultural commodities and contributions to a contingency reserve. CCC also proposes to clarify that if a MAP participant discovers that MAP funds have not been spent properly, the participant has 30 days to inform CCC and repay the amount misspent.
CCC proposes to clarify, separate, and include in a new paragraph MAP contribution rules that were originally subsumed in the application process paragraph.
CCC proposes to separate existing paragraphs entitled “Financial management, reports, evaluations, and appeals” and “Miscellaneous provisions” into multiple paragraphs to provide greater clarity. CCC proposes to establish separate paragraphs to describe the compliance review and appeals processes; amendment of agreements; termination of agreements;
CCC proposes a new paragraph establishing new requirements for a participant to submit to CCC, for CCC's approval, a contracting plan that outlines its procedures for developing and publicizing requests for proposals, invitations for bids, and similar documents that solicit third-party offers to provide goods or services; procedures for reviewing proposals, bids, or other offers to provide goods and services; and other contracting requirements, including conflict of interest provisions that extend beyond the relevant actor's immediate family.
In addition, CCC proposes to add a paragraph requiring MAP participants that operate brand programs under MAP to establish certain operational procedures outlined in this proposed rule.
CCC also proposes to add a paragraph imposing new requirements on participants to establish and maintain a fraud prevention program and to report to CCC any allegations regarding potential fraud against the program.
Finally, CCC proposes to eliminate the EIP/MAP subcomponent, which was a part of the program limited to for-profit entities that entered into agreements with CCC. This applied when the program was available to large companies, but such companies are no longer eligible for the program.
This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866. It has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by OMB. A cost-benefit assessment of this rule was not completed.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. This rule would not be retroactive.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
CCC has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a major State or Federal action that would significantly affect the human or natural environment. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR part 1502.4, “Major Federal Actions Requiring the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements” and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared.
Although we are publishing this as a proposed rule, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) does not apply to this rule because it does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under the UMRA.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAS has previously received approval from OMB with respect to the information collection required to support this program. The information collection is described below:
CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services and for other purposes. The forms, regulations, and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this rule are available at:
Agricultural commodities, Exports.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, CCC proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1485 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1485 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 5623; 7 U.S.C. 5662–5663 and sec. 1302, Public Law 103–66, 107 Stat. 330.
2. Subpart B is revised to read as follows:
(a) This subpart sets forth the general terms, conditions, and policies governing the Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) operation of the Market Access Program (MAP).
(b)(1) In addition to the provisions of this subpart, other regulations of general application issued by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including the regulations set forth in Chapter XXX of this title, “Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture,” may apply to the MAP. These include, but are not limited to:
(2) In addition, relevant provisions of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714
(3) MAP participants must also comply with Title VI for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related civil rights regulations and policies.
(c) Under the MAP, CCC may provide grants to eligible U.S. entities to conduct certain marketing and promotion activities aimed at developing, maintaining, or expanding commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. MAP participants may receive assistance for either generic or brand promotion activities. While activities generally take place overseas, reimbursable activities may also take place in the United States. When considering eligible nonprofit U.S. trade organizations, CCC gives priority to organizations that have the broadest producer representation and affiliated industry participation of the commodity being promoted.
(d) The MAP generally operates on a reimbursement basis.
(e) CCC's policy is to ensure that benefits generated by MAP agreements are broadly available throughout the relevant agricultural sector and that no single entity gains an undue advantage. CCC also endeavors to enter into MAP agreements covering a broad array of agricultural commodity sectors. The MAP is administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) acting on behalf of CCC.
For purposes of this subpart the following definitions apply:
(1) Maintaining a physical office (including, but not limited to, rent, office equipment, office supplies, office décor, office furniture, computer hardware and software, maintenance, extermination, parking, business cards);
(2) Personnel (including, but not limited to, salaries, benefits, payroll taxes, individual insurance, training);
(3) Communications (including, but not limited to, phone expenses, Internet, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, e-mail, mobile e-mail devices, postage, courier services, television, radio, walkie talkies);
(4) Management of an organization or unit of an organization (including, but not limited to, planning, supervision, supervisory travel, teambuilding, recruiting, hiring);
(5) Utilities (including, but not limited to, sewer, water, energy);
(6) Professional services (including, but not limited to, accounting expenses, financial services, investigatory services).
To participate in the MAP, an entity shall be:
(a) A nonprofit U.S agricultural trade organization;
(b) A nonprofit SRTG;
(c) A nonprofit U.S. agricultural cooperative; or
(d) A State agency.
(a)
(1) Applicant and program information.
(i) All applications shall contain:
(A) The name, address, and Internet location of the home page of the applicant organization;
(B) The name of the applicant's Chief Executive Officer;
(C) The name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the applicant's primary contact person;
(D) The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for managing the proposed program;
(E) A description of the applicant organization, including the type of organization of the applicant (
(F) Tax exempt identification number of the applicant, if applicable;
(G) Beginning and ending dates for proposed program year (mm/dd/yy–mm/dd/yy);
(H) Dollar amount of CCC resources requested for generic activities;
(I) Dollar amount of CCC resources requested for brand activities;
(J) Percentage of CCC resources requested for brand activities that will be made available to small-sized entities;
(K) Total dollar amount of CCC resources requested;
(L) Percentage of CCC resources requested for general administrative expenses;
(M) A Dun and Bradstreet DUNS number for the applicant;
(N) A description of the applicant organization's membership and membership criteria;
(O) A list of organizations affiliated with the applicant, including parent organizations, subsidiaries, and partnerships;
(P) A description of the applicant's management and administrative capability;
(Q) A description of the applicant's prior export promotion experience;
(R) Value, in U.S. dollars, of proposed contributions from the applicant;
(S) The applicant's proposed contribution stated as a percentage of the total dollar amount of CCC resources requested; and
(T) Value, in U.S. dollars, of proposed contributions from other sources.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Program justification.
(i) All applications shall contain:
(A) A description of the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity(s), its harmonized system code, the applicable commodity aggregate code (available from the UES Web site) and the percentage of U.S. origin content by weight, exclusive of added water;
(B) A description of the anticipated supply and demand situation for the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity(s);
(C) The volume and value of exports of the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity(s) to the targeted markets for the most recent 3-year period;
(D) If the proposal is for 2 or more years, an explanation why the proposal should be funded on a multi-year basis; and
(E) A certification and, if requested by CCC, a written explanation supporting the certification that any funds received will supplement, but not supplant, any private or third-party funds or other contributions to program activities. An explanation, if one is requested, shall indicate why the applicant is unlikely to carry out the activities without Federal financial assistance. In determining whether Federal funds would supplement or supplant private or third-party funds or contributions, CCC will consider the applicant's prior overall marketing budget in the MAP program from year-to-year, variations in promotional strategies within a country, and new markets.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Proposed program's strategic plan.
(i) All applications shall include a strategic plan that contains:
(A) A description of overall long term strategic goals to be advanced by the proposed activities for the ensuing 3–5 years;
(B) An explanation of the organization's strategic planning process and identification of priority target markets, including a summary of proposed budgets by country and commodity aggregate code;
(C) A description of the world market situation for the exported U.S. agricultural commodity(s);
(D) A description of competition from other exporters;
(E) A statement of goals and the applicant's plans for monitoring and evaluating performance towards achieving these goals;
(F) For each country, 5 years or as many years as are available of:
(
(
(
(G) For each target country, 3 years of projected U.S. export data and U.S. market share;
(H) Country strategy, including market constraint(s) impeding U.S. exports (e.g., trade barriers) or opportunities present and the strategy proposed to overcome constraints or take advantage of the opportunities, previous activities in the country, and the projected impact of the proposed program on U.S. exports;
(I) A justification for any proposed overseas office, including a staffing plan listing job titles, position descriptions, salary ranges, any request for approval of supergrade salaries, and an itemized administrative budget;
(J) A description of any demonstration projects, if applicable;
(K) Data summarizing the applicant's historical and projected exports, market share, and MAP budgets of the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity(s);
(L) A written presentation of all proposed activities including:
(
(
(M) An evaluation plan setting forth specific goals and benchmarks set at regular intervals to be used to identify results against identified constraints and opportunities and to measure progress made in the target market. Evaluation of a proposed MAP program's effectiveness will depend on a clear statement by the applicant of goals, method of achievement, and expected results of programming at regular intervals. The overall goal of the MAP and of individual participants' programming is to achieve or maintain sales that would not have occurred in the absence of MAP funding. A MAP participant may modify and resubmit this plan for re-approval at any time during the program year.
(ii) Applications for brand promotion assistance shall also include in their strategic plans:
(A) A description of how the brand promotion program will be publicized to U.S. industry; and
(B) The criteria that will be used to allocate funds to U.S. for-profit entities.
(b) CCC may request any additional information that it deems necessary to evaluate an application, including, but not limited to, performance measurement information.
(c) Special rules governing demonstration projects funded with CCC resources.
(1) CCC will consider proposals for demonstration projects, provided:
(i) No more than one such demonstration project per constraint is undertaken within a market;
(ii) The constraint to be addressed in the target market is a lack of technical knowledge or expertise;
(iii) The demonstration project is a practical and cost effective method of overcoming the constraint; and
(iv) A third-party must participate in such project through a written agreement.
(a) General. CCC will, subject to the availability of funds, approve those applications that it considers to present the best opportunity for developing, maintaining, or expanding export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The selection process, by its nature, involves the exercise of judgment. CCC's choice of participants and proposed promotion projects requires that it consider and weigh a number of factors, some of which cannot be mathematically measured—e.g., market opportunity, market strategy, and management capability. CCC may require that an applicant participate in the MAP through another MAP participant or applicant.
(b) Application review criteria. In assessing the likelihood of success of the applications it receives and deciding which it will approve, CCC will follow results-oriented management principles and consider the following criteria:
(1) The effectiveness of program management;
(2) Soundness of accounting procedures;
(3) The nature of the applicant organization, with preference given to those organizations with the broadest base of producer representation and affiliated industry participation;
(4) Prior export promotion experience;
(5) Appropriateness of staffing;
(6) Adequacy of the applicant's strategic plan in the following categories;
(i) Description of target market conditions;
(ii) Description of, and plan for addressing, market constraints and opportunities;
(iii) Breadth of industry participation in strategic planning process;
(iv) Strategic prioritization identified in proposed plan;
(v) Export volume and value and market share goals in each target country;
(vi) Description of evaluation plan and suitability of the plan for performance measurement; and
(vii) Past program results and/or evaluations, including program success stories.
(c) Allocation factors. CCC determines which applications to approve and develops preliminary recommended funding levels for each approved application based on the following factors, in addition to those in paragraph (b) of this section. CCC determines final funding levels after allocating available funds to approved applications on the basis of criteria that will be fully described in each program year's MAP announcement in the
(1) Size of the budget request in relation to projected value of exports;
(2) Where applicable, size of the budget request in relation to actual value of exports in prior years;
(3) Where applicable, participant's past projections of exports compared with actual exports;
(4) Level of contributions by the applicant and by all other sources;
(5) Market share goals in target country(ies);
(6) The percentage by weight, exclusive of added water, of U.S. agricultural commodities contained in the promoted products;
(7) The degree of value-added processing in the United States;
(8) General administrative and overhead costs compared to direct promotional costs; and
(9) In the case of a brand promotion program, the percentage of the budget that will be made available to small-sized entities as a means of providing priority assistance to such entities.
(d) Approval decision.
(1) CCC will approve those applications that it determines best
(2) Notification of decision. CCC will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application.
(e) Formation of agreements. CCC will send a program agreement (or amendment to an existing program agreement), an approval letter, and a signature card to each approved applicant. The program agreement or amendment and the approval letter will outline which activities and budgets are approved and will specify any special terms and conditions applicable to a MAP participant's program, including any requirements with respect to contributions and program evaluations. An applicant that decides to accept the terms and conditions contained in the program agreement or amendment must so indicate by having its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or designee sign the program agreement or amendment and submit it to CCC. Final agreement shall occur when the program agreement or amendment is signed on behalf of CCC.
(f) Signature cards. The MAP participant shall designate at least two individuals in its organization to sign program agreements, reimbursement claims, and advance requests. The MAP participant shall submit the signature card signed by those designated individuals and by the participant's CEO to CCC. The participant shall immediately notify CCC of any changes in signatories and shall submit a revised signature card accordingly.
(g) UES ID and passwords. CCC will provide each MAP participant with IDs and passwords for the UES website, as necessary. MAP participants shall protect these IDs and passwords in accordance with USDA's information technology policies that CCC will provide to MAP participants. MAP participants shall immediately notify CCC whenever a person who possesses the ID and password information no longer needs such information or a person who is not authorized gains such information.
(h) A MAP participant through which small-sized U.S. for-profit entities are participating in the MAP program shall obtain annual certifications from all such entities that they are small-sized entities as defined in these regulations. The participant shall retain these certifications in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of this subpart.
(i) Changes to activities and funding.
(1) Adding a new activity.
(i) A MAP participant may not add a new activity to its approved MAP program without first obtaining CCC written approval of such change. To request approval of such change, the MAP participant shall submit a notification to CCC.
(ii) A notification for a new activity shall provide an activity justification and proposed activity strategic plan similar to the program justification and proposed program's strategic plan required in new applications. The notification shall contain the activity description, the proposed budget, and a justification of transfer of funds.
(iii) After receipt of the notification, CCC will inform the MAP participant in writing whether the requested change is approved.
(2) Deleting or modifying existing activities and funding levels.
(i) A MAP participant may make adjustments to its existing, approved activities and/or funding levels without prior approval of CCC, only if it submits a notification explaining the adjustments to CCC no later than 30 days after the change. However, a MAP participant desiring to increase the funding level for existing, approved activities addressing a single constraint or opportunity by more than $10,000 or 20 percent of the approved funding level, whichever is greater, must first submit a notification explaining the adjustment to CCC before making such change. If CCC does not disapprove of the proposed increase in funding level within 15 days, then the MAP participant may so adjust the level.
(ii) A notification of a modified or deleted activity shall contain the activity description, the proposed budget, and a justification of transfer of funds, if applicable.
(iii) A notification of changes to the approved funding levels of approved activities shall contain the activity description, the existing funding level, the proposed funding level, and a justification for transfer of funds, if applicable.
(a) Where CCC approves an application by a MAP participant to run a brand promotion program that will include third party brand participants, the MAP participant shall establish brand program operational procedures. The MAP participant annually shall submit to CCC for approval, not later than 21 days prior to signing participation agreements with third party brand participants, its proposed brand program operational procedures for such program year. Such procedures shall include, at a minimum, a brand program application, application procedures, application review criteria, brand participant eligibility requirements, a participation agreement, reimbursement requirements, compliance requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, employment practices, financial management requirements, contracting procedures, and evaluation requirements.
(b) The MAP participant shall not enter into any participation agreements with third party brand participants nor shall it implement any MAP brand activities for the applicable program year unless and until CCC has communicated in writing its approval of the proposed operational procedures to the MAP participant.
(c) Participation agreements between MAP participants and third party brand participants. Where CCC approves a MAP participant's application to run a brand promotion program that will include third party brand participants, the MAP participant shall enter into participation agreements with third party brand participants. These agreements must:
(1) Specify a time period for such third party brand promotion and require that all third party brand promotion expenditures be made within the MAP participant's approved program year;
(2) Make no allowance for extension or renewal;
(3) Limit reimbursable expenditures to those made in countries and for activities approved in the third party brand participant's activity plan;
(4) Specify the percentage of promotion expenditures that will be reimbursed, reimbursement procedures, and documentation requirements;
(5) Include a written certification by the third party brand participant that it either owns the brand of the product it will promote or has exclusive rights to promote the brand in each of the countries in which promotion activities will occur;
(6) Require that all product labels, promotional material, and advertising will identify the origin of the U.S. agricultural commodity as “Product of the U.S.”, “Product of the U.S.A.”, “Grown in the U.S.”, “Grown in the U.S.A.”, “Made in America” or other U.S. regional designation if approved in advance by CCC; that such origin identification will be conspicuously displayed; and that such origin identification will conform, to the extent possible, to the U.S. standard of
(7) Include a written certification by the third party brand participant that it is a small-sized entity as defined in this subpart;
(8) Require that the third party brand participant submit to the MAP participant a statement certifying that any Federal funds received will supplement, but not supplant, any private or third party funds or other contributions to program activities; and
(9) Require the third party brand participant to maintain all original records and documents relating to program activities for 5 calendar years following the end of the applicable program year and make such records and documents available upon request to authorized officials of the U.S. Government.
(d) MAP participants may not provide assistance to a single company, including a company reincorporated or re-organized under the same or different name if the reincorporated or re-organized company is substantially similar to the pre-existing company, for brand promotion in a single country for more than 5 years. Such 5 years do not need to be consecutive. Such 5-year period shall not begin prior to the 1994 program year or the brand participant's first program year, whichever is later. In limited circumstances, CCC may waive the 5-year limitation if CCC determines that further assistance is in the best interests of the MAP. CCC shall have the discretion to decide whether a reincorporated or re-organized company is substantially similar to the pre-existing company for purposes of applying this 5-year rule.
(a) In MAP generic promotion programs, a MAP participant shall contribute a total amount in goods, services, and/or cash equal to at least 10 percent of the value of resources to be provided by CCC for all generic promotion activities proposed to be undertaken by the participant.
(b) In MAP brand promotion programs, a brand participant shall contribute at least 50 percent of the total eligible expenditures made on each approved brand promotion.
(c) A MAP participant must use its own funds and may not use MAP program funds to pay any administrative costs of the MAP participant's U.S. office(s), including legal fees, except as set forth in this subpart.
(d) Eligible contributions.
(1) In calculating the amount of contributions that it will make, and the contributions that the U.S. industry (including expenditures to be made by entities in the applicant's industry in support of the entities' related promotion activities in the markets covered by the applicant's application) or State agency will make, the MAP applicant may include the costs listed under paragraph (d)(2) of this section if:
(i) Expenditures will be made in furtherance of an approved activity, and
(ii) The contributor has not been and will not be reimbursed by any source for such costs.
(2) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d)(1) of this section, eligible contributions are:
(i) Cash;
(ii) Compensation paid to personnel;
(iii) The cost of acquiring materials, supplies or services;
(iv) The cost of office space;
(v) A reasonable and justifiable proportion of general administrative costs and overhead;
(vi) Payments for indemnity and fidelity bond expenses;
(vii) The cost of business cards that target a foreign audience;
(viii) The cost of seasonal greeting cards;
(ix) Fees for office parking;
(x) The cost of subscriptions to publications;
(xi) The cost of activities conducted overseas;
(xii) Credit card fees;
(xiii) The cost of any independent evaluation or audit that is not required by CCC to ensure compliance with program agreement or regulatory requirements;
(xiv) The cost of giveaways, awards, prizes and gifts;
(xv) The cost of product samples;
(xvi) Fees for participating in U.S. Government activities;
(xvii) The cost of air and local travel in the United States;
(xviii) Payment of employee's or contractor's share of personal taxes;
(xix) STRE in the United States and the cost associated with trade shows, seminars, and entertainment conducted in the United States;
(xx) Other administrative expenses (
(xxi) The cost of any activity expressly listed as reimbursable in this subpart.
(3) The following are not eligible contributions:
(i) Any portion of salary or compensation of an individual who is the target of an approved promotional activity;
(ii) Any expenditure, including that portion of salary and time spent, related to promoting membership in the participant organization (sometimes referred to in the industry as “backsell”);
(iii) Any land costs other than allowable costs for office space;
(iv) Depreciation;
(v) The cost of refreshments and related equipment provided to office staff;
(vi) The cost of insuring articles owned by private individuals;
(vii) The cost of any arrangement that has the effect of reducing the selling price of a U.S. agricultural commodity;
(viii) The cost of product development, product modifications, or product research;
(ix) Slotting fees or similar sales expenditures;
(x) Membership fees in clubs and social organizations; and
(xi) Any expenditure for an activity prior to CCC's approval of that activity.
(4) CCC shall determine, at CCC's discretion, whether any cost not expressly listed in this section may be included by the MAP participant as an eligible contribution.
(a) A MAP participant may seek reimbursement for an eligible expenditure if:
(1) The expenditure was made in furtherance of an approved activity; and
(2) The participant has not been and will not be reimbursed for such expenditure by any other source.
(b) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, CCC will reimburse, in whole or in part, the cost of:
(1) Production and placement of advertising, in print, electronic media, billboards, or posters, which may include advertising the availability of price discounts. Electronic media includes, but is not limited to, radio, television, electronic mail, internet, telephone, text messaging, and podcasting;
(2) Production and distribution of banners, recipe cards, table tents, shelf talkers, and other similar point of sale materials;
(3) Direct mail advertising;
(4) In-store and food service promotions, product demonstrations to the trade and to consumers, and distribution of promotional samples;
(5) Temporary displays and rental of space for temporary displays;
(6) Expenditures, other than travel expenditures, associated with retail, trade, consumer exhibits and shows,
(7) International air travel, not to exceed the full fare economy rate, or other means of international transportation and per diem, as allowed under the U.S. Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR parts 301 through 304), for no more than two representatives of a single brand participant to exhibit their company's products at a foreign trade show;
(8) Subscriptions to publications that are of a technical, economic, or marketing nature and that are relevant to the approved activities of the participant;
(9) Demonstrators, interpreters, translators, receptionists, and similar temporary workers who help with the implementation of discrete promotional activities, such as trade shows, in-store promotions, food service promotions, and trade seminars;
(10) Giveaways, awards, prizes, gifts and other similar promotional materials, subject to such reimbursement limitation as CCC may, from time to time, determine and announce in writing to all MAP participants and on the FAS Web site;
(11) The design and production of packaging, labeling or origin identification, to be used during the program year in which the expenditure is made, if such packaging, labeling or origin identification is necessary to meet the importing requirements of a foreign country;
(12) The design, production, and distribution of coupons;
(13) An audit of a MAP participant as required by the applicable parts of this title if the MAP is the MAP participant's largest source of Federal funding;
(14) The translation of written materials as necessary to carry out approved activities; and
(15) Expenditures associated with developing, updating, and servicing Web sites on the Internet that clearly target a foreign audience.
(c) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, but for generic promotion activities only, CCC will also reimburse, in whole or in part, the cost of:
(1) Compensation and allowances for housing, educational tuition, and cost of living adjustments paid to a U.S. citizen employee or a U.S. citizen contractor stationed overseas, except CCC will not reimburse that portion of:
(i) The total of compensation and allowances that exceed 125 percent of the level of a GS–15 Step 10 salary for U.S. Government employees, and
(ii) Allowances that exceed the rate authorized for U.S. Embassy personnel;
(2) Approved supergrade salaries for non-U.S. citizens and non-U.S. contractors;
(3) Compensation of non-U.S. citizen staff employees or non-U.S. contractors subject to the following limitations:
(i) Where there is a local U.S. Embassy Foreign Service National (FSN) salary plan, CCC will not reimburse any portion of such compensation that exceeds the compensation prescribed for the most comparable position in the FSN salary plan, except for approved supergrades, or
(ii) Where an FSN salary plan does not exist, CCC will not reimburse any portion of such compensation that exceeds locally prevailing levels, which the MAP participant shall document by a salary survey or other mean, except for approved supergrades;
(4) A retroactive salary adjustment for non-U.S. citizen staff employees or non-U.S. contractors that conforms to a change in FSN salary plans, effective as of the date of such change;
(5) Accrued annual leave as of the time employment is terminated or as of such time as required by local law;
(6) Overtime paid to clerical staff;
(7) Temporary contractor fees, except CCC will not reimburse any portion of any such fee that exceeds the daily gross salary of a GS–15, Step 10 for U.S. Government employees in effect on the date the fee is earned, unless a bidding process reveals that such a contractor is not available at or below that salary rate;
(8) International travel expenses, including passports, visas and inoculations, except that CCC generally will not reimburse any portion of air travel in excess of the full fare economy rate or when the participant fails to notify the Attaché/Counselor in the destination country in advance of the travel, unless the CCC determines it was impractical to provide such notice. If a traveler flies in business class or a different premium class, the basis for reimbursement will be the full fare economy class rate for the same flight. If economy class is not offered for the same flight or if the traveler flies on a charter flight, the basis for reimbursement will be the average of the full fare economy class rate for flights offered by three different airlines between the same points on the same date. In very limited circumstances, CCC will reimburse air travel up to the business class rate (
(9) Per diem, except that CCC will not reimburse per diem in excess of the rates allowed under the U.S. Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR parts 301 through 304);
(10) Automobile mileage at the local U.S. Embassy rate or rental cars while in travel status;
(11) Other allowable expenditures while in travel status as authorized by the U.S. Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR parts 301 through 304);
(12) Organization costs for overseas offices approved in MAP program agreements. Such costs include incorporation fees, brokers' fees, fees to attorneys, accountants, or investment counselors, whether or not employees of the organization, incurred in connection with the establishment or reorganization of the overseas office, and rent, utilities, communications originating overseas, office supplies, accident liability insurance premiums, and routine accounting and legal services required to maintain the overseas office;
(13) The purchase, lease, or repair of, or insurance premiums for, capital goods that have an expected useful life of at least 1 year, such as furniture, equipment, machinery, removable fixtures, draperies, blinds, floor coverings, computer hardware and software, and portable electronic communications devices (including mobile phones, wireless e-mail devices, personal digital assistants);
(14) Such premiums for health or accident insurance and other benefits for foreign national employees that the employer is required by law to pay;
(15) Accident liability insurance premiums for facilities used jointly with third-party participants for MAP activities or for travel of non-MAP participant personnel;
(16) Market research, including research to determine the types of products that are desired in a market;
(17) Independent evaluations or audits, if not otherwise required by CCC, to ensure compliance with program agreement or regulatory requirements;
(18) Legal fees to obtain advice on the host country's labor laws;
(19) Employment agency fees;
(20) STRE;
(21) Educational travel of dependent children, visitation travel, rest and recuperation travel, home leave travel, emergency visitation travel for U.S. overseas employees allowed under the Foreign Affairs Manual published by the U.S. Department of State;
(22) Evacuation payments (safe haven) and shipment and storage of household goods and motor vehicles;
(23) Domestic administrative support expenses for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the SRTGs, and the Intertribal Agriculture Council;
(24) Expenditures associated with conducting international staff conferences;
(25) Travel expenditures associated with trade shows, seminars, educational training, international staff conferences conducted outside of the United States, and meetings of international organizations conducted in the United States;
(26) Approved demonstration projects;
(27) Expenditures related to copyright, trademark, or patent registration, including attorney fees;
(28) Rental or lease expenditures for storage space for program-related materials;
(29) Business cards that target a foreign audience;
(30) Expenditures associated with developing, updating, and servicing web sites on the Internet that contain a message related to exporting or international trade; and
(31) Expenditures associated with educational training designed to improve market access by addressing market constraints, such as temporary or permanent trade barriers.
(d) A generic promotion activity may include the promotion of a foreign brand if the foreign brand uses the promoted U.S. agricultural commodity from multiple U.S. suppliers and is the primary market access to the targeted market for the U.S. agricultural commodity. A generic promotion activity may also involve the use of specific company names, logos or brand names. However, in that case, the MAP participant must ensure that all U.S. companies seeking to promote such U.S. agricultural commodity in the market have an equal opportunity to participate in the activity and that at least two U.S. companies participate. In addition, an activity that promotes separate items from multiple companies will be considered a generic promotion only if the promotion of the separate items maintains a unified theme and style and is subordinate to the promotion of the generic theme.
(e) CCC will not reimburse any cost of:
(1) Forward year financial obligations, such as severance pay, attributable to employment of foreign nationals;
(2) Expenses, fines, settlements, judgments or payments relating to legal suits, challenges or disputes;
(3) The design and production of packaging, labeling or origin identification, except as specifically allowed in this subpart;
(4) Product development, product modification or product research;
(5) Product samples;
(6) Slotting fees or similar sales expenditures;
(7) The purchase of, construction of, or lease of space for permanent, non-mobile displays,
(8) Rental, lease or purchase of warehouse space, except for storage space for program-related material;
(9) Coupon redemption or price discounts;
(10) Refundable deposits or advances;
(11) Giveaways, awards, prizes, gifts and other similar promotional materials in excess of the limitation described in this subpart;
(12) Alcoholic beverages that are not an integral part of an approved promotional activity;
(13) The purchase, lease (except for use in authorized travel status) or repair of motor vehicles;
(14) Travel of applicants for employment interviews;
(15) Unused non-refundable airline tickets or associated penalty fees, except where travel was restricted by U.S. Government action or advisory;
(16) Independent evaluations or audits, including evaluations or audits of the activities of a subcontractor, if CCC determines that such a review is needed in order to confirm past or to ensure future program agreement or regulatory compliance;
(17) Any arrangement that has the effect of reducing the selling price of a U.S. agricultural commodity;
(18) Goods, services and salaries of personnel provided by U.S. industry or foreign third-party;
(19) Membership fees in clubs and social organizations;
(20) Indemnity and fidelity bonds;
(21) Fees for participating in U.S. Government sponsored activities, other than trade fairs and exhibits;
(22) Business cards that target a U.S. domestic audience;
(23) Seasonal greeting cards;
(24) Office parking fees;
(25) Subscriptions to publications that are not of a technical, economic, or marketing nature or that are not relevant to the approved activities of the MAP participant;
(26) Home office domestic administrative expenses, including communication costs;
(27) Any expenditure on an activity that includes any derogatory reference or negative comparison to other U.S. agricultural commodities;
(28) Any expenditure on an activity that contradicts U.S. foreign policy;
(29) Payment of U.S. and foreign employees' or contractors' share of personal taxes, except where a foreign country's laws require the MAP participant to pay such employees' or contractors' share;
(30) Any expenditure made for an activity prior to CCC's approval of that activity; and
(31) Contributions to a contingency reserve or any similar provision made for events the occurrence of which cannot be foretold with certainty as to time, intensity, or with an assurance of their happening.
(f) Special rules for approval of supergrades.
(1) With respect to individuals who are not U.S. citizens and who are hired by MAP participants either as employees or contractors, ordinarily, CCC will not reimburse any portion of such individual's compensation that exceeds the compensation prescribed for the most comparable position in the FSN salary plan applicable to the country in which the employee or contractor works. However, a MAP participant may seek a higher level of reimbursement for a non-U.S. citizen employee or contractor who will be employed as a country director or regional director by requesting that CCC approve that employee or contractor as a supergrade.
(2) To request approval of a supergrade, the participant shall provide CCC with a detailed description of both the duties and responsibilities of the position and the qualifications and background of the employee or contractor concerned. The participant shall also justify why the comparable FSN salary level is insufficient.
(3) Where a non-U.S. citizen employee or contractor will be employed as a country director, the MAP participant may request approval for a “Supergrade I” salary level, equivalent to a grade increase over the existing top grade of the FSN salary plan. The supergrade and its step increases are calculated as the percentage difference between the second highest and the highest grade in the FSN salary plan, with that percentage applied to each of the steps
(4) A U.S. citizen with dual citizenship with another foreign country or countries shall not be considered a non-U.S. citizen.
(g) CCC may determine, at CCC's discretion, whether any cost not expressly listed in this section will be reimbursed.
(h) For a brand promotion activity, CCC will reimburse no more than 50 percent of the total eligible expenditures made on that activity.
(i) CCC will reimburse for expenditures made after the conclusion of participant's program year provided:
(1) The activity was approved by CCC prior to the end of the program year;
(2) The activity was completed within 30 calendar days following the end of the program year; and
(3) All expenditures were made for the activity within 6 months following the end of the program year.
(j) A MAP participant shall not use MAP funds for any activity or any expenses incurred by the MAP participant prior to the date of the program agreement or after the date the program agreement is suspended or terminated, except as otherwise permitted by CCC.
(k) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, travel shall conform to U.S. Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR parts 301 through 304) and air travel shall conform to the requirements of the Fly America Act (49 U.S.C. 40118). The MAP participant shall notify the Attaché/Counselor in the destination countries in writing in advance of any proposed travel.
(a) Participants are required to use CCC's Internet-based system to request reimbursement for eligible MAP expenses. Claims for reimbursement shall contain the following information:
(1) Activity type—brand or generic;
(2) Activity number;
(3) Commodity aggregate code;
(4) Country code;
(5) Cost category;
(6) Amount to be reimbursed;
(7) If applicable, any reduction in the amount of reimbursement claimed to offset CCC demand for refund of amounts previously reimbursed and reference to the relevant compliance report or written notice; and
(8) If applicable, any amount previously claimed that has not been reimbursed.
(b) All claims for reimbursement shall be submitted by the MAP participant's U.S. office to CCC.
(c) CCC will not reimburse a claim for less than $10,000, except that CCC will reimburse a final claim for a MAP participant's program year for a lesser amount.
(d) CCC will not reimburse claims submitted later than 6 months after the end of a MAP participant's program year.
(e) If CCC overpays a reimbursement claim, the MAP participant shall repay CCC within 30 days of such overpayment the amount of the overpayment either by submitting a check payable to CCC or by offsetting its next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
(f) If a MAP participant receives a reimbursement or offsets an advanced payment which is later disallowed, the MAP participant shall repay CCC within 30 days of such disallowance the amount disallowed either by submitting a check payable to CCC or by offsetting its next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
(g) MAP funds may be expended by MAP participants only on legitimate, approved activities as set forth in the program agreement and approval letter. If a MAP participant discovers that MAP funds have not been properly spent, it shall notify CCC and shall within 30 days of its discovery repay CCC the amount owed either by submitting a check payable to CCC or by offsetting its next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
(h) The MAP participant shall report any actions that may have a bearing on the propriety of any claims for reimbursement in writing to CCC.
(a) Policy. In general, CCC operates the MAP on a reimbursable basis. CCC will not advance funds to a MAP participant for brand promotion activities.
(b) Exception. A MAP participant for generic promotion activities may request an advance of MAP funds from CCC, provided the MAP participant meets the criteria for advance payments set forth in the applicable parts of this title. If CCC approves the request, prior to making an advance, CCC may require the MAP participant to submit security in a form and amount acceptable to CCC to protect CCC's financial interests. CCC will not approve any request for an advance submitted later than 3 months after the end of a MAP participant's program year. At any given time, total payments advanced shall not exceed 40 percent of a MAP participant's approved generic activity budget for the program year.
(c) Interest. A MAP participant shall deposit and maintain in an insured bank account in the United States all funds advanced by CCC. The account shall be interest-bearing, unless the exceptions in the applicable part of this title apply. Interest earned by the MAP participant on funds advanced by CCC is not program income. The MAP participant shall remit any interest earned on the advanced funds to the appropriate entity as set forth in the applicable part of this title. The MAP participant shall, no later than 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter, submit a financial statement to CCC accounting for all funds advanced and all interest earned.
(d) Refunds due CCC. A MAP participant shall fully expend all advances on approved generic promotion activities within 90 calendar days after the date of disbursement by CCC. By the end of the 90 calendar days, the MAP participant must submit reimbursement claims to offset the advance and submit a check made payable to CCC for any unexpended balance. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
(a) A MAP participant shall enter into written contracts with all employees and shall ensure that all terms, conditions, and related formalities of such contracts conform to governing local law.
(b) A MAP participant shall in its overseas offices, conform its office hours, work week, and holidays to local law and to the custom generally observed by U.S. commercial entities in the local business community.
(c) A MAP participant may pay salaries or fees in any currency (U.S. or foreign). Participants should consult local laws regarding currency restrictions.
(a) A MAP participant shall implement and maintain a financial management system that conforms to
(b) A MAP participant shall institute internal controls and provide written guidance to commercial entities participating in its activities to ensure their compliance with these regulations.
(c) A MAP participant shall retain records and permit access to records in accordance with the requirements of the applicable parts of this title. These records shall include all documents related to employment such as employment applications, contracts, position descriptions, leave records, salary changes, and all records pertaining to contractors.
(d) A MAP participant shall maintain its records of expenditures and contributions in a manner that allows it to provide information by activity plan, country, activity number, and cost category. Such records shall include:
(1) Receipts for all STRE (actual vendor invoices or restaurant checks, rather than credit card receipts);
(2) Original receipts for any other program-related expenditure in excess of $75.00. CCC may, from time to time, determine a different minimum level and announce that minimum level in writing to all MAP participants and on the FAS Web site;
(3) The exchange rate used to calculate the dollar equivalent of expenditures made in a foreign currency and the basis for such calculation;
(4) Copies of reimbursement claims;
(5) An itemized list of claims charged to each of the participant's CCC resources accounts;
(6) Documentation with accompanying English translation supporting each reimbursement claim, including original evidence to support the financial transactions such as canceled checks, receipted paid bills, contracts or purchase orders, per diem calculations, travel vouchers, and credit memos; and
(7) Documentation supporting contributions. These must include the dates, purpose and location of the activity for which the cash or in-kind items were claimed as a contribution; who conducted the activity; the participating groups or individuals; and, the method of computing the claimed contributions. MAP participants must retain and make available for audit documentation related to claimed contributions.
(e) Upon request, a MAP participant shall provide to CCC originals of documents supporting reimbursement claims.
(a) End-of-Year Contribution Report. Not later than 6 months after the end of its program year, a MAP participant shall submit two copies of a report that identifies, by activity and cost category and in U.S. dollar equivalent, contributions made by the participant, the U.S. industry, and the States during that program year. A suggested format of a contribution report is available from FAS. Foreign third-party contributions are not included in the end-of-year contribution report.
(b) Trip reports. Not later than 45 days after completion of travel (other than local travel), a MAP participant shall electronically submit a trip report. The report must include the name(s) of the traveler(s), purpose of travel, itinerary, names and affiliations of contacts, and a brief summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and specific accomplishments.
(c) Research reports. Not later than 6 months after the end of its program year, a MAP participant shall submit a report on any research conducted pursuant to the approved MAP program.
(d) Evaluation reports. Not later than 6 months after the end of its program year, a MAP participant shall submit a report on any evaluations conducted in accordance with the approved MAP program.
(e) A MAP participant shall submit to CCC an annual audit in accordance with the applicable parts of this title. If CCC requires an additional audit with respect to a particular agreement, the MAP participant shall arrange for such audit and shall submit to CCC, in the manner to be specified by CCC, such audit of the agreement.
(f) CCC may require the submission of additional reports.
(g) A MAP participant's program agreement and/or approval letter shall specify to whom the participant shall submit the reports required in this section.
(a) Policy. (1) The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306; 31 U.S.C. 1105, 1115–1119, 3515, 9703–9704) requires performance measurement of Federal programs, including the MAP. Evaluation of the MAP's effectiveness will depend on a clear statement by participants of goals to be met within a specified time, schedule of measurable milestones for gauging success, plan for achievement, and assessment of results of activities at regular intervals. The overall goal of the MAP and of individual participants' programming is to achieve or maintain sales that would not have occurred in the absence of MAP funding. A MAP participant that can demonstrate such sales, taking into account extenuating factors beyond the participant's control, will have met the overall objective of the GPRA and the need for evaluation.
(2) Evaluation is an integral element of program planning and implementation, providing the basis for the strategic plan. The evaluation results guide the development and scope of a MAP participant's program, contributing to program accountability, and providing evidence of program effectiveness.
(b) All MAP participants must report annual results against their target market and/or regional constraint/opportunity performance measures. These are outcome results usually based on multiple activities and should demonstrate progress made in the market. This report shall be completed and submitted to CCC no later than 6 months following the end of the participant's program year.
(c) MAP participants conducting a branded program must also complete a brand promotion evaluation. A brand promotion evaluation is a review of the U.S. and foreign commercial entities' export sales to determine whether the activity achieved the goals specified in the approved MAP program. This evaluation shall be completed and submitted to CCC no later than 6 months following the end of the participant's program year.
(d) When appropriate or required by CCC, a MAP participant shall complete a program evaluation. A program evaluation is a review of the MAP participant's entire program, or an appropriate portion of the program as agreed to by the MAP participant and CCC, to determine the effectiveness of the MAP participant's strategy in meeting specified goals. Actual scope and timing of the program evaluation shall be determined by the MAP participant and CCC and specified in the approval letter. A MAP participant shall submit, via a cover letter to CCC, an executive summary that assesses the program evaluation's findings and recommendations and proposed changes in program strategy or design as a result of the evaluation. In addition to the requirements set forth in the applicable parts of this title, a program evaluation shall contain:
(1) The name of the party conducting the evaluation;
(2) The scope of the evaluation;
(3) A concise statement of the market constraint(s)/opportunity(ies) and the goals specified in the approved strategic plan;
(4) A description of the evaluation methodology;
(5) A description of export sales achieved;
(6) A summary of the findings, including an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the program(s); and
(7) Recommendations for future programs.
(e) On an annual basis, or more often when appropriate or required by CCC, a MAP participant shall complete and submit program success stories. From time to time, CCC will announce to all MAP participants in writing and on the FAS Web site the detailed requirements for completing and submitting program success stories.
(a) USDA staff may conduct compliance reviews of MAP participants' activities under the MAP program. MAP participants shall cooperate fully with relevant USDA staff conducting compliance reviews and shall comply with all requests from USDA staff to facilitate the conduct of such reviews.
(b) Upon conclusion of the compliance review, USDA staff will provide either a written compliance report or a letter to the MAP participant. USDA staff will issue a compliance report if it appears that CCC may be entitled to recover funds from that participant and/or it appears that the participant is not complying with any of the terms or conditions of the program agreement, approval letter, or the applicable laws and regulations. The compliance report will explain the basis for any recovery of funds from the participant. Within 30 days of the date of the compliance report, the MAP participant shall repay CCC the amount owed either by submitting a check payable to CCC or by offsetting its next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC. In the absence of any finding of funds due to CCC or other non-compliance, CCC will issue a letter to the MAP participant. If, as a result of a compliance review, CCC determines that further review is needed in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of MAP, CCC may require the participant to contract for an independent audit.
(c) In addition, CCC may notify a MAP participant in writing at any time if CCC determines that CCC may be entitled to recover funds from the participant. CCC will explain the basis for any recovery of funds from the participant in the written notice. The MAP participant shall within 30 days of the date of the notice repay CCC the amount owed either by submitting a check payable to CCC or by offsetting its next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
(d) The fact that a compliance review has been conducted by USDA staff does not signify that a MAP participant is in compliance with its program agreement, approval letter and/or applicable laws and regulations.
(e) Appeals.
(1) A MAP participant may, within 30 days of the date of the compliance report or written notice from CCC, submit a response to CCC. CCC, at its discretion, may extend the period for response.
(2) After review of the participant's response, CCC shall determine whether the participant owes any funds to CCC and will inform the participant in writing of the basis for the determination. CCC will initiate action to collect such amount by providing the participant a notice of delinquency and a demand for payment of the debt pursuant to Debt Settlement Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1403.
(3) Within 30 days of the date of the determination, the participant may request in writing that CCC reconsider the determination and shall submit in writing the basis for such reconsideration. The participant may also request a hearing.
(4) If the participant requests a hearing, CCC will set a date and time for the hearing. The hearing will be an informal proceeding. A transcript will not ordinarily be prepared unless the participant bears the cost of a transcript; however, CCC may in its discretion have a transcript prepared at CCC's expense.
(5) CCC will base its final determination upon information contained in the administrative record. The participant must exhaust all administrative remedies contained in this section before pursuing judicial review of a determination by CCC.
A MAP participant's required contribution will be specified in the approval letter. If the MAP participant's required contribution is specified as a dollar amount and the MAP participant does not make the required contribution, the MAP participant shall pay to CCC in dollars the difference between the amount actually contributed and the amount specified in the approval letter. If the MAP participant's required contribution is specified as a percentage of the total amount reimbursed by CCC, the MAP participant may either return to CCC the amount of funds reimbursed by CCC to increase its actual contribution percentage to the required level or pay to CCC in dollars the difference between the amount actually contributed and the amount of funds necessary to increase its actual contribution percentage to the required level. A MAP participant shall remit such payment within 90 days after the end of its program year. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC.
For all permissible methods of delivery, submissions required by this subpart shall be deemed submitted as of the date received by CCC.
(a) Documents submitted to CCC by participants are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, 7 CFR part 1, subpart A—Official Records, and specifically 7 CFR 1.12, Handling Information from a Private Business.
(b) Any research conducted by a MAP participant pursuant to a MAP program agreement and/or approval letter shall be subject to the provisions relating to intangible property in the applicable parts of this title.
(a) A MAP participant shall conduct its business in accordance with the laws and regulations of the country in which an activity is carried out and in accordance with applicable U.S. Federal, state and local laws, and regulations. A MAP participant shall conduct its business in the United States in accordance with applicable Federal, state and local laws and regulations. All MAP participants must comply with the regulations in the applicable parts of this title.
(b) Except for a nonprofit U.S. agricultural cooperative or a U.S. for-profit entity, neither a MAP participant nor its affiliates shall make export sales of U.S. agricultural commodities and products covered under the terms of the agreement. Nor shall such entities charge a fee for facilitating an export sale. A MAP participant may, however, collect check-off funds and membership fees that are required for membership in the MAP participant. For the purposes of this paragraph, “affiliate” means any partnership, association, company, corporation, trust, or any other such
(c) A MAP participant shall not limit participation in its MAP activities to members of its organization. Participants agree to ensure that its programs and activities are open to all otherwise qualified individuals and entities on an equal basis and without regard to any non-merit factors. The MAP participant shall publicize its program and make participation possible for commercial entities throughout the relevant commodity sector or, in the case of SRTGs, throughout the corresponding region. This includes providing to such commercial entities, upon request, a copy of any document in its possession or control containing market information developed and produced under the terms of its MAP agreement. The participant may charge a fee not to exceed the costs for assembling, duplicating and distributing the materials.
(d) A MAP participant shall select U.S. agricultural industry representatives to participate in activities such as trade teams, sales teams, and trade fairs based on criteria that ensure participation on an equitable basis by a broad cross section of the U.S. industry. If requested by CCC, a MAP participant shall submit such selection criteria to CCC for approval.
(e) All MAP participants should endeavor to ensure fair and accurate fact-based advertising. Deceptive or misleading promotions may result in cancellation or termination of a participant's MAP agreement and the recovery of CCC funds related to such promotions from the participant.
(f) The MAP participant must report any actions or circumstances that may have a bearing on the propriety of the program to the appropriate Attaché/Counselor, and its U.S. office shall report such actions in writing to CCC.
(a) Neither CCC nor any other agency of the U.S. Government nor any official or employee of CCC, FAS, USDA, or the U.S. Government has any obligation or responsibility with respect to MAP participant contracts with third parties.
(b) A MAP participant shall comply with the procurement standards set forth below and in the applicable parts of this title when procuring goods and services and when engaging in construction to implement program agreements. For purposes of this subpart, the “small purchase threshold” referenced in 7 CFR part 3019 is set at $100,000.
(c) Each MAP participant shall establish contracting procedures that are open, fair, and competitive.
(d) Prior to entering into any contracts during a program year, a MAP participant must submit to CCC, for CCC approval, a written contracting plan. This contracting plan shall list each contract with an annual value of $25,000 or more that the MAP participant expects to be party to during the program year, the method for evaluating proposals received for each contract competition, the method for monitoring and evaluating performance under contracts, and the method for initiating corrective action for unsatisfactory performance under contracts. The MAP participant may modify and resubmit this plan for re-approval at any time during the program year. In addition to the requirements set forth in the applicable parts of this title, this plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Procedures for developing and publicizing requests for proposals, invitations for bids, and similar documents that solicit third party offers to provide goods or services. Solicitations for professional and technical services shall be based on clear and accurate descriptions of and requirements related to the services to be procured. Such procedures must include a conflict-of-interest provision that states that no employee, officer, board member, or agent thereof of the MAP participant will participate in the review, selection, award or administration of a contract if a real or apparent conflict of interest would arise. Such a conflict would arise when an employee, official, board member, agent, or the employee's, officer's, board member's, agent's family, partners, or an organization that employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award. Procedures shall provide that officers, employees, board members, and agents thereof shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or subcontractors. Procedures shall also provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, board members or agents thereof;
(2) Procedures for reviewing proposals, bids, or other offers to provide goods and services. Separate procedures shall be developed for various situations, including, but not limited to: Solicitations for highly technical services; solicitations for services that are not common in a specific market; solicitations that yield receipt of three or more bids; solicitations that yield receipt of fewer than three bids;
(3) Requirements to conduct all contracting in an openly competitive manner. Individuals who develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bids, and/or requests for proposals for procurement of any goods or services, and such individuals' families or partners, or an organization that employs or is about to employ any of the aforementioned, shall be excluded from competition for such procurement;
(4) Requirements to perform and document in the procurement files some form of price or cost analysis, such as a comparison of price quotations to market prices or other price indicia, to determine the reasonableness of the offered prices in connection with every procurement action that exceeds $25,000 or more;
(5) Requirements to conduct an appropriate form of competition every 3 years on all multi-year contracts with an annual value of $25,000 or more. CCC may, from time to time, determine a different minimum value and announce that minimum value in writing to all MAP participants and on the FAS Web site. However, contracts for in-country representation are not required to be re-competed after the initial reward. Instead, the performance of in-country representation must be evaluated and documented by the MAP participant annually to ensure that the terms of the contract are being met in a satisfactory manner; and
(6) Requirements for written contracts with each provider of goods, services, or construction work. Such contracts shall require such providers to maintain adequate records to account for funds provided to them by the MAP participant.
(e) A MAP participant may undertake MAP promotional activities directly or through a domestic or foreign third-party. However, the MAP participant shall remain responsible and accountable to CCC for all MAP promotional activities and related expenditures undertaken by such third party and shall be responsible for reimbursing CCC for any funds that CCC determines should be refunded to CCC in relation to such third-party's promotional activities and expenditures.
The MAP participant shall insure all real property and equipment acquired in furtherance of program activities and safeguard such against theft, damage and unauthorized use. The participant shall promptly report any loss, theft, or
(a) All MAP participants.
(1) All MAP participants annually shall submit to CCC for approval a detailed fraud prevention program. The fraud prevention program shall, at a minimum, include an annual review of physical controls and weaknesses, a standard process for investigating and remediation of suspected fraud cases, and training in risk management and fraud detection for all current and future employees. The MAP participant shall not conduct or permit any MAP promotion activities to occur unless and until CCC has communicated in writing approval of the MAP participant's fraud prevention program.
(2) The MAP participant, within five business days of receiving an allegation or information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of misrepresentation or fraud that could give rise to a claim by CCC, shall report such allegation or information in writing to such USDA personnel as specified in the participant's MAP program agreement and/or approval letter. The MAP participant shall cooperate fully in any USDA investigation of such allegation or occurrence of misrepresentation or fraud and shall comply with any directives given by CCC or USDA to the MAP participant for the prompt investigation of such allegation or occurrence.
(b) MAP participants with brand programs.
(1) The MAP participant may charge a fee to brand participants to cover the cost of the fraud prevention program.
(2) The MAP participant shall repay to CCC funds paid to a brand participant through the MAP participant on claims that the MAP participant or CCC subsequently determines are unauthorized or otherwise non-reimbursable expenses within 30 days of the MAP participant's determination or CCC's disallowance. The MAP participant shall repay CCC by submitting a check to CCC or by offsetting the participant's next reimbursement claim. The MAP participant shall make such payment in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved in advance by CCC. A MAP participant operating a brand program in strict accordance with an approved fraud prevention program, however, will not be liable to reimburse CCC for MAP funds paid on such claims if the claims were based on misrepresentations or fraud of the brand participant, its employees or agents, unless CCC determines that the MAP participant was grossly negligent in the operation of the brand program regarding such claims. CCC shall communicate any such determination to the MAP participant in writing.
Any revenue or refunds generated from an activity, e.g., participation fees, proceeds of sales, refunds of value added taxes (VAT), the expenditures for which have been wholly or partially reimbursed with MAP funds, shall be used by the MAP participant in furtherance of its approved MAP activities in the program year in which the program income was received. Interest earned on funds advanced by CCC is not program income.
A program agreement may be amended only in writing with the consent of CCC and the MAP participant.
If a MAP participant fails to comply with any term in its program agreement or approval letter, CCC may take one or more of the enforcement actions set forth in the applicable parts of this title and, if, appropriate, initiate a claim against the MAP participant, following the procedures set forth in this subpart. CCC may also initiate a claim against a MAP participant if program income or CCC-provided funds are lost due to an action or omission of the MAP participant.
A program agreement may be suspended or terminated in accordance with the applicable parts of this title. If an agreement is terminated, the applicable parts of this title will apply to the closeout of the agreement.
The paperwork and recordkeeping requirements imposed by this subpart have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. OMB has assigned control number 0551–0026 for this information collection.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the permanent safety zone at Trunkline LNG in Lake Charles, LA and to replace it with a security zone with new boundaries. The Coast Guard also proposes to establish two additional permanent security zones on the waters of the Calcasieu River for the mooring basins at Cameron LNG in Hackberry, LA and PPG Industries in Lake Charles, LA. The Coast Guard also proposes to disestablish the moving safety zone for Liquified Natural Gas (“LNG”) vessels in the Calcasieu ship channel and replace it with a moving security zone of the same dimensions. These security zones are needed to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or other actions of a similar nature. Unless exempted under this rule, entry into or movement within these security zones would be prohibited without permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 8, 2009.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2009–0317 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Lieutenant Clint Smith, Marine Safety Unit Lake Charles, LA, telephone (337) 491–7800, or e-mail
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2009–0317), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
Heightened awareness of potential terrorist acts requires enhanced security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To enhance security, the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur proposes to establish permanent security zones on the waters of the Calcasieu River in Lake Charles, LA; Hackberry, LA, and moving security zones around certain vessels.
This proposed rule would establish new, distinct security zones on the waters of the Calcasieu River. These zones would protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels operating within the Captain of the Port Zone are potential targets of terrorist attacks, or platforms from which terrorist attacks may be launched upon from other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers.
This proposed rule would also delete the moving safety zone for non-gas free Liquified Natural Gas (“LNG”) vessels transiting the Calcasieu Channel and Calcasieu River and add a moving security zone that may commence at any point while certain vessels are transiting the Calcasieu Channel or Calcasieu River on U.S. territorial waters in the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone. These security zones would be established to protect waterfront facilities, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels operating within the Captain of the Port zone are potential targets of terrorist attacks, or potential launch platforms for terrorist attacks on other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers.
Due to the potential for terrorist attacks, this proposed rule would allow the Captain of the Port to create moving security zones around certain vessels as deemed necessary, on a case-by-case basis. By limiting access to these areas, the Coast Guard is reducing potential methods of attack on these vessels, and potential use of the vessels to launch attacks on waterfront facilities and adjacent population centers located within the Captain of the Port zone. Vessels having a need to enter these security zones must obtain express permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative prior to entry.
These zones are being proposed for an area concentrated with commercial facilities considered critical to national security. This proposed rule is not designed to restrict access to vessels engaged, or assisting in commerce with waterfront facilities within fixed security zones, vessels operated by port authorities, vessels operated by waterfront facilities within the fixed security zones, and vessels operated by federal, state, county or municipal agencies. By limiting access to these areas the Coast Guard would reduce potential methods of attack on vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers located within the zones. All vessels not exempted under the provisions of this proposed regulation desiring to enter these zones would be required to obtain express permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative prior to entry.
The Captain of the Port proposes to revise 33 CFR 165.805 to establish permanent fixed security zones on the waters of the Calcasieu River for the mooring basins at Trunkline LNG in Lake Charles, LA; Cameron LNG in Hackberry, LA; and PPG Industries in Lake Charles, LA. The coordinates and locations of the fixed security zones use the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983) and are as follows: (1) Trunkline LNG basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°06′36″ N, 93°17′36″ W, south to a point 30°06′33″ N, 93°17′36″ W, east to a point 30°06′30″ N, 93°17′02″ W, north to a point 30°06′33″ N, 93°17′01″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point. (2) Cameron LNG basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°02′33″ N, 93°19′53″ W, east to a point at 30°02′34″ N, 93°19′50″ W, south to a point at 30°02′10″ N, 93°19′52″ W and west to a point at 30°02′10″ N, 93°19′59″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point. (3) PPG industries basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°13′11″ N, 93°16′52″ W, east to a point at 30°13′11″ N, 93°16′51″ W, northeast to a point at 30°13′29″ N, 93°16′34″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point.
In addition, the Captain of the Port proposes to establish moving security zones for certain vessels, for which the Captain of the Port deems enhanced security measures are necessary, on a case-by-case basis. These moving security zones would be activated for certain vessels within the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone transiting U.S. territorial waters and extend channel edge to channel edge on the Calcasieu Channel and shoreline to shoreline on the Calcasieu River, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern of certain designated vessels while in transit. Meeting, crossing or overtaking situations are not permitted within the security zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port. These proposed security zones would be part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
All vessels not exempted under paragraph (b) of the proposed section 165.805 would be prohibited from entering the proposed security zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative. For authorization to enter the proposed security zones vessels contact Marine Safety Unit Lake Charles at (337) 491–7800 or the on-scene patrol vessel on VHF–FM channel 13.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The basis of this finding is that the fixed security zones are not part of the navigable waterway or a commercial fishing ground and do not impede commercial traffic on the Calcasieu Waterway. The proposed moving security zone is limited in nature and would not create undue delay to vessel traffic in or around the Calcasieu River and Ship Channel.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rules for fixed security zones would not interfere with regular vessel traffic within the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Calcasieu River or the Intracoastal Waterway; and (2) the proposed rule for moving security zones are of limited duration and vessels may request permission to enter the security zone from the Captain of the Port or his representative.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Clint Smith at (337) 491–7800. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule would not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 165.805 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The following areas are designated as fixed security zones, (all coordinates are based upon North American Datum of 1983 [NAD 83]):
(i) Trunkline LNG basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°06′36″ N, 93°17′36″ W, south to a point 30°06′33″ N, 93°17′36″ W, east to a point 30°06′30″ N, 93°17′02″ W, north to a point 30°06′33″ N, 93°17′01″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point.
(ii) Cameron LNG basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°02′33″ N, 093°19′53″ W, east to a point at 30°02′34″ N, 093°19′50″ W, south to a point at 30°02′10″ N, 093°19′52″ W and west to a point at 30°02′10″ N, 93°19′59″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point.
(iii) PPG industries basin, all waters encompassed by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 30°13′11″ N, 93°16′52″ W, east to a point at 30°13′11″ N, 93°16′51″ W, northeast to a point at 30°13′29″ N, 93°16′34″ W, then following the shoreline to the beginning point.
(2) The following areas are moving security zones: All waters within the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone commencing at U.S. territorial waters and extending channel edge to channel edge on the Calcasieu Channel and shoreline to shoreline on the Calcasieu River, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern of certain designated vessels while in transit. Meeting, crossing or overtaking situations are not permitted within the security zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(b)
(1) Entry into or remaining in a fixed zone described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is prohibited for all vessels except:
(i) Commercial vessels operating at waterfront facilities within these zones;
(ii) Commercial vessels transiting directly to or from waterfront facilities within these zones;
(iii) Vessels providing direct operational or logistical support to commercial vessels within these zones;
(iv) Vessels operated by the appropriate port authority or by facilities located within these zones; and
(v) Vessels operated by federal, state, county, or municipal agencies.
(2) Entry into or remaining in moving zones described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is prohibited for all vessels except:
(i) Moored vessels or vessels anchored in a designated anchorage area. A moored or an anchored vessel in a security zone described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must remain moored or anchored unless it obtains permission from the Captain of the Port to do otherwise;
(ii) Commercial vessels operating at waterfront facilities located within the zone;
(iii) Vessels providing direct operational support to commercial vessels within a moving security zone;
(iv) Vessels operated by federal, state, county, or municipal agencies.
(3) Other persons or vessels requiring entry into security zones described in this section must request permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or designated representatives.
(4) To request permission as required by these regulations, contact Marine Safety Unit Lake Charles at (337) 491–7800 or the on-scene patrol vessel.
(5) All persons and vessels within a security zone described in this section must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel or other designated representatives. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Designated representatives include federal, state, local and municipal law enforcement agencies.
(c)
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document announces a proposed rulemaking in response to a recent Postal Service filing of a proposed methodology for the allocation of assets and liabilities in theoretical competitive enterprise.
Submit comments on or before October 23, 2009. Submit reply comments on or before November 23, 2009.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's electronic Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820 or
In PRC Order No. 151, which established financial accounting practices and tax rules for competitive products, the Commission directed the Postal Service to develop the assets and liabilities of the theoretical competitive products enterprise by identifying all asset and liability accounts within its Chart of Accounts used solely for the provision of (a) competitive products or (b) market dominant products, and for those not identified with either, to submit for Commission approval a proposed methodology detailing how each asset and liability account identified in the Chart of Accounts shall be allocated to the theoretical competitive products enterprise.
In satisfaction of that requirement, on July 23, 2009, the Postal Service filed a proposed methodology for the allocation of assets and liabilities to the theoretical competitive enterprise.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Notice, which is available on the Commission's Web site,
Interested persons are invited to comment on the Postal Service's proposed methodology and may propose alternative methodologies. Comments are due no later than 45 days after publication of this order in the
The Commission designates Patricia A. Gallagher to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2009–9 to consider the matters related to the allocation of assets and liabilities to the theoretical competitive products enterprise.
2. Interested persons may submit initial comments within 45 days of publication of this order in the
3. Interested persons may submit reply comments within 75 days of publication of this Order in the
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia A. Gallagher is designated to serve as the Public Representative representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Notice in the
39 U.S.C. 503, 2011, 3633, 3634.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polymeric foam manufacturing operations. We are proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking
Any comments must arrive by October 8, 2009.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0573, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule proposed for disapproval with the date that it was adopted and submitted.
On April 17, 2008, we determined that the rule submittal in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved a previous version of Rule 1175 into the SIP on August 25, 1994.
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. Rule 1175 was designed to reduce VOCs, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and methylene cloride emissions from expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam molders, direct injection polystyrene foam extrusion, polyurethane, isocyanurate and phenolic foam manufacturing operations. The District amended the Rule in order to provide expandable polystyrene molding operations with an additional compliance option.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
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. “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).
Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.
These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision based on the following deficiencies:
1. The rule must require demonstration, through source testing approved in writing by the Executive
2. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and parameters needed to achieve 93% control to comply with paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these parameters.
3. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and parameters needed to achieve 90% collection and 95% destruction to comply with paragraphs (c)(4)(B)(i) and (ii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these parameters.
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rule 1175. If finalized, this action would retain the existing SIP rule in the SIP. There are no sanction or FIP implications with this action pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 179, as this is not a required Clean Air Act submittal.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply disapprove requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 7, 2009.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1066, to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 7, 2009.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1061, to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 7, 2009.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1065, to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 7, 2009.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1072, to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information regarding regulations for the introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering, contact Mr. Steve Bennett, Branch Chief, Regulatory Operations Programs, BRS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–5672. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
Under that authority, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has established 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.” The regulations govern the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of covered genetically engineered organisms and products (“regulated articles).” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced.
The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article and necessitate certain information and recordkeeping requirements, including APHIS-issued permits, applicants' field testing records, and the submission of protocols to ensure compliance.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of mangoes from India.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 9, 2009.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on regulations for the importation of mangoes from India, contact Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–0627. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
In accordance with these regulations, mangoes from India may be imported into the United States only under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, including a phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration statements, preclearance workplan, trust fund agreement, compliance agreement, monitoring and certification of treatments, and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service published a document in the
Comments on this notice must be received by November 9, 2009, to be assured of consideration.
Requests for additional information regarding this correction should be directed to Cheryl Thompson, 202–692–0043.
In the
Forest Service, USDA.
Withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to treat approximately 4,637 acres of selected plantations on the Georgetown and Pacific Ranger Districts with a combination of mechanical precommercial thinning and control of competitive vegetation using mechanical and chemical treatments.
The Notice of intent for this project was published in
Dana Walsh, Georgetown Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Rd., Georgetown, CA 95634, or by telephone at 530–333–4312.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that a planning meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee will convene at 11 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2009, at the Community College of Vermont, 145 Billings Farm Road, White River Junction, Vermont. The purpose of the planning meeting is to plan future activities.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by October 19, 2009. The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to email their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202–376–7533 or by e-mail to:
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
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 (FACA) that a planning meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee will convene on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct an orientation meeting and a planning meeting on future activities.
The meeting will be conducted by conference call and is available to the public through the following call-in number: (800) 399–0013, access code: 27700387. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. 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 the access code.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Alfreda Greene, Secretary of the Eastern Regional Office, office number (202) 376–7533, TTY (202) 376–8116, by 4 p.m., Monday, September 14, 2009.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, October 16, 2009. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202–376–7533 or by e-mail to:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of the advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 9, 2009.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Barbara Lambis, 301–975–4447,
The NIST Construction Grant Program (Program) is a competitive financial assistance (grant) program for research science buildings through the construction of new buildings or expansion of existing buildings. For purposes of this program, “research science building” means a building or facility whose purpose is to conduct scientific research, including laboratories, test facilities, measurement facilities, research computing facilities, and observatories. In addition, “expansion of existing buildings” means that space to conduct scientific research is being expanded from what is currently available for the supported research activities.
This request is for the information collection requirements associated with requesting updated information from the unfunded meritorious 2008 applicants. The information will be used to make final selections of funding recipients.
Letters of Intent are submitted by paper and full proposals are submitted by paper or electronically via
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008. We have preliminarily determined an antidumping duty margin for Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde) based upon the application of facts available with adverse inference (AFA). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act).
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the
On August 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC.
On September 30, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of Foshan Shunde and Since Hardware.
On May 1, 2009, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review until August 31, 2009.
On August 3, 2009, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. Petitioners submitted comments concerning surrogate values and factors of production in their August 13, 2009 submission. On February 26, 2009, Foshan Shunde submitted public comments concerning surrogate values and factors of production; Petitioner did not comment directly on the use of India as a surrogate country.
The Department issued its original antidumping questionnaire to Foshan Shunde on October 14, 2008. Foshan Shunde timely filed its response to Section A of the questionnaire on November 18, 2008. Foshan Shunde's Sections C and D responses followed on December 4, 2008. Petitioner filed comments on Foshan Shunde's section A response on November 24, 2008, and on the sections C and D responses on December 15, 2008.
The Department subsequently issued supplemental requests for information on February 10, 2009, April 16, 2009, May 29, 2009, and July 27, 2009. Foshan Shunde timely responded to each of these supplemental requests for information on March 18, 2009, May 1, 2009, June 22, 2009, and August 10, 2009, respectively. Petitioner commented after each Foshan Shunde response thereafter, on March 30, 2009, May 7, 2009, June 30, 2009 and August 13, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Foshan Shunde submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioner's August 13, 2009 letter. Because Foshan Shunde submitted its August 27, 2009 comments four days prior to the fully extended deadline for the Department issuing its preliminary results, we have not considered Foshan Shunde's August 27, 2009 comments in these preliminary results.
For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review.
Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board”—i.e., a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover– with or without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a Non-Market Economy (NME) shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (
As explained below, in this review we have determined that Foshan Shunde failed to provide reliable and verifiable responses to the Department's requests for information (
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Where the Department determines a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act requires the Department to inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority * * * in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.”
Finally, section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies upon secondary information rather than upon information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.”
In this case, the Department finds that Foshan Shunde has provided inaccurate and unreliable information concerning its production costs and factors of production including its steel inputs and the long products utilized in the manufacturing process. Additionally, there is evidence that Foshan Shunde has failed to completely recount the role that an affiliated company played in selling the subject merchandise. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in Foshan Shunde's questionnaire responses,
Additionally, we find that, in failing to provide reliable information in response to the Department's five requests for information (
Finally, we preliminarily determine that Foshan Shunde has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our request for information. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in Foshan Shunde's questionnaire response, necessitating reference to Foshan Shunde's business proprietary information,
For the reasons summarized above and fully discussed in the Facts Available Memorandum, we have determined the data submitted by Foshan Shunde concerning its factors of production are unreliable and inaccurate. Moreover, our analysis of these data indicate these deficiencies and irregularities taken together establish a pattern of behavior that undermines the reliability and credibility of Foshan Shunde's entire questionnaire response, including Foshan Shunde's claim for separate rate status. Furthermore, despite the Department's attempts to permit Foshan Shunde to remedy and clarify the deficiencies previously discussed, Foshan Shunde failed to do so. Therefore, the Department finds Foshan Shunde has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to its obligation to provide accurate information concerning its factors of production.
As noted above, section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate secondary information “from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal.” Independent sources used to corroborate such secondary evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties in the course of a particular segment.
The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in a previously published antidumping determination.
As to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.
The Federal Circuit has stated that Congress “intended for an adverse facts available rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent's actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance.”
In this case, the Department rejected all of Foshun Shunde's data and instead is applying AFA for the entire record. As a result, there is no reliable information on this record for which to calculate a margin for Foshun Shunde. Because of the facts of this particular case, the Department will rely on its general practice, and apply the highest calculated rate from any segment of the proceeding. The Department determines that there is no other calculated margin in the history of this antidumping duty order that would ensure that Foshun Shunde will not benefit from failing to cooperate in this administrative review.
In reviews in which the respondent does not cooperate, the Department relies upon the “common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not so, the importer knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.”
As explained above, the PRC-wide entity, which includes Foshan Shunde, withheld necessary information by failing to supply full, accurate and reliable responses to the Department's numerous requests for information. Therefore, we preliminarily determine it is appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using facts available on the record.
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margin exists:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculate importer-specific
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and this notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 15E, as described in the application and
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the Foreign-Trade Zones Board Regulations (15 CFR Part 400), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the application (filed 06/23/2009) submitted by the Yuma County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 219, Yuma, Arizona, requesting reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization, which has accepted such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.
Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation as the new grantee of Foreign Trade Zone 219, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.
Attest:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Request for comments on foreign policy-based export controls.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is reviewing the foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded or extended. To help make these determinations, BIS is seeking comments on how existing foreign policy-based export controls have affected exporters and the general public.
Comments must be received by October 8, 2009.
Comments may be sent by e-mail to
Joan Roberts, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Foreign policy-based controls in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are implemented pursuant to Section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended. The current foreign policy-based export controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are set forth in the EAR, including in parts 742 (CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls). These controls apply to a range of countries, items, activities and persons, including: entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States (§ 744.11); certain general purpose microprocessors for `military end-uses' and `military end-users' (§ 744.17); significant items (SI): hot section technology for the development, production, or overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (§ 742.14); encryption items (§ 742.15); crime control and detection commodities (§ 742.7); specially designed implements of torture (§ 742.11); certain firearms and related items based on the Organization of American States Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Munitions included within the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (§ 742.17); regional stability items (§ 742.6); equipment and related technical data used in the design, development, production, or use of certain rocket systems and unmanned air vehicles (§§ 742.5 and 744.3); chemical precursors and biological agents, associated equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of chemical and biological agents (§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various chemicals included in those controlled pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (§ 742.18); nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5); aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7); restrictions to exports on certain persons designated as weapons of mass destruction proliferators (§ 744.8); communication intercepting devices (software and technology) (§ 742.13); embargoed countries (part 746); countries designated as supporters of acts of international terrorism (§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 746.2, 746.4, 746.7, and 746.9); certain entities in Russia (§ 744.10); individual terrorists and terrorist organizations (§§ 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14); certain persons designated by Executive Order 13315 (“Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials and Their Family Members”) (§ 744.18); and certain sanctioned entities (§ 744.20). Attention is also given in this context to the controls on nuclear-related commodities and technology (§§ 742.3 and 744.2), which are, in part, implemented under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act.
Under the provisions of section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (EAA), export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-based export controls are extended. The EAA expired on August 20, 2001. Executive Order
1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve the intended foreign policy purpose, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods, software or technology proposed for such controls;
2. Whether the foreign policy objective of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;
3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall United States policy toward the country subject to the controls;
4. Whether the reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy objective or be counterproductive to United States foreign policy interests;
5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and
6. The ability of the United States to enforce the controls effectively.
BIS is particularly interested in receiving comments on the economic impact of proliferation controls. BIS is also interested in industry information relating to the following:
1. Information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (
2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners. For example, to what extent do U.S. trade partners have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations?
3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners that are similar to U.S. foreign policy-based export controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, requirements for pre- and post-shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations).
4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign policy-based export controls that would bring them more into line with multilateral practice.
5. Comments or suggestions as to actions that would make multilateral controls more effective.
6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.
7. Data or other information on the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on overall trade at the level of individual industrial sectors.
8. Suggestions as to how to measure the effect of foreign policy-based export controls on trade.
9. Information on the use of foreign policy-based export controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals.
BIS is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy-based export controls.
Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period will be considered by BIS in reviewing the controls and developing the report to Congress.
All comments must be in writing (either e-mail or on paper). All comments will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying.
These comments will be displayed on BIS's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on foreign status nylon,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to blasting and dredging operations in the USMC slipway at the Blount Island facility (MCSF-BI Slipway) in Duval County, FL. NMFS has reviewed the application, including all supporting documents, and determined that it is adequate and complete. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to ACOE and USMC to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activities within the specified geographic region.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 8, 2009.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301–713–2289, ext. 172.
Sections 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 (a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals for periods not more than one year by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment 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 to achieve the least practicable adverse impact. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ” * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (I) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a publication in the
On January 16, 2009, NMFS received a letter from the ACOE and USMC, requesting an IHA. The requested IHA would authorize the take, by Level B (behavioral) harassment, of small numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) incidental to blasting and dredging operations in the MCSF-BI Slipway. Proposed activities will include the removal of concrete sill/cemented rock by blasting and advanced maintenance dredging. The ACOE proposed to use blasting to fracture (“pre-treat”) an existing concrete sill and cemented rock in the slipway, then completely remove the pre-treated sill and cemented rock by dredging, and dredge the entire slipway from its current depth of -37 ft mean low low water (MLLW) to -47 ft MLLW. The dredging will likely be completed using a mechanical dredge (i.e., clamshell or backhoe), cutterhead dredge, and blasting. The dredging will remove approximately 750,000 cubic yards of material from the slipway. Material removed from the dredging will be placed in Dayson Island Dredge Material Management Area located at Little Marsh Island. Concrete from the sill will be removed to an offsite
The purpose of the blasting and dredging project is to remove a 430 foot (ft) (131 m) long, 32 ft (9.8 m) wide and 14 ft (4.3 m) thick rebar reinforced concrete sill and conduct advance maintenance dredging to a maximum depth of -47 ft (14.3 m) MLLW in the MCSF-BI Slipway. These areas require blasting because they are too dense to dredge. To achieve the removal of the concrete sill and rock in the MCSF-BI Slipway, pre-treatment will be required. The ACOE has used two criteria to determine which areas are most likely to need blasting for the MCSF-BI Slipway: (1) areas documented by core borings to contain hard massive rock; and (2) concrete sill that is too hard to dredge without pre-treatment. Based on evaluations of the core boring logs, and as-built information for the sill provided by the MCSF-BI, the following is an evaluation of the proposed blasting requirements for the current project. Areas currently identified as having the hardest rock and most likely in need of blasting prior to dredging include the concrete sill and the mouth of the slipway. Additional core borings were collected in October, 2008. The results of recent core borings have identified an area of 875,000 ft
The focus of the proposed blasting work at the MCSF-BI Slipway would be to pre-treat the concrete sill and any hard rock prior to removal by a dredge utilizing confined blasting, meaning the shots would be “confined” in the rock. In confined blasting, each charge is placed in a hole drilled in the rock approximately 5 to 10 ft (m) deep; depending on how much rock/concrete needs to be broken and the intended project depth. The hole is then capped with an inert material, such as crushed rock. This process is referred to as “stemming the hole.” Stemming is the process is the process of filling each borehole with crushed rock after the explosive charge has been placed. Stemming reduces the strength of the outward pressure wave produced by blasts. The ACOE has used this technique previously at the Port of Miami in 2005. NMFS issued an IHA for that operation on April 19, 2005. For the Port of Miami expansion that used blasting as a pre-treatment technique, the stemming material was angular crushed rock. The optimum size of stemming material is material that has an average diameter of approximately 0.05 times the diameter of the blast-hole. Material must be angular to perform properly (Konya, 2003). For the MCSF-BI Slipway project, the geotechnical branch of the Jacksonville District, will prepare project specific specifications. Each borehole would be drilled 5 to 10 ft into the sill or cemented rock depending on substrate density, and holes would be at least 8 ft apart. In the Miami Harbor project, the following requirements were in the specifications regarding stemming material:
1.22.9.20 Stemming
All blastholes shall be stemmed. The Blaster or Blasting Specialist shall determine the thickness of stemming using blasting industry conventional stemming calculations. The minimum stemming shall be 2 ft (0.6 m) thick. Stemming shall be placed in the blast hole in a zone encompassed by competent rock. Measures shall be taken to prevent bridging of explosive materials and stemming within the hole. Stemming shall be clean, angular to sub-angular, hard stone chips without fines having an approximate diameter of 1/2 inch to 3/8 inch. A barrier shall be placed between the stemming and explosive product, if necessary, to prevent the stemming from setting into the explosive product. Anything contradicting the effectiveness of stemming shall not extend through the stemming.
It is expected that the specifications for any construction utilizing the blasting at Blount Island would have similar stemming requirements as those that were used for the Miami Harbor project. The length of stemming material would vary based on the length of the hole drilled, however minimum lengths would be included in the project specific specifications. Studies have shown that stemmed blasts have up to a 60 to 90 percent decrease in the strength of the pressure wave released, compared to open water blasts of the same charge weight (Nedwell and Thandavamoorthy, 1992; Hempen
The size of each charge would be determined during an on-site test blast program. At this time the ACOE cannot provide detailed charge weights until after the Contractor has been selected and they assess the types of equipment necessary for use, as well as the specific drill pattern. Each charge would be limited to the lowest poundage that can adequately fracture the rock and other material. A close drill pattern could mean more holes with less explosives, while a wider pattern could mean fewer holes with more explosives. The equipment to remove the cracked rock (i.e., cutterhead dredge) could vary based on cutterhead size and horsepower the larger the head and horsepower, the less pre-treatment that is needed for blasting. The explosives would be used to remove thick rebar and concrete.
The test blast program would be conducted immediately before full-scale blasting begins to determine the smallest effective charge size. The same conservation protocols for full-scale blasting would be used for the test blast program. The test blast program begins with a range of small individual charges and progresses up to the maximum charge size necessary to effectively pre-treat the substrate. The final test event simulates the conditions anticipated during full-scale blasts including charge size, overlying water depth, charge configuration, charge separation, initiation methods, and loading conditions. Once the test blast program is completed, a regression analysis would be used to develop a complete blast plan for the entire project. The test blast program is considered part of the action.
Additional details regarding the proposed blasting and dredging project can be found in the ACOE and USMC's IHA application and Draft Environmental Assessment Removal of Concrete Sill and Advance Maintenance Dredging of Marine Corps Slipway, U.S. Marine Corps Support Facility Blount Island, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida (Draft EA). The Draft EA can also be found online at:
The ACOE expects to award the contract for construction in August, 2009; provide the Notice to Proceed to the selected contractor in October 2009, which would result in blasting between November, 2009 and March, 2010, and is expected to take up to two months.
The project is located in a pre-existing military boat basin (latitude 30.3883 N, longitude 81.5137 W) in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, at the MCSF-BI located on Blount Island along the St. Johns River (Figures 2 and 3 of ACOE's application). The project site is 10 nautical miles west of the St. Johns River outlet. Blount Island was created as a byproduct of ACOE's post-World War II dredging operations in the St. Johns River. The Draft EA provides a detailed explanation of project location as well as project implementation.
Several cetacean species and a single species of sirenian are known to or could occur in the Duval County study area and off the Southeast Atlantic coastline (see Table 1 below). Species listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), includes the humpback, sei, fin, blue, North Atlantic right, sperm whale, and Florida manatee. The marine mammals that occur in the proposed blasting area belong to three taxonomic groups: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), and sirenians (the manatee). Table 1 below outlines the cetacean species and their habitat in the region of the proposed project area.
The two species of marine mammals that are known to commonly occur in close proximity to the blasting area of the St. Johns River and Blount Island are the West Indian (Florida) manatee and Atlantic bottlenose dolphin.
The West Indian manatee in Florida and U.S. waters is managed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They primarily inhabit coastal and inshore waters. Manatee occurrences are extremely rare during winter months (December, January, and February) in typical years because of the cold water temperatures in the waterway and lack of warm water refuge sites nearby. To minimize potential involvement with manatees from underwater explosions, the optimal timeframe to utilize explosives is during the winter months of the year. The USFWS considers this timeframe “the manatee construction window” for utilizing explosives.
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters, and in U.S. waters occur in multiple complex stocks along the U.S. Atlantic coast. According to the 2008 NOAA stock assessment report of Western North Atlantic Coastal Morphotype Stocks, the coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphins is continuously distributed along the Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New York around the Florida peninsula and along the Gulf of Mexico coast. On the Atlantic coast, Scott
There are multiple lines of evidence supporting demographic separation
Given the observed patterns of residency across multiple estuaries along the Atlantic coast and the evidence of demographically distinct estuarine stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, it is highly likely that there is demographic separation between bottlenose dolphins residing within estuaries and those in nearshore coastal waters. However, the degree of spatial overlap between these populations remains unclear. Photo-identification studies within estuaries demonstrate seasonal immigration and emigration and the presence of transient animals. In addition, the degree of movement of resident estuarine animals into coastal waters on seasonal or shorter times scales is poorly understood. However, in the 2008 stock assessment report analysis, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting primarily estuarine habitats are considered distinct from those inhabiting coastal habitats (NMFS, 2008).
These complex stock segments of coastal bottlenose dolphins are based on a combination of geographical, ecological, and genetic research. However, because the data of structure of stocks is complex, coastal and continental shelf stocks may overlap, the exact structure of these stocks continues to be revised as research is completed. Analytical results of the overall genetic variation and satellite telemetry studies indicate a minimum of two migrating coastal stocks (Northern Migratory and Southern Migratory coastal stocks) as well as evidence for coastal resident stocks of coastal bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. Atlantic coast. The 2008 NOAA stock assessment report identifies seven prospective stocks of coastal morphotype bottlenose dolphins inhabiting nearshore coastal waters along the Atlantic coast.
Abundance estimates for bottlenose dolphins in each stock were calculated using line transect methods and distance analysis (Buckland
The proposed action would occur inshore and, therefore, has the potential to affect the coastal stocks. From genetic analysis, the bottlenose dolphin population around Duval County, Florida consists of part of the prospective Northern Florida stock. This stock may also include demographically distinct coastal and resident estuarine populations that are defined by seasonal migratory and transient movements throughout large home ranges. The movement along the southern portion of the Atlantic coast is poorly understood and is currently under study. The resident estuarine stocks are likely demographically distinct from coastal stocks. The estimated population for the prospective Northern Florida stock is approximately 2,502 to 3,064 animals. The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is not listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA, and one or more of the coastal migratory stocks may be depleted, therefore all stocks retain the depleted designation and are considered strategic under the MMPA.
Dr. Quinton White of Jacksonville University states dolphins are commonly seen in the vicinity of the Dames Point Bridge west and upriver of Blount Island (White, pers. comm.). The ACOE MCSF-BI Slipway project site is in the Northern Florida management unit for Atlantic bottlenose dolphin coastal morphotypes. Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are known to occur in the project area at or within a few hundred feet of the project several times a week. Dolphins, when present near the project site, usually occur in groups of two or three. Bottlenose dolphin occurrence in the Jacksonville area is year-round, however significant seasonal variation exists.
Dr. Martha Jane Caldwell (2001) completed research on the coastal and inshore bottlenose dolphin populations of the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Blount Island. Caldwell determined that there are two resident inshore populations of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in the St. Johns River, the Intracoastal South/St. Johns River population (also referred to as the Southern community) and the Intracoastal North population (also referred to as the Northern community). The Southern community inhabits the waters east (seaward) of the MCSF-BI Slipway facility, based on Caldwell's assessment (see Figure 4 of ACOE and USMC's application). The estimated size of the Southern community is 145 animals and 191 animals in the St. Johns River proper. There was significant overlap between these two groups, and Caldwell classified them as one Community the Southern Community. Using the maximum number of animals between the two groups, the ACOE will adopt a population size of 191 animals in the Southern Community.
Based on photo-identification and behavioral data, Caldwell (2001) identified three behaviorally differentiated bottlenose dolphin communities in the Jacksonville, Florida area. These three distinct communities have been called Northern, Southern, and Coastal. The Northern community has year-round residency and random social affiliations, with a mean group size of five individuals. The Southern community has seasonal residency and non-random social affiliations, with a mean group size of 22 individuals. The Coastal community has no residency and random social affiliations, with a mean group size of 17 individuals. The social structure on a small geographic scale of these three distinct populations varies based on significant genetic differentiation and behavior. Although the three Jacksonville area communities use contiguous habitats, the Northern and Southern communities are primarily inshore, and the Coastal community generally uses the coastal waters of the Jacksonville area from the beach to 1.9 miles (3 km) offshore (Caldwell, 2001). The Southern and Coastal communities have partially overlapping ranges, while the Northern and Southern community's ranges may generally be separated by the St. John's River. Also, the Southern and Coastal communities are behaviorally and genetically differentiated from the Northern community (Caldwell, 2001).
In Florida and other states along the U.S. East Coast, bottlenose dolphin abundance and density is often correlated with water temperature and season. Significantly fewer dolphins were observed during the winter season
NMFS anticipates that no bottlenose dolphins will be injured, seriously injured, or killed during the three proposed blasting events. The specific objective of the ACOE's Mitigation Plan or Protected Species Watch Plan is to ensure that no dolphins (or manatees) and other protected species are in the area and could be impacted by the blast detonations. Because of the circumstances and the proposed mitigation and monitoring requirements discussed herein this document, NMFS believes it highly unlikely that the proposed activities would result in injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality of bottlenose dolphins, however, they may temporarily avoid the area where the proposed explosive demolition will occur. The ACOE has requested the incidental take of 191 bottlenose dolphin for the duration of the proposed action. The estimated abundance of the prospective Northern Florida stock is approximately 2,502 to 3,064 animals. There is not currently a stock assessment available concerning the status of bottlenose dolphins in the inshore and nearshore waters off of Florida. NMFS has determined that the number of requested incidental takes for the proposed action are small relative to the stock population estimate of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins.
Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species and others in the region can be found in ACOE's application, which is available upon request (see
In general, potential impacts to marine mammals from explosive detonations could include both lethal and non-lethal injury (Level A harassment), as well as Level B harassment. In the absence of monitoring and mitigation, marine mammals may be killed or injured as a result of an explosive detonation due to the response of air cavities in the body, such as the lungs and bubbles in the intestines. Effects are likely to be most severe in near surface waters where the reflected shock wave creates a region of negative pressure called “cavitation.”
A second potential possible cause of mortality is the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage. Extensive lung hemorrhage is considered debilitating and potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by lung hemorrhage is likely to be the major cause of marine mammal death from underwater shock waves. The estimated range for the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage to marine mammals varies depending upon the animal's weight, with the smallest mammals having the greatest potential hazard range.
NMFS' criteria for determining non-lethal injury (Level A harassment) from explosives are the peak pressure that will result in: (1) the onset of slight lung hemorrhage, or (2) a 50 percent probability level for a rupture of the tympanic membrane (TM). These are injuries from which animals would be expected to recover on their own.
NMFS has established dual criteria for what constitutes Level B harassment: (1) An energy based temporary threshold shift (TTS) received sound levels 182 dB re 1 μPa
The primary potential impact to the Atlantic bottlenose dolphins occurring in the Blount Island action area from the proposed detonations is Level B harassment incidental to noise generated by explosives. In the absence of any monitoring or mitigation measures, there is a very small chance that a marine mammal could be injured or killed when exposed to the energy generated from an explosive force on the sea floor. However, NMFS believes the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures will preclude this possibility in the case of this particular activity.
Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A harassment) are defined in this proposed IHA as TM rupture and the onset of slight lung injury. The threshold for Level A harassment corresponds to a 50 percent rate of TM rupture, which can be stated in terms of an energy flux density (EFD) value of 205 dB re 1 μPa
Level B (non-injurious) harassment includes temporary (auditory) threshold shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity. One criterion used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 μPa
Level B harassment also includes behavioral modifications resulting from repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to the same animals (usually resident) over a relatively short period of times. Threshold criteria for this particular type of harassment are currently still being considered. One recommendation is a level of 6 dB below TTS (see 69 FR 21816, April 22, 2004), which would be 176 dB re 1 μPa
The ACOE is unable to determine if Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in the area utilize the MCSF-BI Slipway, however they do transit up and down the St. Johns River, past the slipway, and have been documented at the Dames Point Bridge west of the MCSF-BI Slipway, thus their presence in the waters adjacent to the slipway is expected. The slipway is a man-made, dead-end slip with concrete walls and a rock and sand bottom. The bottom of the river adjacent to the slip is rock and sand. The ACOE acknowledges that while the MCSF-BI Slipway may not be suitable habitat for dolphins in the St. Johns River, it is likely that animals may traverse the St. Johns River to North Biscayne Bay or offshore via the main port channel. North Atlantic right whales are highly unlikely to occur in the MCSF-BI Slipway area, as they would need to enter the river and swim 10 miles up the river to be found adjacent to the slipway.
The ACOE expects no loss or modification of habitat for the populations of marine mammals in the St. Johns River located adjacent to the
The ambient noise level of an area like MCSF-BI includes sounds from both natural (wind, waves, birds, etc.) and artificial (vehicle and ship engines, maintenance activities, etc.) sources. The strength/extent (or magnitude) and frequency of sound levels vary over the course of the day, throughout the week, and can be affected by weather conditions.
Noise generated by dredges is low frequency in nature. This low frequency noise tends to carry long distances in water, but is attenuated the further away you are from the source. Currently, periodic maintenance dredging occurs in the dredging project area, as often as every two years for the NAVSTA Mayport entrance channel and turning basin. Deepening of the Jacksonville Harbor has involved some blasting upriver from the Jacksonville Harbor Bar Cut 3 Federal navigation channel. Underwater noise as it relates to marine mammals is discussed in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the ACOE's Draft EA. Sound exposure levels measured for equipment similar to clamshell equipment used in the past to dredge the NAVSTA Mayport turning basin range between 75 and 88 dBA at 50 ft (15 m) distance from the dredging equipment (NMFS, 2007). The ACOE and USMC expect the effects on marine mammal habitat to be minimal.
NMFS anticipates that the action will result in no impacts to marine mammal habitat beyond rendering the areas immediately around the MCSF-BI Slipway less desirable shortly after each blasting event and during dredging operations. The impacts will be localized and instantaneous. Impacts to marine mammal, invertebrate, and fish species are not expected to be detrimental.
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
The ACOE and MSCF-BI plan to remove a sill consisting of 875,000 ft
These zones are considered conservative because they are based on unconfined blasts in open water. Open-water detonations produce both higher amplitude and higher frequency shock waves than contained detonations; thus, stemming charges results in reduced pressures and lower aquatic organism mortality than the same explosive charge weight detonated in open water. These same calculations were approved by NMFS for use during the Miami Harbor Project. A take by Level B harassment could occur if a marine mammal is exposed to blasting outside the Danger Zone and inside the Safety Zone.
In the MCSF-BI Slipway where blasting is required to obtain channel design depth, marine mammal protection measures shall be employed, before, during, and after each blast. The following standard conditions will be incorporated into the project specifications to reduce the risk of impacts to protected species to the lowest level practicable within the project area:
(1) Establishing a Danger, Safety, and Watch Zone for confined blasting based on the maximum weight of explosives detonated. For each explosive charge placed, detonation will not occur if a marine mammal is known to be (or based on previous sightings, may be) within a circular area around the detonation site with the following radius:
R = 260(W)
Where:
R = radius of the Danger Zone in ft
W = weight of the explosive charge in lbs (tetryl or TNT)
(2) Confining the explosives in the borehole with drill patterns restricted to a minimum of 8 ft (2.4 m) separation from any other loaded borehole;
(3) Restricting the hours of detonation from two hours after sunrise to one hour before sunset to ensure adequate observation of marine mammals in the project area;
(4) Staggering the detonation for each explosive hole in order to spread the explosive's total overpressure over time;
(5) Capping or stemming the boreholes containing explosives with angular rock or crushed stone (sized 1/20 to 1/8 of the borehole diameter) to a minimum 0of 12 inches in depth in order to reduce the outward potential of the blast, thereby reducing the change of injuring a marine mammal;
(6) Matching, the extent possible, the energy needed in the “work effort” of the borehole to the rock mass to minimize excess energy vented into the water column;
(7) A protected species watch (as described in Jordan
(8) Any marine mammal(s) in the Danger Zone or the Safety Zone shall not be forced to move out of those zones by human intervention. Detonation shall not occur until the animal(s) move(s) out of the Danger Zone and/or the Safety Zone on its own volition.
(9) In the event a marine mammal is injured, seriously injured, or killed during blasting, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer as well as the following agencies:
a. Florida Marine Patrol “Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline” 1–800–342–5367;
b. NMFS Regional Office at 727–570–5312; and
c. USFWS Vero Beach Office at 772–562–3909; and
(10) Conducting blasts during time periods of the year when there are low marine mammal abundance densities.
In the MCSF-BI Slipway or any area where explosives are required to remove materials, marine mammal protection measures will be employed by the ACOE and USMC. For each explosive charge, the ACOE would ensure that a detonation will not occur if a marine mammal is sighted by a dedicated biologically-trained observer within the
Although the area inside the Safety Zone is considered to be an area for potential injury, the ACOE, USMC, and NMFS believe that because all explosive charges will be stemmed (placed in drilled hole and tamped with rock), the areas for potential mortality and injury will be significantly smaller than this area and, therefore, it is unlikely that even non-serious injury would occur if as is believed to be the case, monitoring and mitigating this zone will be effective. Since bottlenose dolphins are commonly found on the surface of the water, implementation of a mitigation and monitoring program is expected by NMFS to be effective.
Avoiding periods when marine mammals are in the blasting zone is another mitigation measure to protect marine mammals from underwater explosions.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implanting regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that 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.
The ACOE would implement a Protected Species Watch Plan. The Protected Species Watch Plan is based on the required Danger, Safety, and Watch zones and optimal observation locations. Each zone is a concentric circle whose radius is drawn from the center of the blast array. Buoys would demarcate zones where affects are possible. The Protected Species Watch Plan would consist of six observers which include at least one aerial observer, two boat-based observers, and two observers stationed at other locations (likely on the barge used to drill boreholes). The sixth observer would be placed in the most optimal observation location (boat, barge, or aircraft) on a day-by-day basis depending on the location of the blast and the placement of the dredging equipment. Observers would have the authority to halt the event if a protected species is observed inside a restricted area. This process would help to insure complete coverage of the three zones as well as any critical areas. The Protected Species Watch Plan would begin at least one hour prior to each blast and continue for 30 min after each blast.
All observers would be equipped with marine-band VHF radios, maps of the blast zone, polarized sunglasses, and appropriate data sheets. In addition to the observation gear, all required personal protective equipment (hard hat, steel toed boots, life vest) would be worn by observers at all times with the exception of the aerial observer.
Watch hours would be restricted to between two hours after sunrise and one hour before sunset. The watch would begin at least one hour prior to the scheduled blast and would continue throughout the blast. Watch would then continue for at least 30 minutes post-blast, at which time any animals that were seen prior to the blast are visually re-located whenever possible.
If an animal is spotted inside the Danger Zone or Safety Zone and not re-sighted, no blasting would be authorized until at least 30 minutes has elapsed since the last sighting of that animal.
Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to ACOE and USMC's blasting activities would include observations made by the applicant and their associates. Information recorded would include species counts, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors before, during and after blasting activities. Observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of marine mammals in the activity area to NMFS and USFWS so that any potential follow-up observations can be conducted by the appropriate personnel. In addition, observations of tag-bearing marine mammal, sea turtles, and fish carcasses as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammals and fish would be reported to NMFS and USFWS.
If at any time injury or death of any marine mammal occurs that may be a result of the proposed blasting activities, the ACOE and USMC would suspend activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury, serious injury, or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.
Several mitigation measures to reduce the potential for harassment from explosive demolition activities would be (or are proposed to be implemented) implemented as part of the blasting and dredging activities. The potential risk of injury, serious injury, or mortality would be avoided with the following proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. Monitoring of the test area will continue throughout the activity until the last detonation is complete. The activity would be postponed if:
(1) Any marine mammal is visually detected within the Danger Zone or Safety Zone. The delay would continue until the animal(s) that caused the postponement is confirmed to be outside the Danger Zone (visually observed swimming out of the range and not likely to return).
(2) Any marine mammal is detected in the Danger Zone and subsequently is not seen again. The activity would not continue until the last verified location is outside the Danger Zone and the animal is moving away from the activity area, or the animal has not been seen for at least 30 minutes within the Danger Zone.
(3) Large schools of fish are observed in the water within the Danger Zone or Safety Zone. The delay would continue until large schools are confirmed to be outside the Safety Zone.
In the event of a postponement, pre-activity monitoring would continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. If a charge failed to explode, mitigation measures would continue while operations personnel attempted to recognize and solve the problem, i.e., detonate the charge.
Post-activity monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-activity monitoring and mitigation by reporting any sightings of dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring, concentrating on the area down current of the test site, would commence immediately following each detonation and continue for at least one hour after the last detonation. The monitoring team would document and report to the appropriate organization the marine mammals killed or injured during the activity and, if practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed by the team would be documented and reported to the project leader.
West Indian manatees, which are federally listed as Endangered under the ESA and managed by the USFWS, are not expected in the St. John's River during the time periods when the activities would be conducted. However, if manatees are sighted during the activities, the ACOE would follow similar mitigation and monitoring procedures in place for bottlenose dolphins to avoid impacts, suspending activities in any areas manatees are occupying.
The ACOE and USMC plan to coordinate monitoring with the appropriate Federal and state resource agencies, and will provide copies of all
The ACOE would notify NMFS and the Regional Office prior to initiation of each explosive demolition session. Any takes of marine mammals other than those authorized by the IHA, as well as any injuries or deaths of marine mammals, will be reported to the Southeast Regional Administrator, within 24 hours. A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the conclusion of the blasting activities. The report would include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA, including dates and times of detonations as well as pre- and post-blasting monitoring observations. A final report must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report would be considered to be the final report.
50 CFR 216.103 states that “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.”
Based on the analysis contained herein, of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the ACOE and USMC would result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from the blasting and dredging activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals.
There is no subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the waters off of the coast of Florida that implicates MMPA Section 101(a)(5)(D).
For the reasons already described in this
The ACOE has prepared a “Draft EA Removal of Concrete Sill and Advance Maintenance Dredging of Marine Corps Slipway, U.S. Marine Corps Support Facility Blount Island, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida,” which analyzed the project's purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, and environmental effects for the proposed action. The EA evaluates whether to remove the concrete sill in the MCSF-BI Slipway and conduct advance maintenance dredging from -37 to -47 ft MLLW, as well as alternatives to accomplish the MCSF-BI Slipway goal. NMFS will review the ACOE and USMC's EA and the public comments received and subsequently either adopt it or conduct a separate NEPA analysis, as necessary, prior to making a determination on the issuance of the IHA. A copy of the Draft EA is available upon request (see
Based on ACOE and USMC's application, as well as the analysis contained herein, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of the described blasting and dredging project will result, at most, in a temporary modification in behavior by small numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, in the form of temporarily vacating the MCSF-BI Slipway area to avoid blasting and dredging activities and potential for minor visual and acoustic disturbance from dredging and detonations. The effect of the blasting and dredging project is expected to be limited to short-term and localized TTS-related behavioral changes.
Due to the infrequency, short time-frame, and localized nature of these activities, the number of marine mammals, relative to the stock population size, potentially taken by harassment is small. In addition, no take by injury, serious injury, or death is anticipated, and take by Level B harassment will be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures mentioned previously in this document. NMFS has further preliminarily determined that the anticipated takes will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammals. No injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, and/or mortality is expected or authorized for marine mammals. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply to this proposed action as there are no subsistence users within the geographic area of the proposed project.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the ACOE for the harassment of small numbers (based on populations of the species and stock) of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin incidental to blasting and dredging operations, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed project and NMFS' preliminary determination of issuing an IHA (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Vessel Monitoring System Committee (VMSC) will hold a working meeting, which is open to the public.
The VMSC meeting will be held Tuesday, October 6, 2009, from 10 a.m. until business for the day is completed.
The VMSC meeting will be held at the Marriot Residence Inn, Portland Airport, Cascade Station, Mount Hood Room, 9301 NE Cascade Parkway, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: (503) 284–1800.
Mr. Jim Seger, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
The purpose of the VMSC meeting is to review performance of the VMS program and develop recommendations that might be implemented through the 2011–12 biennial specifications process. No management actions will be decided by the VMSC. The VMSC's role will be development of recommendations to be provided for consideration by the Pacific Council at its November 2009 Costa Mesa, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the VMSC for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal VMSC action during this meeting. VMSC action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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 VMSC'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 Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Salmon Subcommittee, and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will review proposed salmon methodology and conservation objective changes in a joint work session, which is open to the public.
The work session will be held Monday, October 5, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesday October 6, 2009 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The work session will be held at the Council Office, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
Mr. Chuck Tracy, Salmon Management Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820–2280.
The purpose of the work session is to brief the STT and SSC Salmon Subcommittee on proposed changes to methods and standards used to manage ocean salmon fisheries. The work session will include review of the Klamath River fall Chinook maturity boundary, an assessment of September ocean fishing impacts for Klamath and Sacramento River fall Chinook, an update on methods to forecast ocean abundance of Columbia River fall Chinook, an analysis of bias in Chinook and Coho Fishery Regulation Assessment Models (FRAM) due to multiple encounters in mark-selective fisheries, and proposed changes to the conservation objectives for Puget Sound coho and possibly Oregon coastal Chinook.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STT, SSC Salmon Subcommittee, and MEW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG).
The meeting will be held on September 24, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held at the United States Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230.
Joe Gattuso at (202) 482–0977 or jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov; and/or visit NTIA's Web site at
According to the Act, the OSTWG is tasked with evaluating industry efforts to promote a safe online environment for children. The Act requires the OSTWG to report its findings and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and to Congress within one (1) year after its first meeting.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. For information on the net subsidy for each company reviewed, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Robert Copyak or Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230;
On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the
On August 29, 2008, we received a timely request for review from petitioners
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO (and its affiliates POCOS and POSTEEL).
In this administrative review, record evidence indicates that POCOS is a majority-owned production affiliate of POSCO. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department
Products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7210.30.0000, 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.30.15.0000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.39.5000, 7217.90.1000 and 7217.90.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the AUL from the IRS tables is significant. According to the IRS tables, the AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-year AUL.
In their February 9, 2009, submission petitioners allege that Dongbu was uncreditworthy during 2004 through 2007. The examination of creditworthiness is an attempt to determine if the company in question could obtain long-term financing from conventional commercial sources.
As explained in the Department's memorandum dated August 31, 2009, we find that Dongbu obtained comparable loans from commercial lending institutions that coincide with the time period during which petitioners allege Dongbu was uncreditworthy.
For those programs requiring the application of a won-denominated, short-term interest rate benchmark, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our benchmark the company-specific weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans outstanding during the POR. Where no such benchmark instruments are available, we used national average lending rates for the POR, as reported in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF)
For document acceptance (D/A) loans rediscounted under the Korean Export Import Bank's (KEXIM's) rediscount program, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii), we used, for benchmark purposes, usance loans issued by commercial banks to the respondent firms. This approach is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii) and the Department's practice.
During the POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO had outstanding
(1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, we used the company-specific weighted-average foreign currency-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign securities, and direct foreign loans outstanding during the POR. Where no such benchmark instruments were available, and consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), as well as our practice, we relied on the national average lending rates as reported by the IMF's
(2) For countervailable, won-denominated long-term loans, we used, where available, the company-specific interest rates on the company's comparable commercial, won-denominated loans. If such loans were not available, we used, where available, the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds, as we determined that the GOK did not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i), our benchmarks take into consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For countervailable fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were issued. For countervailable variable-rate loans outstanding during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i), we used the interest rates of variable-rate lending instruments issued during the year in which the government loans were issued. Where such benchmark instruments were unavailable, we used interest rates from debt instruments issued during the POR as such rates also reflect a variable interest rate that would be in effect during the POR.
Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For example, in the
The benefit from this program is the difference that the revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. Evidence on the record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO made an asset revaluation that increased its depreciation expense. To calculate the benefit to POSCO, we took the additional depreciation listed in the tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's asset revaluation, and multiplied that amount by the tax rate applicable to that tax return. We then divided the resulting benefit by POSCO's total free on board (f.o.b.) sales.
The GOK, through the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE),
In the
HYSCO and POSCO were the only responding companies that benefitted from this program during the POR. Both HYSCO and POSCO participated in projects indirectly through KANIST. POSCO also participated indirectly through the Korea Construction Equipment Research Association (KCERA). Both companies claim that projects for which grants were received from the government were not related to subject merchandise.
Upon review of the information submitted by HYSCO, we preliminarily determine that certain grants pertain specifically to production of a product that is not subject merchandise.
HYSCO and POSCO, however, did report receiving certain grants related to new technologies that are applicable to both inputs of subject merchandise as well as subject merchandise.
To determine the benefit from the grants that HYSCO and POSCO received through KANIST, we calculated the GOK's contribution for each R&D project that was apportioned to each company.
With respect to POSCO's project with KCERA, we performed the grant calculation applying the same methodology described above for the grants received through KANIST. For the POR, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for the grant received through KCERA under this program to be less than 0.005 percent
The GOK, through the MKE, provides R&D grants to promote a company's productivity and industrial competitiveness using industrial technology (IT) infrastructure under the Promotion of Industrial Technology Innovation Act (PITIA), which was established in 2006. The funding of an R&D project under the PITIA is shared by the company and the GOK, with the government contributing up to 50 percent of the project's costs. To be eligible to participate in this program, the applicant must meet the qualifications set forth in the basic plan issued by MKE and perform R&D as set forth in the Notice of IT Innovation Network Organization Business. Applications are submitted to the Korea E-Business Association. If a company's application is approved, MKE and the company enter into an R&D contract and MKE provides the grants. R&D grants under the PITIA are provided with respect to specific projects, which are generally multi-year projects, where the amount of funds to be received each year from the GOK is set out in the original contract.
During the POR, HYSCO was the only responding company that benefitted from this program. HYSCO reported that it led a consortium of several companies in a project for IT network innovation and that the project was unrelated to the production of subject merchandise.
In its response, the GOK provided a copy of the “Notice for Recruiting Participating Industries in IT Innovation Network Organization Business for
Because R&D grants under the PITIA were expressly limited to certain industries in 2006, we preliminarily find that this program is
With respect to HYSCO's statement that the R&D grants are unrelated to the production of subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that the information on the record demonstrates that the grants for IT network innovation benefit the company's business processes and all of its product lines and, therefore, the grants are not limited to non-subject merchandise.
KEXIM supplies two types of short-term loans for exporting companies, short-term trade financing and comprehensive export financing. KEXIM provides short-term loans to Korean exporters that manufacture goods under export contracts. The loans are provided up to the amount of the bill of exchange or contracted amount less any amount already received. For comprehensive export financing loans, KEXIM supplies short-term loans to any small or medium-sized company, or any large company that is not included in the five largest conglomerates based on their comprehensive export performance. To obtain the loans, companies must report their export performance periodically to KEXIM for review. Comprehensive export financing loans cover from 50 to 90 percent of the company's export performance; however, the maximum loan amount is restricted to 30 billion won.
In
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), to calculate the benefit under this program, we compared the amount of interest paid under the program to the amount of interest that would have been paid on a comparable commercial loan. As our benchmark, we used the short-term interest rates discussed above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by the f.o.b. value of the respective company's total exports. On this basis, we determine the net subsidy rate to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for Dongbu. In the case of HYSCO and POSCO, we find the net subsidy rate to be less than 0.005 percent
Under Article 46 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Industrial Cluster Act), a state or local government may provide tax exemptions as prescribed by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. In accordance with this authority, Article 276 of the Local Tax Act provides that an entity that acquires real estate in a designated industrial complex for the purpose of constructing new buildings or enlarging existing facilities is exempt from the acquisition and registration tax. In addition, the entity is exempt from 50 percent of the property tax on the real estate (
During the POR, pursuant to Article 276 of the Local Tax Act, HYSCO received exemptions from the acquisition tax, registration tax, and property tax based on the location of its manufacturing facilities, Suncheon Works, in the Yulchon Industrial Complex, a government-sponsored industrial complex designated under the Industrial Cluster Act. In addition, HYSCO received an exemption from the local education tax during the POR. The local education tax is levied at 20 percent of the property tax. The property tax exemption, therefore, results in an exemption of the local education tax. Dongbu and POSCO did not receive tax exemptions under Article 276 during the POR.
In the
To calculate the benefit, we divided HYSCO's total tax exemptions by the company's total f.o.b. sales value for 2007. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate to be less than 0.005 percent
The GOK's overall development plan is published every 10 years and describes the nationwide land development goals and plans for the balanced development of the country. Under these plans, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCAT) prepares and updates its Asan Bay Area Broad Development Plan.
In the
In the
Consistent with the
Under the Harbor Act, companies are allowed to construct infrastructure facilities at Korean ports; however, these facilities must be deeded back to the government. Because the ownership of these facilities reverts to the government, the government compensates private parties for the construction of these infrastructure facilities. Because a company must transfer to the government its infrastructure investment, under the Harbor Act, the GOK grants the company free usage of the facility and the right to collect fees from other users of the facility for a limited period of time. Once a company has recovered its cost of constructing the infrastructure, the company must pay the same usage fees as other users of the infrastructure. In the
In the
The Energy Savings Fund (ESF) program provides financing for investment in projects and equipment that use energy efficiently. In the
We performed the loan benefit calculation applying the long-term benchmark interest rates described above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. For the POR, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate under the ESF loan program to be less than 0.005 percent
During the POR, HYSCO received energy-related grants under the Act on the Promotion of the Development of Alternative Energy (Alternative Energy Act) for an R&D project in which the company participated with other firms.
We calculated the GOK's contribution to the project that was apportioned to HYSCO and then, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), determined whether to allocate the non-recurring benefit from the grant over HYSCO's AUL by dividing the total amount of the GOK's contribution by HYSCO's total sales in the year the grants were approved. Because the amount of the grants is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, we expensed the benefits from the grants to the year of receipt. We preliminarily determine the subsidy rate under this program to be less than 0.005 percent
The GOK enacted KEXIM's Trade Bill Rediscount program in July 1998. From July 1998 to May 2004, KEXIM rediscounted the actual D/A and export letter of credit (L/C) (
The Department found this program countervailable in the
We also find that companies do not know whether commercial banks subsequently rediscount their D/A loans with KEXIM nor does KEXIM link rediscounts to individual loans or exporters. Further, we find that KEXIM's rediscount ceiling represents only a portion of participating banks' total discounts on export loans during
To determine whether a benefit was conferred, we first compared the amount Dongbu paid on its D/A loans outstanding during the POR to the amount it would pay on comparable commercial short-term financing that it could obtain on the market.
Of the D/A loans rediscounted under KEXIM's trade bill rediscount program, Dongbu received D/A loans from such government-owned banks as the Korean Development Bank (KDB). In the
To calculate the benefit, we compared the amount of interest paid on the government loan to the amount of interest that would have been paid on comparable commercial short-term financing that could have been obtained on the market.
We preliminarily determine that POSCO and HYSCO did not use this program during the POR.
In
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(c)(2) and (4), we calculated the benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate loan received prior to 2002 as the difference between the actual amount of interest paid on the directed loan during the POR and the amount of interest that would have been paid during the POR at the benchmark interest rate. We conducted our benefit calculations using the benchmark interest rates described in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. For foreign currency-denominated loans, we converted the benefits into Korean won. We then summed the benefits from each company's long-term fixed-rate and variable-rate loans.
To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the companies' total benefits by their respective total f.o.b. sales values during the POR, as this program is not tied to exports or a particular product. In calculating the net subsidy rate for POSCO, we removed from the denominator sales made between affiliated parties.
The GOK enacted the Overseas Resource Development (ORD) Business Act in order to establish the foundation for securing the long-term supply of essential energy and major material minerals, which are mostly imported because of scarce domestic resources. Pursuant to Article 11 of this Act, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE) annually announces its budget and the eligibility criteria to obtain a loan from MKE. Any company that meets the eligibility criteria may apply for a loan to MKE. The loan evaluation committee evaluates the applications, selects the recipients and gets the approval from the minister of MKE. For projects that are related to petroleum and natural gas, the Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) lends the funds to the company for foreign resources development. An approved company enters into a borrowing agreement with KNOC for the development of the selected resource. Two types of loans are provided under this program: “General loans” and “success-contingent loans.” For a success-contingent loan, the repayment obligation is subject to the results of the development project. In the event that the project fails, the company will be exempted from all or a portion of the loan repayment obligation. However, if the project succeeds, a portion of the project income is payable to KNOC.
During the POR, POSCO reported in its 2006–2007 audited non-consolidated financial statements that it had received a success-contingent loan from KNOC.
Dongbu and HYSCO did not use this program during the POR.
In
HYSCO, Dongbu, and POSCO had long-term loans that were issued by the KDB, a government policy bank, in years 2002 through 2007 on which they made interest payments during the POR. Therefore, in these preliminary results, we have analyzed whether the long-term KDB loans are countervailable. First, we analyzed whether the KDB issued long-term loans to respondents and/or the Korean steel industry in a manner that was specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act.
The Department has previously determined that long-term loans issued by the KDB during the period 2002 through 2006 are not
Where the Department finds no
(I) The actual recipients of the subsidy whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis are limited in number.
(II) An enterprise or industry is a predominant user of the subsidy.
(III) An enterprise or industry receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy.
(IV) The manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or industry is favored over others.
In response to the Department's request, the GOK provided the Department with a breakdown of the issuance of long-term lending by the KDB, by industry, for the years 2001 through 2007.
Based on our analysis of the long-term KDB lending data coupled with the KDB lending data reported by POSCO, Dongbu, and HYSCO in their respective questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that respondent firms, as individual enterprises, did not receive KDB loans in a manner that was
On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the long-term loans that POSCO, Dongbu, and HYSCO received from the KDB during the years 2002 through 2007 are not specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act, and, therefore, we preliminarily determine that they are not countervailable.
Under Article 94 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and its enforcement decree, a company that invests in facilities to promote employees' welfare may deduct an amount equivalent to 7 percent of the acquisition value of the facilities from its income tax.
In its November 25, 2008, Questionnaire Response, the GOK explained that the eligibility requirement for home-produced machines and materials in the Tax Reduction and Control Act (TERCL) Article 88 (the predecessor program to RSTA Article 94) was deleted through amendment by Act No. 5534 of April 10, 1998 in compliance with eliminating prohibited subsidies under the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Reserve for Research and Manpower Development Fund Under RSTA Article 9 (TERCL Article 8);
• RSTA Article 11: Tax Credit for Investment in Equipment to Development Technology and Manpower (TERCL Article 10);
• Reserve for Export Loss Under TERCL Article 16;
• Reserve for Overseas Market Development Under TERCL Article 17;
• Reserve for Export Loss Under TERCL Article 22;
• Exemption of Corporation Tax on Dividend Income from Overseas Resources; Development Investment Under TERCL Article 24;
• Tax Credits for Temporary Investments Under TERCL Article 27;
• Social Indirect Capital Investment Reserve Funds Under TERCL Article 28;
• Energy-Savings Facilities Investment Reserve Funds Under TERCL Article 29;
• Reserve for Investment (Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas Under TERCL Articles 41–45);
• Tax Credits for Specific Investments Under TERCL Article 71;
• Emergency Load Reduction Program;
• Electricity Discounts Under the Requested Loan Adjustment Program;
• Electricity Discounts Under the Emergency Load Reductions Program;
• Export Industry Facility Loans and Specialty Facility Loans;
• Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of a Metropolitan Area;
• Short-Term Trade Financing Under the Aggregate Credit Ceiling Loan Program Administered by the Bank of Korea;
• Industrial Base Fund;
• Excessive Duty Drawback;
• Private Capital Inducement Act;
• Scrap Reserve Fund;
• Special Depreciation of Assets on Foreign Exchange Earnings;
• Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance Corporation;
• Loans from the National Agricultural Cooperation Federation;
• Tax Incentives from Highly Advanced Technology Businesses Under the Foreign Investment and Foreign Capital Inducement Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for Dongbu to be 0.21 percent
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailable duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on shipments of the subject merchandise produced by Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4), representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping order on corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). This review covers seven manufacturers and/or exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. (Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine that Union made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We preliminarily determine that HYSCO and POSCO have not made sales below NV.
In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for an individual review, we have preliminarily determined a margin for those companies that were not selected for individual review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
September 8, 2009.
Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all others), and Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973, (202) 482–4161, and (202) 482–5075, respectively.
On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order on CORE from Korea.
On December 8, 2008, the Department selected HYSCO and Union as mandatory respondents in this review.
On July 2, 2009, we published the notice of rescission of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Dongkuk because it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our resources and found it practicable to review POSCO as a voluntary respondent. Specifically, in other antidumping duty cases being conducted by the office, several review requests were withdrawn and/or respondents have ceased participating in the review. Moreover, POSCO submitted a timely response to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we selected POSCO as a voluntary respondent in the instant review.
At the time we issued the questionnaire, during the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which HYSCO and Union participated,
On April 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fifteenth administrative review to August 31, 2009.
On February 11, 2009, HYSCO submitted its sections A–D response to the Department's initial questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A–C on May 21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D on August 27, 2009. HYSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. The Department has used the COP database submitted on May 21, 2009, for these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results.
On January 14, 2009, Union submitted its section A response to the initial questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, Union submitted its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire. On April 9, 2009, and June 24, 2009, Union submitted its responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A–C. Union submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Union submitted its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D. The Department has used the COP database submitted on February 4, 2009, for these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results.
On February 11, 2009 (the deadline applied to HYSCO), POSCO submitted its sections A through D response to the initial questionnaire. On August 7, 2009, POSCO submitted its response the Department's supplemental questionnaire for Section D. POSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009.
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.
This order covers flat–rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron–based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat–rolled products of non–rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges (
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CORE products produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CORE sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V physical characteristics reported by each respondent.
To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price (EP) or Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted–average prices for NV and
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices and the applicable delivery terms to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for a number of Union's U.S. sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP where the record established that sales made by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union were made in the United States after importation. HYSCO's, POSCO's, and Union's respective affiliates in the United States (1) took title to the subject merchandise and (2) invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise to those U.S. customers. Thus, where appropriate, the Department determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duty, credit expenses, warranty expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United States associated with economic activity in the United States.
In its section A questionnaire response, HYSCO requested that the Department excuse it from reporting information for certain POR sales of subject merchandise imported by its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO America Company (HAC), that were further manufactured after importation and sold as non–subject merchandise in the United States, claiming that determining CEP for sales through HAC would be unreasonably burdensome.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that when the value added in the United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use one of the following prices to determine CEP if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis of comparison and the use of such sales is appropriate: (1) the price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person.
The record evidence shows that the value added by the affiliated party to the subject merchandise after importation in the United States was significantly greater than the 65 percent threshold we use in determining whether the value added in the United States by an affiliated party substantially exceeds the value of the subject merchandise.
The appropriate methodology for determining the CEP for sales whose value has been substantially increased through U.S. further manufacturing generally must be made on a case–by-case basis. In this instance, we find that there is a reasonable quantity of sales of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated person for comparison purposes.
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted inland freight from the plant to distribution warehouse, warehouse expense, inland freight from the plant/warehouse to customer, and packing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B). Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit and warranty expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue and applied billing adjustments to the gross unit price.
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether EP or CEP sales and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's–length) customers. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and we were unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences attributable to differences in LOTs.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company–specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the August 31, 2009, “Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,” “Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),” and “Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.” the public versions of which are on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building.
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which HYSCO, POSCO, and Union participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test for each of these companies. Therefore, for this review, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products under consideration for the determination of NV may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted a COP investigation of sales in the home market by HYSCO, POSCO and Union.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the Department calculated company–specific COPs for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We relied on the COP data as submitted by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except for POSCO, where we excluded gains and losses related to disposition and valuation of trading securities from the calculation of financial expense ratio.
In determining whether home market sales had been made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared the model–specific, weighted–average COPs to home market sales prices of the foreign like product. For this comparison, the Department adjusted the reported home market sales prices (not including value added tax (VAT)) by applying billing adjustments, adding interest revenue, and deducting movement charges, discounts, and rebates, as appropriate.
To determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, the Department examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that sales of that model were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Because the Department compared prices to average COPs in the POR, the Department has also determined that the below–cost prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded the below–cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
We tested and identified below–cost home market sales for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union. For each company we disregarded individual below–cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
HYSCO and POSCO also reported that they made sales in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter,
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the reported home market prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers with applied billing adjustment, including interest revenue and net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, rebates, and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted–average dumping margins exist:
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer–specific assessment rates for each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer–specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Establish the FY 2009 schedule of fees.
The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization (SRO) rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 1 Appendix B) (National Futures Association (NFA), a registered futures association, and the contract markets are referred to as SROs). The calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2009 is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2006, 2007, and 2008, as explained below. The FY 2009 fee schedule is set forth in the
Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5157, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Angela Clark, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5178.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations
Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission:
The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year with the intention of recovering the costs of operating this Commission program.
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commission-wide costs: indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 109 percent for fiscal year 2006, 140 percent for fiscal year 2007, and 144 percent for fiscal year 2008.
Under the formula adopted in 1993 (58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which appears at 17 CFR Part 1 Appendix B, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year. Adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs.
The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.
The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt =
This table summarizes the data used in the calculations and the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal $124,466.
b. The alternative computation is:
c. The fee is the lesser of
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2007 through 2009 was $179,641 (one-third of $538,923). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $179,641.
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds (See 31 U.S.C. 3720). For information about electronic payments, please contact Angela Clark at (202) 418–5178 or
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
On September 1, 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee announced that it will conduct a meeting on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, from 8 a.m. until 11 a.m. in the Commission's New York Regional Office, 140 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10005, and is open to the public.
That Notice is corrected as follows:
The public access call-in number for U.S. and Canada is (888) 691–4252.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of Publication.
In accordance with section 2330a of Title 10 United States Code as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08) section 807, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (DASN) for Acquisition and Logistics Management (A&LM) and the Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) will make available, to the public, an inventory of activities performed pursuant to contracts for services. The inventory will be published to the ASN (RDA) Web site at the following location:
Inventory is to be made publically available not later than 30 days after August 4, 2009—the date which the DON inventory report was submitted to Congress.
Send written comments and suggestions concerning the inventory to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition and Logistics Management, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Suite BF–992, Washington DC 20350–1000.
Mr. Roger Yee, Strategic Sourcing, (703)
The FY08 NDAA section 807 amends section 2330a of Title 10 United States Code to require annual inventories and reviews of activities performed on services contracts. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) (DUSD(AT)) transmitted the Department of Navy inventory to Congress on August 4, 2009.
The Office of the DASN (A&LM) submitted the Department of Navy Fiscal Year 2008 Services Contract Inventory to the Office of the DPAPSS on June 30, 2009. Included with this inventory was a narrative that described the data collection process, the inventory data, and the on-going inventory review process. The inventory included such information as: calculated contractor full time equivalents; and, contract costs by organization, location, function, contract type, and funding source. The full report is located at the following Web site:
10 U.S.C. 2330a, part 137.
Department of the Air Force, US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) meeting will take place on Wednesday and Thursday, October 7th–October 8th, 2009 at the SAF/AQ Conference and Innovation Center, 1560 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209. The meeting on Wednesday, October 7th, will be from 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m., and the meeting on Thursday, October 8th, will be from 7:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.
The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to introduce the FY10 SAB study topics tasked by the Secretary of the Air Force and receive presentations that address relevant subjects to the SAB mission. The briefings and discussion will include presentations from senior Air Force and other DoD leadership. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.155, the Administrative Assistant of the Air Force, in consultation with the Office of the Air Force General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that some sessions of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by sections 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4). The two sessions on 7 Oct 09, from 0800–0945, will be open to the general public. The remaining sessions on 7 Oct 09 and 8 Oct 09 will be closed to the general public.
Because the meeting will take place in a controlled facility and seating is limited, any member of the general public wishing to attend the 7 Oct 09, 0800–0945, sessions need to call 301–981–7147 and provide their name not later than Monday, 5 Oct 09. You will need to arrive at the meeting facility between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. that morning and have valid government identification in your possession.
Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board can also submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
The United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer, Lt Col Anthony M. Mitchell, 301–981–7135, United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1602 California Avenue, Suite #251, Andrews AFB, MD 20762,
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed priorities.
The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes one absolute priority for each of the four special focus competitions conducted by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE): the EU-U.S. Atlantis Program, the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program, and the U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education.
The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and in later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified need in the area of postsecondary education. We intend these absolute priorities to improve postsecondary education opportunities by supporting the formation of international educational consortia and encouraging cooperation in the coordination of curricula, the
We must receive your comments on or before October 8, 2009.
Address all comments about this notice to Sarah Beaton, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6154, Washington, DC 20006–8544.
If you prefer to send your comments by e-mail, use the following address:
Sarah Beaton. Telephone: (202) 502–7621 or by
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 6154, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Currently, the Secretary implements the EU-U.S. Atlantis Program, the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education Program, the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program, and the U.S.-Russia Program: Improving Research and Educational Activities in Higher Education through the use of invitational priorities announced in notices inviting applications that are published in the
The following proposed absolute priorities support the formation of international educational consortia and encourage cooperation in the coordination of curricula; the exchange of students, if pertinent to grant activities; and the opening of educational opportunities between the U.S. and the respective countries involved in each of the programs. Therefore, only applications proposing projects addressing the absolute priority will be reviewed and considered for award; applications that do not address the absolute priority will be disqualified.
This priority supports the formation of educational consortia between the EU and U.S. institutions. To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a project that encourages cooperation in the coordination of curricula; the exchange of students, if pertinent to grant activities; and the opening of educational opportunities between the U.S. and countries in the EU. In order to be eligible for an award under this priority, the applicant in the U.S. must be a U.S. institution and the applicant in the EU must be an EU institution.
EU institutions participating in any consortium proposal under this priority may apply to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC), European Commission for funding under a separate but parallel EU competition.
This priority supports the formation of educational consortia of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican institutions. To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a project that supports cooperation in the coordination of curricula; the exchange of students, if pertinent to grant activities; and the opening of educational opportunities among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In order to be eligible for an award under this priority, the applicant in the U.S. must be a U.S. institution, the applicant in Mexico must be a Mexican institution, and the applicant in Canada must be a Canadian institution. Canadian and Mexican institutions participating in any consortium proposal under this priority may apply, respectively, to Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) or the Mexican Secretariat for Public Education (SEP), for funding under separate but parallel Canadian and Mexican competitions.
This priority supports the formation of educational consortia of U.S. and Brazilian institutions. To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a project that supports cooperation in the coordination of curricula; the exchange of students, if pertinent to grant activities; and the opening of educational opportunities between the U.S. and Brazil. In order to be eligible for an award under this priority, the applicant in the U.S. must be a U.S. institution and the applicant in Brazil must be a Brazilian institution. Brazilian institutions participating in any consortium proposal under this priority may apply to the Coordination of Improvement of Personnel of Superior Level (CAPES), Brazilian Ministry of Education, for funding under a separate but parallel Brazilian competition.
This priority supports the formation of educational consortia of U.S. and Russian institutions to encourage mutual socio-cultural-linguistic cooperation; the coordination of joint development of curricular, educational materials; and the exchange of students. In order to be eligible for an award under this priority, the applicant in the U.S. must be a U.S. institution and the applicant in Russia must be a Russian institution. Russian institutions participating in any consortium proposal under this priority may apply to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science for funding under a separate but parallel Russian competition.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the
This notice does
The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering these programs effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EAC announces an information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. The EAC, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii), intends to submit this proposed information collection (Evaluation of EAC Educational Products) to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The Evaluation of EAC Educational Products (Evaluation) asks election officials questions concerning the effectiveness, use, and overall satisfaction with the educational products by State and local election officials. The results of the evaluation will be used internally as a decision-making tool to guide the EAC's determination about future updates and reprints of these work products. Section 202 of HAVA requires EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information related to the administration of Federal elections. Section 202(3) authorizes EAC to conduct studies and to carry out other duties and activities to promote the effective administration of Federal elections.
Written comments must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on November 9, 2009.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically to
Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson or Ms. Shelly Anderson at (202) 566–3100.
There is one online survey for local election officials and one online survey for State election officials. Each survey is estimated to take 40 minutes to complete.
There will be three focus groups held with approximately 10 participants per group. Each focus group meeting is expected to last one and one-half hours.
The following categories of information will be requested of local and State election officials via the surveys and focus groups:
• Familiarity with the EAC educational products;
• Use of EAC educational products;
• The impact of having used EAC educational products on administrative and/or election processes; and,
• Recommendations for improving existing products and/or creation of additional products.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EAC announces an information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. The EAC, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii), intends to submit this proposed information collection (2010
Written comments must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on November 9, 2009.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically to
Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson or Ms. Shelly Anderson at (202) 566–3100.
(a) Total number of registered voters; (b) Number of active and inactive registered voters; (c) Number of persons who registered to vote on Election Day—only applicable to States with Election Day registration; (d) Number of voters who registered using online registration—only applicable to States that allow online registration: (e) Number of voter registration applications received from all sources; (f) Number of voter registration applications that were duplicates, invalid or rejected, new, changes of name, address, party, and not categorized; (g) Number of duplicate registration applications received from all sources; (h) Total number of removal/confirmation notices mailed to voters and the reason for removal; (i) total number of voters removed from the registration list or moved to the inactive registration list.
(a) Total number of UOCAVA absentee ballots transmitted, returned, cast, and counted; (b) Total number of UOCAVA absentee ballots not counted and the reason for rejection; (c) Total number of Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots returned and cast by UOCAVA voters; (d) Number of UOCAVA ballots transmitted as part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests; (e) Number of UOCAVA ballots transmitted as part of the two-election cycle of automatic requests that were returned undeliverable and submitted for counting.
(a) Total number of precincts in the state/jurisdiction; (b) Number of polling places available for voting in the November 2010 Federal general election; (c) Number of poll workers used for Election Day; (d) Extent to which jurisdictions had enough poll workers available for the general election.
(a) Total number of persons who voted in the 2010 Federal general election; (b) The source of the participation number—poll books, ballots counted, vote history; (c) Total number of first-time voters who registered by mail and were required to provide identification in order to vote; (d) Number of voters who appeared on the permanent absentee voter registration list; (e) Number of absentee ballots requested, received, counted, and not counted; (f) Reasons for absentee ballot rejection; (g) Number of provisional ballots cast, counted, and rejected; (h) Reasons for provisional ballot rejection; (i) Use of electronic and printed poll books during the 2010 Federal general election; (j) Type and number of voting equipment used for the 2010 Federal general election; (k)Type of process in which voting equipment was used—precinct, absentee, early vote site, accessible to disabled voters, provisional voting; (l) Location in which votes were tallied—central location, precinct/polling place, or early vote site; (m) General comments regarding the jurisdiction's Election Day experiences.
Total number of votes cast—at polling places, via absentee ballot, at early vote centers, via provisional ballots.
(a) Information on whether the state is exempt from the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); (b) State definition of terms—over-vote, under-vote, blank ballot, void/spoiled ballot, provisional/challenged ballot; (c) State definition of inactive and active voter; (d) State provision for voter identification at registration, for in-person voting, and for mail-in or absentee voting; (e) information on legal citation for changes to election laws or procedures enacted or adopted since the previous Federal general election; (f) State definition of voter registration; (g) Process used for moving voters from active to inactive lists and from inactive to active; (h) State deadline for registration for the Federal general election; (i) Information of whether the state is an Election Day/Same Day Registration state; (j) Description of state voter registration database system—bottom-up or top-down; (k) State voter removal/confirmation notices processes; (l) Agency or department that is responsible for list maintenance; (m) Information on whether there are electronic links between the voter registrar's office and other state agencies; (n) State's use of National Change of Address (NCOA); (o) State's voting eligibility requirements as they relate to convicted felons; (p) Tabulation
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) hereby causes to be published in the
This notice is effective upon publication in the
Bryan Whitener, Telephone 202–566–3100 or 1–866–747–1471 (toll-free).
On March 24, 2004, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission published in the
The revised State plans from Maryland, Nebraska, and New Mexico provide information on program accomplishments and address changes in the respective budgets to account for the use of Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 requirements payments. In accordance with HAVA section 254(a)(12), all the State plans submitted for publication provide information on how the respective State succeeded in carrying out its previous State plan. The States all confirm that these changes to their respective State plans were developed and submitted to public comment in accordance with HAVA sections 254(a)(11), 255, and 256.
Upon the expiration of thirty days from September 8, 2009, the State is eligible to implement the changes addressed in the plan that is published herein, in accordance with HAVA section 254(a)(11)(C).
EAC wishes to acknowledge the effort that went into revising this State plan and encourages further public comment, in writing, to the State election official listed below.
Thank you for your interest in improving the voting process in America.
On July 6, 2009, Muskingum Valley Hydro filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Muskingum Valley Hoover Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13535, to be located at the existing Hoover Dam, on the Big Walnut River, in Franklin County, Ohio. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The existing Hoover Dam is owned and operated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and includes the existing reservoir, dam, outlet works, and tailrace. The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 85.5-foot-high earth fill concrete gravity Hoover Dam equipped with a 680-foot-long ogee spillway; (2) an existing 3,272-acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation 890 feet mean sea level; (3) a new 30-foot-long by 30-foot-wide powerhouse containing two turbine generator units for a total installed capacity of 3.5 megawatts; (4) a new 600-foot-long, 14.7-kilovolt transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would operate in run-of-river mode and generate an estimated average annual generation of 30,600,000 kilowatt-hours.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
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 electric reliability filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that on August 28, 2009, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, and Rule 206 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.206, Ameren Services Company (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Prairieland Energy, Inc (Respondent) alleging that the Respondent violated its service agreement by failing to provide information concerning the operation of its behind-the-meter generation. Complainant also assert that Respondent was billed for service based on net load rather than gross load in violation of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. open access transmission tariff and related business practice manuals.
Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served on the representatives of Respondent.
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 online at
Take notice that on August 26, 2009, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed proposed
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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
Take notice that on August 14, 2009, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. filed amendments to Attachment M,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
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
Take notice that on August 31, 2009, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. filed a refund report in compliance with the Commission's order issued July 16, 2009,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Silver Sage Windpower, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 21, 2009.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of First Wind Energy Marketing, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 21, 2009.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that on August 31, 2009, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. (CPG) filed a Revised Rate Summary pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations. CPG filed to update its section 311 rate elections in Docket No. PR09–27–000 to reflect the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's August 27, 2009, adoption of new rates for city-gate transportation service under Rate Schedule GD and storage service under Rate Schedule S of CPG's tariff: Gas—PA P.U.C. No. 3. The revised transportation and storage rates are effective August 28, 2009.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 8, 2009.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2009–0328 to (1) EPA online using
Shanita Brackett, OEI/OIC/CStD at the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (MC 2822–T), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 566–1008; fax Number (202) 566–1611: e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24849), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2009–0328, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for Nominations to the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to its Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC). Vacancies are anticipated to be filled by January 2010. Sources in addition to this
The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:
Submit nominations to: Frances Eargle, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1301A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also e-mail nominations with subject line LGACRESUME2009 to
Frances Eargle, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; telephone (202) 564–3115; fax: (202) 564–1544.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the
For additional information, contact Judith B. Herman at 202–418–0214 or via the Internet at
In the
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments by October 8, 2009. 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: APPALACHIAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., Station WGOG, Facility ID 2462, BPH–20090819AGW, From WALHALLA, SC, To POWDERSVILLE, SC; BMP AUSTIN LICENSE COMPANY, L.P., Station KXXS, Facility ID 19223, BPH–20090811ACJ, From ELGIN, TX, To SUNSET VALLEY, TX; BRISTOL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., Station WFHG–FM, Facility ID 36982, BPH–20090729AEG, From ABINGDON, VA, To BLUFF CITY, TN; CAPSTAR TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Station KMRQ, Facility ID 12963, BPH–20090820ABX, From MANTECA, CA, To RIVERBANK, CA; CHOICE BROADCASTING COMPANY, Station KCNM–FM, Facility ID 77695, BMPH–20090818AAB, From GARAPAN–SAIPAN, MP, To TAMUNING, GU; COLLEGE CREEK MEDIA, LLC, Station KHIJ, Facility ID 164142, BPH–20090813ABB, From MESQUITE, NV, To BUNKERVILLE, NV; COX RADIO, INC., Station WHZT, Facility ID 5971, BPH–20090819AGV, From SENECA, SC, To WILLIAMSTON, SC; DAVIDSON COUNTY BROADCASTING CO, INC., Station WTHZ, Facility ID 15839, BMPH–20090724ACK, From LEXINGTON, NC, To FAITH, NC; FREQUENCY COLLABORATION CORP., Station KDRX, Facility ID 165967, BMPH–20070118AEA, From ROCKSPRINGS, TX, To LAUGHLIN AFB, TX; KIERTRON, INC., Station KCBC, Facility ID 34587, BP–20090820ABR, From RIVERBANK, CA, To MANTECA, CA; RADIO STATIONS WPAY/WPFB, INC., Station WPAY–FM, Facility ID 54813, BPH–20090715AAJ, From PORTSMOUTH, OH, To NEW BOSTON, OH; RADIOACTIVE, LLC, Station WRAX, Facility ID 164247, BMPH–20090818ABD, From WALHALLA, MI, To LAKE ISABELLA, MI; SIMMONS-AUSTIN, LS, LLC, Station KWNX, Facility ID 35647, BP–20090819AHB, From TAYLOR, TX, To ELGIN, TX; TEXAS PELICAN MEDIA, Station KTPM, Facility ID 176117, BMPED–20090730AEJ, From FALFURRIAS, TX, To PREMONT, TX; TUGART PROPERTIES, LLC, Station WSNW, Facility ID 5969, BP–20090819AGX, From SENECA, SC, To WALHALLA, SC; YAQUINA BAY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Station KYTE, Facility ID 9848, BPH–20090629AAD, From NEWPORT, OR, To INDEPENDENCE, OR.
Comments may be filed through November 9, 2009.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tung Bui, 202–418–2700.
The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the purpose of this notice is to solicit additional nominations for the Technological Advisory Council (TAC).
Nominations are due by September 30, 2009.
Federal Communications Commission, Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7–A224, Washington, DC 20554.
Walter Johnston, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418–0807,
On April 8, 2009, the Commission issued a public notice soliciting nominations for the Technical Advisory Council (TAC) and nominations were received in response to this notice. Concurrent with the establishment of the TAC, the Commission was charged by Congress to develop a plan that seeks to ensure that people of the United States have access to broadband capability. In support of this and related efforts, the Commission is now seeking additional nominations to the TAC to ensure that its membership best serves the needs of the Commission.
The Commission will accept nominations for the Council through September 30, 2009. Nominations previously submitted remain in consideration. The Commission, at its discretion, may consider nominations received after this date, but consideration of late submissions is not guaranteed. Individuals may apply for, or nominate another individual for, membership on the Council. Each nomination or application must include:
a. The name and title of the applicant or nominee and a description of the interest the applicant or nominee will represent;
b. The applicant's or nominee's mail address, e-mail address, telephone number, and facsimile number (where available);
c. Reasons why the applicant or nominee should be appointed to the Council; and
d. The basis for determining the applicant or nominee has achieved peer recognition as a technical expert.
Further details on the TAC are provided in the April 8, 2009 public notice available at
Nominations and applications should be sent to Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7–A224, Washington, DC 20554 or e-mail
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
Memorandum and resolution re: Honoring Employee with 35-Years of Federal Service.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule on Deposit Insurance Rules.
Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule for Part 329, Elimination of the Three-Transfer Sublimit for Savings Deposits.
Memorandum and resolution related to the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898–7043.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–4766 or send an email to
Formative Research and Tool Development—New—National Center for HIV, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC previously published a clearance mechanism to support behavioral projects for HIV/AIDS prevention and control (
Formative research is the basis for developing effective strategies including
CDC conducts formative research to develop public-sensitive communication messages and user-friendly tools prior to developing or recommending interventions, or care. Sometimes these studies are entirely behavioral but most often they are cycles of interviews and focus groups designed to inform the formation of a product. Short term qualitative interviewing and cognitive research techniques have previously proven invaluable in the development of scientifically valid and population-appropriate methods, interventions, and instruments. Products from the proposed studies will be used for sustainable projects for HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI), viral Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis prevention that are presented as evidence to disease specific National Advisory Committees, in order to support revisions to existing prevention and intervention methods, and provide new recommendations which cannot be developed without formative research.
This request includes studies investigating the utility and acceptability of proposed recruitment methods, intervention contents and delivery, questionnaire domains, individual questions, and interactions with project staff or electronic data collection equipment. These activities will also provide information about how respondents answer questions and ways in which question response bias and error can be reduced. Overall, these development activities are intended to provide information that will increase the success of the surveillance or research project through increasing response rates and decreasing response error thereby decreasing future data collection burden to the public. The studies that will be covered under this request will include one or more of the following investigational modalities: (1) Focus group and individual interviews; (2) Cognitive interviews for development and testing of specific data collection instruments; (3) Component testing of instruments developed from qualitative research or communication methods; (4) testing of behavioral interventions; (5) public acceptance of intervention and prevention methods; (6) utilizing computer-assisted instruments (including web-based technology). The implementors may be health jurisdictions, non-governmental organizations including academia, for-profit contractors, private health care facilities, pharmacies, or a combination of these agencies.
Respondents who will participate in individual and group interviews (qualitative, cognitive, and computer-assisted development activities) are selected purposely from those who respond to recruitment advertisements. In addition to utilizing advertisements for recruitment, respondents who will participate in research on survey methods may be selected purposively or systematically from within an ongoing surveillance or research project. Participants may be offered cash or gift certificates as tokens of appreciation for participating.
CDC estimates that the public will participate in 10 different information collection activities, each lasting between 6–12 months. Participation of respondents is always voluntary and there is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The estimated annual burden hours requested is 46,516 hours.
Dated: September 2, 2009.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–5960 and send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
The Study to Explore Early Development, [OMB# 0920–0741 Exp. 6/30/2010]—Revision—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Children's Health Act of 2000 mandated CDC to establish autism surveillance and research programs to address the number, incidence, correlates, and causes of autism and related disabilities. Under the provisions of this act, CDC funded 5 Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) including the California Department of Health and Human Services, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. CDC National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities participates as the 6th CADDRE site. The SEED multi-site, collaborative project is an epidemiological investigation of possible causes for the autism spectrum disorders.
Study participants are to be selected from children born in and residing in the following six areas: Atlanta metropolitan area, San Francisco Bay area, Denver metropolitan area, Baltimore metropolitan area, Philadelphia metropolitan area, and Central North Carolina. Children with autism spectrum disorders are compared to children with other developmental problems, referred to as the neurodevelopmentally impaired group (NIC), as well as children who do not have developmental problems, referred to as the subcohort.
Data collection methods consist of the following: (1) Medical record review of the child participant; (2) medical record review of the biological mother of the child participant; (3) packets sent to the participants with self-administered questionnaires and a buccal swab kit; (4) a telephone interview focusing on pregnancy-related events and early life history (biological mother and/or primary caregiver interview); (5) a child development evaluation (more comprehensive for case participants than for the control group participants); (6) parent child development interview (for case participants only) administered over the telephone or in-person; (7) a physical exam of the child participant; (8) biological sampling of the child participant (blood and hair); and, (9) biological sampling of the biological parents of the child participant (blood only). Minor changes to some of the self administered questionnaires and the telephone interview include clarification of instructions to the respondent and clarifying specific questions to make the instruments easier to complete and further improve data quality.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires 60-day advance opportunity for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is publishing for comment a summary of a proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The IHS of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE), SFCP “Customer Satisfaction Surveys,” will provide the information needed to complete these goals. With the information collected from Tribal homeowners, Tribal leaders, and Tribal operation and maintenance operators, the Sanitation facilities programs will make improvements that will result in improved quality of services.
Voluntary customer satisfaction surveys will be conducted through phone calls, mail, and the Internet. The information gathered will be used by agency management and staff to identify strengths and weaknesses in current service provision, to plan and redirect resources, to make improvements that are practical and feasible, and to provide vital feedback to partner agencies, Tribal leaders, system operators, health boards, and community members regarding customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is responsible for collecting data from 20 recently funded Adult Treatment Drug Court grantees and clients being served by expansion and/or enhancement grants. The main evaluation question is whether the addition of substance abuse treatment resources increases the positive results of drug courts. SAMHSA's CSAT-funded grantees are required to participate in a cross-site evaluation as a contingency of their award. Data on each drug court and their processes will be collected during three annual site visits. Some data will be obtained through courtroom observations; no questionnaire will be administered to collect observational data. Additional data will be collected through interviews with drug court personnel and focus groups and interviews with drug court clients.
CSAT requests approval for administering questionnaires to drug court personnel. CSAT also requests approval for conducting focus groups with drug court clients and administering questionnaires at 6-months post-discharge from the drug court.
This questionnaire will be administered to key drug court personnel (
Focus groups will be conducted during the annual site visits to each drug court. During the focus groups, drug court clients will be asked 12 open-ended questions about their experiences in the drug court program and current efforts towards recovery. Drug court participants will be involved in focus groups on 1 to 3 occasions.
This instrument contains 13 items and asks drug court clients about their perceptions regarding fair treatment by the judge and drug court team during the drug court process. It is hypothesized that participants who perceive the judge and drug court team as fair will be more compliant with the drug court program, more likely to graduate, and have better substance use and criminal behavior outcomes (
A mental health screener for women (CMHS–W) will be administered to gather data on drug court participants' mental health. Many drug court clients have co-occurring disorders (
A mental health screener for men (CMHS–M) will be administered to gather data on drug court participants' mental health. Many drug court clients have co-occurring disorders (
The Treatment Satisfaction Index will ask drug court participants about their satisfaction with treatment received during the drug court program. This 19-item questionnaire will be administered to drug court participants once, during the 6-month post-discharge interview.
The estimated response burden for this data collection is provided in the table below:
The estimates in this table reflect the maximum burden for participation in the Adult Treatment Drug Court Cross-Site Evaluation. Burden for drug court personnel is aggregated to reflect total burden over the three-year study period. The drug court personnel questionnaire will be administered three times; once during each of three study years. Burden for the drug court clients is annualized. Focus groups and interviews are one-time events. Some drug court clients will participate in both a focus group and 6-month post-discharge interview.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by October 8, 2009 to: SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202–395–5806.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a publication containing modifications the agency is making to the list of standards FDA recognizes for use in premarket reviews (FDA recognized consensus standards). This publication, entitled “Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 022” (Recognition List Number: 022), will assist manufacturers who elect to declare conformity with consensus standards to meet certain requirements for medical devices.
Submit written or electronic comments concerning this document at any time. See section VII of this document for the effective date of the recognition of standards announced in this document.
Submit written requests for single copies of “Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 022” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your requests, or fax your request to 301–847–8149. Submit written comments concerning this document, or recommendations for additional standards for recognition, to the contact person (see
Carol L. Herman, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 3632, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6574.
Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105–115) amended section 514 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 of the act allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions or other requirements.
In a notice published in the
Modifications to the initial list of recognized standards, as published in the
These notices describe the addition, withdrawal, and revision of certain standards recognized by FDA. The agency maintains “hypertext markup language (HTML)” and “portable document format (PDF)” versions of the list of “FDA Recognized Consensus Standards.” Both versions are publicly accessible at the agency's Internet site. See section VI of this document for electronic access information. Interested persons should review the supplementary information sheet for the standard to understand fully the extent to which FDA recognizes the standard.
FDA is announcing the addition, withdrawal, correction, and revision of certain consensus standards the agency will recognize for use in satisfying premarket reviews and other requirements for devices. FDA will incorporate these modifications in the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in the agency's searchable database. FDA will use the term “Recognition List Number: 022” to identify these current modifications.
In table 2 of this document, FDA describes the following modifications: (1) The withdrawal of standards and their replacement by others; (2) the correction of errors made by FDA in listing previously recognized standards; and (3) the changes to the supplementary information sheets of recognized standards that describe revisions to the applicability of the standards.
In section III of this document, FDA lists modifications the agency is making that involve the initial addition of standards not previously recognized by FDA.
In table 3 of this document, FDA provides the listing of new entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 022.
FDA maintains the agency's current list of FDA recognized consensus standards in a searchable database that may be accessed directly at FDA's Internet site at
Any person may recommend consensus standards as candidates for recognition under the new provision of section 514 of the act by submitting such recommendations, with reasons for the recommendation, to the contact person (See
You may obtain a copy of “Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards” by using the Internet. CDRH maintains a site on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that you may download to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the guidance as well as the current list of recognized standards and other standards related documents. After publication in the
You may access “Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards,” and the searchable database for “FDA Recognized Consensus Standards” through the hyperlink at
This
Interested persons may submit to the contact person (see
August 28, 2009.
Monica Farmer, M.Ed., Public Health Analyst, Strategic Science and Program Unit, Office of the Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E–60, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone (404) 498–2277.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in co-sponsorship with the Parenteral Drug Association (PDA), is announcing a conference entitled “Securing the Future of Medical Product Quality: A 2020 Vision.” The workshop helps to achieve objectives set forth in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public.
The cost of registration is as follows:
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Wanda Neal, PDA (see
The registrar will also accept payment by major credit cards (VISA/MasterCard only). For more information on the meeting, or for questions on registration, contact the Parenteral Drug Association (PDA), 301–656–5900, FAX: 301–986–1093, or e-mail:
Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. To make reservations at the Renaissance Hotel at the reduced conference rate, contact the Renaissance Hotel (see Location), citing meeting code “PDA.” Room rates are: Single: $274, plus 14.5% state and local taxes; and Double: $274, plus 14.5% state and local taxes. Reservations can be made on a space and rate availability basis.
The PDA/FDA Joint Regulatory Conference offers the unique opportunity to join FDA representatives and industry experts in face-to-face dialogues. Each year, FDA speakers provide updates on the current state of efforts impacting the development of global regulatory strategies, while industry professionals from some of today's leading pharmaceutical companies present case studies on how they employ global strategies in their daily processes. Participants will hear directly from FDA experts and representatives of global regulatory authorities and take home best practices for compliance. The conference will span 2 1/2 days and cover current issues affecting the industry, including the following issues:
• Pharmaceutical safety and good manufacturing practices,
• Continual improvement,
• Technology transfer,
• Supply chain,
• Combination products,
• Recall root causes,
• Knowledge management,
• Good distribution practices and good importer practices, and
• Process validation and quality risk management.
Immediately following the conference, on September 17 and 18, the PDA Training and Research Institute (PDA TRI) is offering courses to complement conference sessions.
FDA has made continuing education of the biologics, drug, and device manufacturing community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated pharmaceuticals and devices. The workshop helps to achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. The workshop also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–121), as outreach activities by Government agencies to small businesses.
The Office of Policy, DHS.
Notice of open teleconference Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet via teleconference for the purpose of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the HSAC's Homeland Security Advisory System Task Force.
The HSAC conference call will take place from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. EST on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. Please be advised that the meeting is scheduled for one hour and all participating members of the public should promptly call-in at the beginning of the teleconference.
The HSAC meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public interested in participating in this teleconference meeting may do so by following the process outlined below (
Written comments must be submitted and received by September 12, 2009. Comments must be identified by DHS–2009–0108 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
HSAC Staff at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The HSAC provides independent advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to aide in the creation and implementation of critical and actionable policies and capabilities across the spectrum of homeland security operations. The HSAC periodically reports, as requested, to the Secretary, on such matters. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires
The HSAC will meet to review the Homeland Security Advisory System Task Force findings and recommendations.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow, or Special Immigrant. OMB Control No. 1615–0020.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 8, 2009. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20529–2210. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or via e-mail at
When submitting comments by e-mail, please make sure to add OMB Control No. 1615–0020 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529–2210, Telephone number 202–272–8377.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meetings.
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) and its working groups on the Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04–01, and on the Inspection of Towing Vessels will meet in Martinsburg, WV. The Committee will also discuss various issues relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. All meetings will be open to the public.
The working groups will meet on Thursday, September 24, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full TSAC Committee will meet on, Friday, September 25, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations at the meetings should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 15, 2009. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the Committee or working groups should reach the Coast Guard electronically on or before September 15, 2009.
The working groups and TSAC will meet at the Coast Guard National Maritime Center; 100 Forbes Drive; Martinsburg, WV 25404;
Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to TSAC's Assistant Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) in the
Mr. Gerald P. Miante, ADFO, TSAC; U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, CG–5221,; 2100 Second Street, SW., STOP 7126., Washington, DC 20593–7126. Telephone (202) 372–1401, fax (202) 372–1926, or e-mail at:
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92–463).
(1) Update of the Towing Vessel Inspection Working Group;
(2) Update on Commercial/Recreational Boating Interface;
(3) Report on the Review and Recommendations for the Revision of NVIC 04–01 “Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels;”
(4) Report on the Review and Recommendations for the Revision of NVIC 04–01 Sub-Working Group on Assistance Towing;
(5) Update on National Maritime Center (NMC) activities;
(6) Update on the Towing Vessel Bridging Program; and
(7) Update on the Towing Vessel Center of Expertise.
All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the ADFO no later than September 15, 2009. Written material (20 copies) for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than September 15, 2009. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the Committee or Working Groups in advance of a meeting, please submit it electronically to the ADFO, for e-mail distribution, no later than September 15, 2009. Also at the Chair's discretion, members of the public may present comment at the end of the Public Meeting. Please understand that the Committee's schedule may be quite demanding and time for public comment may be limited.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the ADFO as soon as possible.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
Delores A. Pruden, Director, Neighborhood Networks, Office of Housing Assistance Contract Administration Oversight, Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402–2496 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
START allows a center to electronically create and update its business plan and center profiles, and is a necessary tool to gather quantifiable demographic information as a basis for ongoing technical assistance for center directors and staff and HUD field staff. Center classification data will ensure effectiveness in creating programs and services that promote self-sufficiency among residents of HUD Multifamily FHA-insured and -assisted housing properties.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, deadline information and other requirements for the FY2009 Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing NOFA. Approximately $90 million is made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111–8, approved March 11, 2009), for the Service Coordinator program. Of these funds, approximately $20 million is available for funding new Service Coordinator programs. The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the Grants.gov Web site at
For information concerning the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2480 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800–877–8339.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, deadline information and other requirements for the FY2009 Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811 Program). Approximately $90.6 million in capital advance funds plus associated project rental assistance contract (PRAC) funds is made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111–8, approved March 11, 2009) and any carryover funds available. The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the Grants.gov Web site at
For information concerning the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2480 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800–877–8339.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, deadline information and other requirements for the FY2009 Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly. Approximately $420.9 million in capital advance funds plus associated project rental assistance contract (PRAC) funds is made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111–8, approved March 11, 2009), and any carryover funds available. This program provides funding for the development and operation of supportive housing for very low-income persons who are 62 years of age or older. Capital advance funds are to assist in the cost of developing the housing. PRAC funds will cover the difference between the HUD-approved operating costs of the project and the tenants' contributions toward rent (30 percent of their adjusted income). The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the Grants.gov Web site at
For information concerning the Section 202 program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2480 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800–877–8339.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, deadline information and other requirements for the FY2009 Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) for Eligible Multifamily Housing Projects. Approximately $20 million in grant funds is made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111–8, approved March 11, 2009), for the physical conversion of eligible multifamily assisted housing projects or portions of projects to assisted living facilities (ALFs). The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the Grants.gov Web site at
For information concerning the ALCP program, contact Aretha M. Williams, Housing Project Manager, Grant Policy and Management Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6142, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–402–2480 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800–877–8339.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before August 22, 2009.
Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60, written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by September 23, 2009.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice: Receipt of application for an incidental take permit; notice of availability.
Exelon Inc. (Applicant) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (us, Service) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed permit duration is 24 years. The Applicant has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to address potential impacts to two mussel species. We have made a preliminary determination that the HCP and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The basis for this determination is contained in an Environmental Action Statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for public review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by October 8, 2009.
Send written comments to Richard C. Nelson, Field Supervisor, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, 1511 47th Ave. Moline, IL 61265, or by fax to (309) 757–5807.
Ms. Jody Millar (309) 757–5800.
Exelon Inc. (Applicant) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (us, Service) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(1) Implementation of an alternate thermal standard (ATS) for discharge waters associated with the operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Station,
(2) Maintenance dredging associated with water intake structures, and
(3) Removal of Edison Pier.
We have made a preliminary determination that the HCP and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Individuals requesting copies of the application and draft HCP should contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by telephone at (309) 757–5800 or by letter (
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 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.
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing Federal regulations prohibit the take of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. The definition of take under the Act includes the following activities: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). We have principal trust responsibility for the conservation and protection of threatened and endangered species under the Act. Section 10 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1539, establishes a program whereby persons seeking to pursue activities that otherwise could give rise to liability for unlawful “take” of federally protected species may receive an ITP, which protects them from such liability. To obtain an ITP, the applicant must submit an HCP and the taking must be incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity,
Exelon Inc. owns and operates Quad Cities Nuclear Station (QCNS), a nuclear power station located on the east (Illinois) shoreline of Pool 14 on the Mississippi River, at River Mile (RM) 506.7, approximately halfway between Lock and Dam 13 (upstream) at RM 522.5 and Lock and Dam 14 (downstream) at RM 493.3.
Exelon Inc. is requesting that an alternate thermal standard (ATS) be issued for Quad Cities Nuclear Station under section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, (33 U.S.C. Sec.1326(a)). The ATS would include:
(1) Changing the method for tracking and regaining excursion hours (during which the plant currently is authorized to exceed thermal limits by up to 3 °F) from a rolling 12-month basis to a calendar year basis (January through December).
(2) Increasing the number of excursion hours available per year from 1 percent (87.6 hours), which is currently allowed by the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to 3 percent (262.8 hours), of which only 1.5 percent (131.4 hours) of those hours may be between 89 °F and 91 °F.
(3) Increasing the excursion hour downstream temperature limit by no more than 5 °F (
QCNS currently operates under NPDES permit conditions that allow 87.6 excursion hours per year, during which the plant may cause river temperatures to exceed maximum temperature standards by up to 3 °F. QCNS operated within permit conditions during the period 2000–2005. Excursion hours were only used in 2001 (57.35 hours) and 2005 (42.50 hours). In July and August 2006, QCNS was granted a provisional variance from these permit conditions to address periods of low Mississippi River flows and high ambient river temperatures experienced in the summer of 2006. The provisional variance allowed additional excursion hours (beyond the annual allotment of 87.6 hours) at temperatures up to 5 °F. QCNS used 222.75 excursion hours in 2006, but water temperature during excursion hour events were not allowed to exceed a 5 °F increase, which equates to 91 °F downstream in July, 91 °F in August and 90 °F in September. In 2007, QCNS operated within permit conditions, and 74.0 excursion hours were used in early August.
The new ATS would be adopted following proceedings before the Illinois Pollution Control Board pursuant to the Board's authority to issue ATS under section 316 of the Clean Water Act. Following the Board's decision, the Environmental Protection Agency would incorporate the standards in the NPDES (discharge) permit.
A second covered activity described in the draft HCP involves maintenance dredging activities in front of the plant's intake. QCNS requires a consistent supply of water for safe operations of the two nuclear reactors. Over the past few years (2005, 2007, and 2008), dredging in front of the intake forebay has been a maintenance necessity to achieve the consistent water supply. High water events deposit coarse materials in front of the intake. In October 2005, QCNS contracted a mussel survey in the intake area. Results of the survey indicated that impacts associated with maintenance dredging would be limited to a few common species (threehorn, threeridge, hickorynut, and plain pocketbook) of freshwater mussels. All other species were represented by two individuals or less. One butterfly mussel was also found in the survey. An existing dredging permit (CEMVR–OD–P–2006–1856) allows dredging within a 500′ × 700′ area in front of the station's forebay. QCNS does not expect to increase the size of the dredging area. QCNS anticipates that dredging will be necessary in the near future; consequently, this activity is being included in the draft HCP. Maintenance dredging is assumed to occur once every 2 years over the life of the proposed permit. If the dredging area needs to be expanded from the current levels in the future, Exelon will consult with us prior to such activities.
A third covered activity in the draft HCP involves the removal of a structure known as the Edison Pier (RM 506.8L), which has been in existence since the initial building process of QCNS in the late 1960s. Although there are no immediate plans to remove this structure, preliminary demolition planning has occurred and this project could begin in the next few years. The process of removing this structure would extend a minimal distance out into the river channel, and could potentially impact any mussels in the area. It is important to note that coverage by this HCP does not exempt an activity from other local, State and Federal regulations, including permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The purpose of an HCP is to ensure incidental take will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of this species in the wild. Exelon designed the draft HCP in close consultation with us to ensure the planning area will continue to support suitable habitat for the species, while allowing for incidental take from the proposed activities.
To facilitate the development of the HCP, Exelon retained Ecological Specialists, Inc. (ESI) to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts associated with adopting an Alternative Thermal Standard on covered species within the study area (RM 503.0 to 506.9). A copy of ESI's report is appended to the draft HCP. ESI was also retained to conduct mussel surveys in the area associated with maintenance dredging and Edison Pier.
Exelon proposes to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of taking listed species by implementing the following measures:
(1) Fish propagated at the QCNS will be inoculated with Higgins eye pearlymussel and sheepnose mussel glochidia. QCNS will work with the Service and other partners to develop parameters for determining appropriate species augmentation/reintroduction sites and rates with regard to protection of native resident genetics. Methods include free release of fish inoculated with Higgins eye pearlymussel and
(2) Outreach to universities focused on soliciting studies related to temperature and mussels, in situ or in conjunction with the lab facilities at QCNS.
(3) Implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring, including mussel bed monitoring, monitoring of temperature studies, long-term fish monitoring (ongoing), and use of adaptive management techniques will be used throughout the length of the permit.
We will evaluate the permit application, the HCP, and received comments to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the requirements are met, we will issue an incidental take permit to the Applicant for take of the Higgins eye pearlymussel and sheepnose mussel incidental to the otherwise lawful activities of the project. We will not make a final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments we receive during the comment period.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals. Both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act require that we invite public comment on these permit applications.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by October 8, 2009.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import unlimited numbers of biological specimens from crocodiles, alligators, caimans, and gavials (Order: Crocodylia) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples from smalltoothed sawfish (
The applicant requests a permit to export one female captive-bred giant panda (
The applicant requests a permit to export one male captive-born black rhinoceros (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples of skeletal parts salvaged from both captive and wild populations of black rhinoceros (
On July 28, 2009, we published a
The following applicants request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals and/or marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests an amendment to his permit to allow him to acquire up to three larynxes (including pharynxes, trachea, and primary bronchi) per year from dead, necropsied Florida manatees (
The applicant requests a permit to tag and collect skin biopsy samples from up to 45 walrus (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
The applicant requests a permit to photograph Southern sea otters (
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 7, 2009, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of The Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio and Lincoln Global, Inc. of City of Industry, California. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on August 20, 2009. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bulk welding wire containers and components thereof and welding wire by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,260,781; 6,648,141; 6,708,864; 6,913,145; 7,309,038; 7,398,881; and 7,410,111. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint and the supplement, except for any confidential information contained therein, are available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Benjamin Levi, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–2781.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2009).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain bulk welding wire containers or components thereof or welding wire that infringe one or more of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,260,781; claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,648,141; claims 3, 4, 6, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,864; claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,913,145; claims 1–7, 12, 13, 16, 19–24, 31, 33–36, 43, and 46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,309,038; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,398,881; and claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,410,111, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following
(a) The complainants are—
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Benjamin Levi, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On July 9, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon Company, Inc., Berwick, PA, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China and by imports of such merchandise from China and Taiwan sold in the United States at less than fair value. Accordingly, effective July 9, 2009, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701–TA–467 and antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731–TA–1164–1165 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on August 24, 2009. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4099 (August 2009), entitled Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–467 and 731–TA–1164–1165 (Preliminary).
By order of the Commission.
Consistent with Section 122(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 1, 2009, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with certain third party defendants in
El Dorado County, California filed a Third Party Complaint for contribution against a number of third party defendants. The Consent Decree resolves the County's claims against eight of the third party defendants (Douglas County, Nevada; Hertz Corporation and Hertz Local Edition Corporation; Raley's; Lake Tahoe Unified School District; Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. And Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc.; Heavenly Valley Ski & Resort and Heavenly Valley; Sierra Pacific Power Company and Safeway, Inc. referred to collectively as “Settling Third Parties).'' Under the proposed Consent Decree the Settling Third Parties will pay a total of $1.25 million. Once the Consent Decree is approved the $1.25 million will be deposited into a court registry account and will be available, in the context of a judgment against or settlement with the County, to pay the United States' response costs at the Site, or to fund future response actions at the Site.
The United States is a party to the Consent Decree to resolve potential United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service claims against Settling Third Parties. In exchange for the payment to the court registry account the Settling Third Parties will receive from the United States a covenant not to sue or to take administrative action pursuant to Sections 106 or 107 of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, as amended, for the United States' past and future response costs at the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of General Counsel, 33 New Montgomery Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94150 (contact Rose Miksovsky, (415) 744–3158). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
60–Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Furnishing of Samples.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until November 9, 2009. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have 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 Debra Satkowiak, Chief, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, Room 6E405, 99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20226.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
60-day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Revision of a currently approved collection; Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program; Analysis of Officers Feloniously Killed and Assaulted; Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program; Analysis of Officers Accidentally Killed.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 9, 2009.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mr. Gregory E. Scarbro, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Module E–3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, or facsimile to (304) 625–3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
These forms will gather specific incident data obtained from law enforcement agencies in which an officer was accidentally killed, feloniously killed or assaulted with injury from a firearm or knife or other cutting instrument in the line of duty. Data are published annually in the publication Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
60-day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Office of Justice Programs Solicitation Template.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until November 9, 2009. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
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
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected parties concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Pursuant to 21
Therefore, in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 16, 2009, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665–2402, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of analytical reference standards.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than October 8, 2009.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to 21
Therefore, in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 8, 2009, Clinical Supplies Management, Inc., 342 42nd Street South, Fargo, North Dakota 58103, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Sufentanil (9740), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance with the sole purpose of packaging, labeling, and distributing to customers which are qualified clinical sites conducting clinical trials under the auspices of an FDA-approved clinical study.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than October 8, 2009.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 2, 2009, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004–1412, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the form of three separate analogues of Cocaine, to validate production and quality control systems, for a reference standard, and for producing material for a future investigational new drug (IND) submission.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated June 24, 2009, and published in the
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances in dosage form to conduct clinical trials.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Almac Clinical Services Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Almac Clinical Services Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to import products for research experimentation or clinical use and analytical testing.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Meridian Medical Technologies to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Meridian Medical Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009 and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and § 952(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated June 3, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for research activities.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Research Triangle Institute to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Research Triangle Institute to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 21, 2009, Chemic Laboratories, Inc., 480 Neponset Street, Building 7, Canton, Massachusetts 02021, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the above listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers for the purpose of research.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 8, 2009, Cody Laboratories, 601 Yellowstone Avenue, Cody, Wyoming 82414, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:
The company plans on manufacturing the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on June 26, 2009, Noramco Inc., Division of Ortho-McNeil, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801–4417, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substance as a reference standard for distribution to its customers which are analytical laboratories.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 18, 2009, Research Triangle Institute, Kenneth H. Davis Jr., Hermann Building, East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:
The Institute will manufacture small quantities of cocaine and marihuana derivatives for use by their customers in analytical kits, reagents, and reference standards as directed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 1, 2009, Alltech Associates Inc., 2051 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:
The company plans to manufacture high purity drug standards used for analytical application only in clinical, toxicological, and forensic laboratories.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 7, 2009, National Center for Natural Products Research—NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Lab Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I:
The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for conversion and sale to dosage form manufacturers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Rhodes Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 USC 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 USC 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to produce the listed controlled substances in bulk to be used in the manufacture of reagents and drug calibrator/controls which are DEA exempt products.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its customers for further manufacture or to manufacture pharmaceutical dosage forms.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated AMRI Renssealaer Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 2 p.m., on Thursday, August 20, 2009, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide one petition for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.
Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. Mitchell, Edward F. Reilly, Jr. and Patricia K. Cushwa.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Labor-Management Standards is soliciting comments concerning its request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collection: Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws 1215–ONEW (1215–AB70). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below on or before November 9, 2009.
Mr. Steven D. Lawrence, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0292, fax (202) 693–1451, E-mail
I.
E.O. 13496 advances the Administration's goal of promoting economy and efficiency of Federal Government procurement by ensuring that workers employed in the private sector as a result of Federal Government contracts are informed of their rights to engage in union activity and collective bargaining. Knowledge of such basic statutory rights promotes stable labor-management, thus reducing costs to the Federal Government.
The contractual provisions require contractors and subcontractors to post a notice, created by the Secretary of Labor, informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The notice also provides a statement of the policy of the United States to encourage collective bargaining, as well as a list of activities that are illegal under the Act. The notice concludes with a general description of the remedies to which employees may be entitled if these rights have been violated and contact information for further information about those rights and remedies, as well as enforcement procedures.
The clause also requires contractors to include the same clause in their nonexempt subcontracts and purchase orders, and describes generally the sanctions, penalties, and remedies that may be imposed if the contractor fails to satisfy its obligations under the Order and the clause.
The proposed regulatory provisions implementing E.O. 13496 (29 CFR part 471) include the language of the required notices, and they explain posting and contractual requirements, the complaint process, the investigatory process, and sanctions, penalties, and remedies that may be imposed if the contractor or subcontractor fails to comply with its obligations under the Order. Specifically, proposed 29 CFR part 471.11(c) sets forth the procedures that the Department must use when accepting written complaints alleging that a contractor doing business with the Federal Government has failed to post the notice required by the Executive Order.
In accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), the Notice to Employees poster will be available for downloading at
The proposed part 471 requires contractors and subcontractors to post notices and cooperate with any investigation into a failure to comply with the requirements of proposed part 471 as the result of a complaint or a compliance evaluation. It also permits employees to file complaints with the Department alleging that a contractor or subcontractor has failed to comply with those requirements. The burden hours for this collection of information were determined by estimating the time required to perform the filing of complaints under the proposed regulation. Specifically, the Department based its estimates on the experience of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) administering other laws applicable to Federal contractors, which determined that it will take an average of 1.28 hours for such a complainant to compose a complaint containing the necessary information and to send that complaint to the Department. This number is also consistent with the burden estimate for filing a complaint under E.O. 13201 and the now-revoked part 470 regulations.
The Department has estimated it would receive a total of 50 employee complaints in any given year, which is
The Department is seeking a three year approval for this information collection in order to implement the complaint procedures of proposed 29 CFR part 471.
II.
* 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;
* Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the Information Collection: Representative Fee Request (CA–143/CA–155). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 9, 2009.
Mr. Steven D. Lawrence, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0292, fax (202) 693–1451, E-mail
I.
II.
* 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;
* Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application, dated August 18, 2009, from PSEG Nuclear LLC, filed pursuant to Section 103, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the
Copies of the application are available to the public at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or through the internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number ML092430376. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
A copy of the license renewal application for HCGS is also available to local residents near the site at the Salem Free Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application, dated August 18, 2009, from PSEG Nuclear LLC, filed pursuant to Section 103, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the
Copies of the application are available to the public at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or through the Internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number ML092430232. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
A copy of the license renewal application for SALEM, Units 1 and 2, is also available to local residents near the site at the Salem Free Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission 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 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 August 13, 2009, to August 26, 2009. The last biweekly notice was published on August 25, 2009 (74 FR 42926).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch (RDB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
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. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
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 petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor 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
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, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
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 E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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 petitioner/requestor should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory e-filing system may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC 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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the request and/or petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
The July 13, 2007 license amendment request proposed a stretch power uprate (SPU) of MPS3. Included in a supplement dated July 13, 2007, was a request to amend the MPS3 SFP storage requirements. The July 13, 2007 request was noticed in the
The request to revise the MPS3 SFP storage requirements is being re-noticed using the original significant hazards consideration, specific to the request to revise the SFP storage requirements, as provided by DNC in the July 13, 2007 license amendment request.
6.1.11.1 [Do the proposed changes] [i]nvolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated[?]
[
As discussed in LR [license report] Section 2.8.6.2 [Spent Fuel Storage] and Westinghouse report WCAP–16721–NP “Spent Fuel Criticality Safety Analysis,” revised spent fuel pool criticality analyses were performed to take into account the potential for more reactive fuel at SPU conditions. There are three different regions defined in the MPS3 spent fuel pool.
• Region 1—350 storage locations
• Region 2—673 storage locations
• Region 3—756 storage locations
Because of the potential for requiring more fresh assemblies to be loaded in the core every cycle, some of the assemblies to be discharged to the spent fuel pool may not have sufficient burnup to meet the requirements of Region 2. It may be necessary to temporarily store the discharge assemblies in Region 1. To limit the time that these assemblies need to be stored in Region 1, additional curves have been added to TS [technical specification] Figure 3.9–3 that specify the burnup limits as a function of enrichment, burnup, and decay time. These decay time curves provide assurance that all spent fuel pool criticality limits will be met.
The spent fuel pool criticality analysis also shows that more limiting burnup requirements are necessary for Region 3 for the assemblies used at the uprate power level. Thus, a new curve is being added to address these requirements for Region 3.
With these changes, the spent fuel pool criticality analysis documented in LR Section 2.8.6.2 and WCAP–16721–NP, shows that the changes do not increase the consequences of any accident.
The new TS limitations provide assurance that the spent fuel pool will remain subcritical for all future cycles at the SPU condition and there is no increase in the probability of a criticality accident. Thus, the changes do not significantly increase the probability of any analyzed accident.
6.1.11.2 [Do the proposed changes] [c]reate the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated[?]
[
The changes will be implemented with existing spent pool racks. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced. The proposed additional requirements and the SPU fuel criticality analysis provide assurance that the spent fuel pool will remain subcritical for all uprate cycles. Thus, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident.
6.1.11.3 [Do the proposed changes] [i]nvolve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]
[
The analysis documented in LR Section 2.8.6.2 and WCAP–16721–NP shows that all spent fuel criticality limits are met and that there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety for the spent fuel pool.
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?
The proposed change does not result in any physical changes to safety related structures, systems, or components. The UHS itself is not an accident initiator; rather, the UHS performs functions to mitigate accidents by serving as the heat sink for safety related equipment. Consequently, the proposed change does not increase the probability of occurrence for any accident previously evaluated.
The UHS plays a vital role in mitigating the consequences of any accident or transient. The proposed changes will ensure that the minimum conditions necessary for the UHS to perform its design functions will always be met. Engineering calculations demonstrate that the SX pump discharge design temperature limit of 100 °F, which was assumed as an initial input for the accident analyses, is preserved. Consequently, the proposed changes to cooling tower fan requirements, relative to the SX pump discharge temperature, do not increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The supporting analyses for the proposed change do not involve a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed limits on maximum SX pump discharge temperature, and the proposed fan requirements, are within the design capabilities of the UHS and ensure that the UHS will always be in a condition to perform its design function in the event of an accident or transient. New and revised analyses that support the requested TS changes ensure the full qualification of the UHS. No changes are being made to the physical design of the UHS such that the possibility of a new or different kind of accident would be created. Consequently, these changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed limits on SX pump discharge maximum temperature are based on the results of new and revised design analyses that ensure that the margin of safety is not reduced. The new limits on temperature will ensure that, under the most limiting accident or transient scenario, cooling water will meet the accident analyses SX design temperature limit of 100 °F.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system is designed to maintain the availability of a mitigation system. It is not recognized as the initiator of any accident. The failure of the ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system will not propagate into the onset of an analyzed event. As such, this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
This proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Deleting the existing allowance associated with the inoperability of the ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system provides assurance that the design function of the ADS SRVs [safety relief valves] assumed in the safety analyses will be achieved under all postulated conditions. The change that deletes the existing allowable completion time for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system is in the conservative direction and will revise the existing non-conservative TS to be consistent with existing licensing requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves. Therefore, this proposed change will not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report].
Based on the above information, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to transient conditions. The proposed change does involve the addition of a reserve nitrogen bottle that can be valved in during bottle replacement, however, during the short duration the reserve nitrogen bottle will be valved in the required minimum bottle pressure will be maintained at 1100 psig. The reserve bottle pressure requirement for this short duration ensures that the safety function of the ADS SRVs continues to be met.
Deleting the existing allowance associated with the inoperability of the ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system does not introduce any new or different modes of plant operation, nor does it affect the operational characteristics of any safety-related equipment or systems; as such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The proposed action provides assurance that the design function of the ADS SRVs assumed in the safety analyses will be achieved; and, therefore the LCO [limiting condition for operation] will be met. The change that deletes the existing allowable completion time for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system is in the conservative direction and will revise the existing non-conservative TS to be consistent with existing licensing requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves.
Based on the above information, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety is determined by the design and qualification of the plant equipment, the operation of the plant within analyzed limits, and the point at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated. The modified TS and TRM [Technical Requirements Manual] will ensure sufficient nitrogen supply exists to support both the LLS [low-low setpoint] and ADS function of the SRVs plus assumed design leakage with no operator action.
The change that deletes the existing allowable completion time for an inoperable ADS accumulator backup compressed gas system is in the conservative direction and will revise the existing non-conservative TS to be consistent with existing licensing requirements for multiple inoperable ADS valves.
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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to provide more restrictive voltage and frequency limits for the Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) steady state operation. The voltage band is going from a range of greater than or equal to 3933 V [volts] but less than or equal to 4400 V, to greater than or equal to 4077 V but less than or equal to 4243 V. The proposed limits are plus or minus 2% [percent] around the nominal safety-related bus voltage of 4160 V. The Frequency Limits are going from a 2% tolerance band to a 1% tolerance band around the nominal frequency of 60 Hz [hertz] (59.4 Hz to 60.6 Hz) for all starts of the EDGs, at steady state conditions. For fast starts, the voltage and frequency limits at less than or equal to ten seconds will be consistent with the EDG ready matrix setpoints (90.8% voltage and 98% frequency) to allow for the overshoot and undershoot condition that exists while the voltage and frequency values converge on steady state conditions.
The EDGs are a safety-related system that functions to mitigate the impact of an accident with a concurrent loss of offsite power. A loss of offsite power is typically a significant contributor to postulated plant risk and, as such, onsite AC generators have to be maintained available and reliable in the event of a loss of offsite power event. The EDGs are not initiators for any analyzed accident, therefore; the probability for an accident that was previously evaluated is not increased by this change. The revised, voltage and frequency limits will ensure the EDGs will remain capable of performing their design function.
The consequences of an accident refer to the impact on both plant personnel and the public from any radiological release associated with the accident. The EDG supports equipment that is supposed to preclude any radiological release. More restrictive voltage and frequency limits for the output of the EDG restores design margin, and provides assurance that the equipment supplied by the EDG will operate correctly and within the assumed timeframe to perform their mitigating functions.
Until the proposed Crystal River Unit 3 (CR–3) Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) EDG voltage and frequency limits are approved by the NRC, administratively controlled limits have been established in accordance with NRC Administrative Letter 98–10 to ensure all EDG mitigation functions will be performed, per design, in the event of a loss of offsite power. These administrative limits have been determined as acceptable and have been incorporated into the surveillance test procedures under the provisions of'10 CFR 50.59. Periodic testing has been performed with acceptable results. Since EDGs are mitigating components and are not initiators for any analyzed accident, no increased probability of an accident can occur. Since administrative limits will ensure the EDGs will perform as designed, consequences will not be significantly affected.
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Administrative voltage limits were established using verified design calculations and the guidance of NRC Administrative Letter 98–10. These administrative limits will ensure the EDGs will perform as designed. No new configuration is established by this change. The administrative limits for the EDG frequency were determined to be sufficient to account for measurement and other uncertainties.
The proposed amendment will place the administrative limits into the CR–3 ITS. The more restrictive voltage and frequency limits will provide additional assurance that the EDG can provide the necessary power to supply the required safety-related loads during an analyzed accident. The proposed ITS voltage and frequency limits restore the EDG capability to those analyzed by Engineering calculation. No new configuration is established. Therefore, no new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated can be created.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The LAR proposes to provide more restrictive steady state voltage and frequency limits for the EDGs. The change in the acceptance criteria for specific surveillance testing provides assurance that the EDGs will be capable of performing their design function. Previous test history has shown that the new limits are well within the capability of the EDGs and are repeatable. The “as-left” settings for voltage and frequency will be adjusted such that they remain within a tight band and this ensures that the “as-found” settings will be in an acceptable tolerance band.
The proposed ITS limits on voltage and frequency will ensure that the EDG will be able to perform all design functions assumed in the accident analyses. Administrative limits are in place to ensure these parameters remain within analyzed limits. As such, 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.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and based on its review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, 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
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 21, 2009.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The proposed amendments provided a procedural requirement to confirm the ice condenser maintains the ice condenser generic qualification as set forth in the UFSAR. Justification for the use of the proposed procedural requirement is based on reasonable assurance that the ice condenser lower inlet doors will open following a seismic event during the 5-week period and the low probability of a seismic event occurring coincident with or subsequently followed by a design basis accident.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License SNM–2514.
A request for a hearing must be filed by November 9, 2009.
Shana R. Helton, Senior Project Manager, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mail Stop EBB–3D–02M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001.
On November 17, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued NRC Materials License No. SNM–2514 to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in Humboldt County, California. The license authorizes PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant in an ISFSI at the power plant site for a term
On April 20, 2009, PG&E submitted an application to NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72, requesting an amendment to NRC Materials License No. SNM–2514. PG&E's application requested that the ISFSI license be amended to allow for the relocation of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI quality assurance (QA) requirements from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Part 50 QA plan to the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Part 50 QA plan.
The current license states that, prior to the termination of the Part 50 license for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, PG&E would be required to submit a 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart G, compliant QA plan, for the Humboldt Bay ISFSI, to the NRC for approval. The proposed amendment seeks to link this requirement to the termination of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Part 50 license rather than the termination of the Diablo Canyon Power Plan Part 50 license. The proposed amendment retains the requirement for PG&E to submit a Subpart G compliant QA plan to the NRC for approval, prior to terminating the controlling Part 50 license.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.16, a Notice of Docketing was published in the
Amendment No. 2 complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's rules and regulations. The NRC has made appropriate findings, as required by the Act and the NRC's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in Amendment No. 2. The issuance of Amendment No. 2 satisfied the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) for a categorical exclusion. Thus, the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the staff has determined that this license amendment, requesting the relocation of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI QA plan, does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to have this action rescinded or modified must file a request for a hearing and, a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, in accordance with the NRC E–Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) and any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, must be filed in accordance with the E–Filing rule. The E–Filing rule 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 a waiver 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 petitioner/requestor should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, they 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 public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory e-filing system may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), file an exemption request 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,
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)–(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3)), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by November 9, 2009.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester;
2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding;
4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and
The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b).
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must:
1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted;
2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention;
3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;
4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding;
5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and
6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief.
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC documents that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer.
Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E–Filing rule, within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310.
The NRC has prepared a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) that documents the staff's review and evaluation of the amendment. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's “Rules of Practice,” final NRC records and documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation and the SER, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at:
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 08/31/2009.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11860 6 and for economic injury is 11861 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are North Carolina.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time, and agenda for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on September 22, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 23, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, the meeting will be held at the U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, in the Eisenhower Conference room, located on the 2nd floor, side b, and on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, in the Administrator's Large Conference room, located on the 7th floor.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs serves as an independent source of advice and policy recommendation to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
The purpose of the meeting is scheduled as a full committee meeting. The agenda will include presentations regarding “Business Counseling and Training.”
The meeting is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs must contact Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison, by September 4, 2009, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Veterans Business Development, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416,
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison at (202) 619–1697;
For more information, please visit our Web site at
In notice document E9–20788 beginning on page 44425 in the issue of Friday, August 28, 2009, make the following correction:
On page 44425, in the second column, the date underneath the subject was inadvertently omitted. The date should read as set forth above.
Notice is hereby given that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
Rule 2a–7 (17 CFR 270.2a–7) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”) governs money market funds. Money market funds are open-end management investment companies that differ from other open-end management investment companies in that they seek to maintain a stable price per share, usually $1.00. The rule exempts money market funds from the valuation requirements of the Act and, subject to certain risk-limiting conditions, permits money market funds to use the “amortized cost method” of asset valuation or the “penny-rounding method” of share pricing.
Rule 2a–7 imposes certain recordkeeping and reporting obligations on money market funds. The board of directors of a money market fund, in supervising the fund's operations, must establish written procedures designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value (“NAV”). The board also must adopt guidelines and procedures relating to certain responsibilities it delegates to the fund's adviser. These procedures and guidelines typically address various aspects of the fund's operations. The fund must maintain and preserve for six years a written copy of both procedures and guidelines. The fund also must maintain and preserve for six years a written record of the board's considerations and actions taken in connection with the discharge of its responsibilities, to be included in the board's minutes. In addition, the fund must maintain and preserve for three years written records of certain credit risk analyses, evaluations with respect to securities subject to demand features or guarantees, and determinations with respect to adjustable rate securities and asset backed securities. If the board takes action with respect to defaulted securities, events of insolvency, or deviations in share price, the fund must file with the Commission an exhibit to Form N–SAR (17 CFR 249.330) describing the nature and circumstances of the action. If any portfolio security fails to meet certain eligibility standards under the rule, the fund also must identify those securities in an exhibit to Form N–SAR. After certain events of default or insolvency relating to a portfolio security, the fund must notify the Commission of the event and the actions the fund intends to take in response to the situation.
The recordkeeping requirements in rule 2a–7 are designed to enable Commission staff in its examinations of money market funds to determine compliance with the rule, as well as to ensure that money market funds have established procedures for collecting the information necessary to make adequate credit reviews of securities in their portfolios. The reporting requirements of rule 2a–7 are intended to assist Commission staff in overseeing money market funds.
Commission staff estimates that each of 757
The Commission staff estimate of 310,983 burden hours is a decrease from the previous estimate of 1,034,800 hours. The decrease is primarily attributable to the decrease in the number of money market funds and updated information from money market funds regarding hourly burdens, including significant differences in burden hours reported by the funds surveyed in this submission year than those reported by funds in prior submission years.
These estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission rules.
In addition to the burden hours, Commission staff estimates that money market funds will incur costs to preserve records required under rule 2a–7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds, depending on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the fund preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve compliance records.
The collections of information required by rule 2a–7 are necessary to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants, Gemini Fund Services, LLC, 450 Wireless Boulevard, Hauppauge, New York 11788–0132.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel at (202) 551–6990, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and currently consists of six separate funds: The Amerigo Fund, Clermont Fund, Berolina Fund, Reservoir Fund, Descartes Fund, and Liahona Fund.
The Adviser, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nebraska, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser serves as the investment adviser of each Fund and will serve as the investment adviser of each of the New Funds. The Adviser's primary business activity is providing investment management services to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the “Advisory Agreement”). The Advisory Agreement was approved by the board of trustees of the Trust (“Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust or the Adviser (the “Independent Trustees”) and, except with respect to the New Funds, was approved by the initial shareholder of each Fund. With respect to the New Funds, the Advisory Agreement will be approved by the initial shareholder of the Fund.
2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser is responsible for formulating each Fund's investment program and for making day-to-day investment decisions and engaging in portfolio transactions. For the investment management services that it provides to each Fund, the Adviser
3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to select certain Subadvisers to manage all or a portion of the assets of a Fund, pursuant to a Subadvisory Agreement and enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without shareholder approval (the “Manager of Managers Structure”). The Applicants will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust, a Fund or of the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as Subadviser to one or more Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”), unless shareholder approval of the Subadvisory Agreement with that Affiliated Subadviser is obtained. The requested relief will not apply with respect to Affiliated Subadvisers.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f–2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that their requested relief meets this standard.
3. Applicants state that the shareholders expect the Adviser and the Board to select the Subadviser for a Fund that is best suited to achieve the Fund's investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the investor, the role of the Subadvisers with respect to the Funds utilizing the Manager of Managers Structure is substantially equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment company advisory firms. Applicants believe that permitting the Adviser to perform those duties for which shareholders of the Funds are paying the Adviser without incurring unnecessary delay or expense will be appropriate in the interests of Fund shareholders and will allow each Fund to operate more efficiently. Applicants also note that the Advisory Agreement will remain fully subject to the shareholder approval requirements in section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f–2 under the Act, including the requirement for shareholder voting.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before offering shares of that sub-advised Fund to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Fund relying on the order requested in this application will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to this application. Each Fund relying on the order requested in this application will hold itself out to the public as utilizing the Manager of Managers Structure described in this application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.
3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser, the affected Fund shareholders will be furnished all information about the new Subadviser that would be included in a proxy statement. To meet this obligation, the Fund will provide shareholders with an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without such agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Boards will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Fund that is sub-advised, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets, and, subject to review and approval by the Board, will: (i) Set each Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or a part of a Fund's assets; (iii) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate a Fund's assets among one or more Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers; and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Subadvisers comply with the relevant Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
8. No trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or director, manager or officer of the Adviser, will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (i) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser, or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Subadviser.
9. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the Application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under 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, September 10, 2009 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his 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 matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 10, 2009 will be:
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice to establish a system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) gives notice of a proposed Privacy Act system of records: “Ethics Conduct Rules Files (SEC–60).” This system will contain information related to applicable SEC Ethics Conduct Rules (currently found at 17 CFR Part 200 Subpart M), including outside employment and activities, and covered securities transactions, securities holdings and securities accounts.
The proposed system will become effective October 13, 2009, unless further notice is given. The Commission will publish a new notice if the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made based on comments received. To be assured of consideration, comments should be received on or before October 8, 2009.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Barbara A. Stance, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Information Technology, 202–551–7209.
The Commission gives notice of the proposed establishment of a system of records, entitled “Ethics Conduct Rules Files (SEC–60).” The system will contain information related to the SEC's “Regulation Concerning Conduct of Members and Employees and Former Members and Employees of the Commission” (“Ethics Conduct Rules”), currently located at 17 CFR Part 200 Subpart M, including outside employment and activities, and covered securities transactions, securities holdings and securities accounts.
On May 22, 2009, to consolidate related responsibilities, the Commission transferred all the Commission's Ethics Rules responsibilities that resided in the Office of Human Resources (consisting particularly of the administration of all of the SEC Ethics Conduct Rules files) to the Commission's Ethics Office. Consistent with the transfer of responsibilities, the Commission is establishing a system of records in the Ethics Office to maintain records related to the Ethics Conduct Rules applicable to Commission Members and employees, including reports on securities transactions, holdings, and accounts required by applicable Federal securities laws and regulations.
The Commission has submitted a report of the system of records to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the
Accordingly, the Commission is establishing a system of records to read as follows:
Ethics Conduct Rules Files.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.
SEC Members and employees, past and present.
Information relating to the SEC's “Regulation Concerning Conduct of Members and Employees and Former Members and Employees of the Commission” (“Ethics Conduct Rules”), currently located at 17 CFR Part 200 Subpart M, including outside employment and activities, and covered securities transactions, securities holdings and securities accounts.
The Federal securities laws (15 U.S.C. 77s, 78w, 77sss, 80a–37 and 80b–11) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including the Ethics Conduct Rules currently located at 17 CFR Part 200 Subpart M.
For use by authorized SEC Ethics Office personnel, designated by the Ethics Counsel, and from time to time certain other SEC personnel, designated by the Ethics Counsel in his or her discretion, in connection with their official functions related to administering and supervising compliance with the Commission's Ethics Conduct Rules.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Commission as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1. To a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency if the disclosing agency becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation;
2. To a court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the Government is a party or in order to comply with a judge-issued subpoena;
3. To a source when necessary to obtain information relevant to a conflict of interest or securities law investigation or decision;
4. To the National Archives and Records Administration or the General Services Administration in records management inspections;
5. To the Office of Management and Budget during legislative coordination on private relief legislation;
6. To the Department of Justice or in certain legal proceedings when the disclosing agency, and employee of the disclosing agency, or the United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in the litigation and the use of such records is deemed relevant and necessary to the litigation;
7. To reviewing officials in a new office, department or agency when an employee transfers from one position to another subject to the Ethics Conduct Rules;
8. To a Member of Congress or a congressional office in response to an inquiry made on behalf of an individual who is the subject of the record;
9. To interns, grantees, experts and contractors who have been engaged by the Commission to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need access to the records for the purpose of assisting the Commission in the efficient administration of its programs. Recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a;
10. When (1) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; and
11. As a data source for management information for production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; may also be utilized to respond to general requests for statistical information (without personal identification of individuals) under the Freedom of Information Act.
Records are maintained in electronic and paper format. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases and/or on computer disc. Paper records and records on computer disc are stored in locked file rooms and/or metal file cabinets.
Records may be retrieved by the individual's name or other personal identifiers, as well as non-identifying information. Information regarding individuals may be obtained through the use of cross-reference methodology.
Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. Buildings where records are stored have security cameras and 24 hour security guard service. Access is limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. Paper records are maintained in limited access areas during duty hours and in locked file cabinets and/or locked offices or file rooms at all other times. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of access codes and information technology security.
These records will be maintained for 6 years or otherwise in accordance with records schedules of the Commission and as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.
The Ethics Counsel and the Designated Agency Ethics Official, Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1050.
All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a record pertaining to the requesting individual may be directed to the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–5100.
Persons wishing to obtain information on the procedures for gaining access to or contesting the contents of these records may contact the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–5100.
Information is provided by current Members and employees of the Commission or their designees in accordance with the requirements of the SEC Ethics Conduct Rules.
None.
By the Commission.
On July 21, 2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
BATS proposes to begin charging a monthly fee for ports used to enter orders into the Exchange's trading system and to receive data from the Exchange.
The proposed rule change will apply to Members that obtain ports for direct access to the Exchange, non-member service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by Exchange Members that are their customers, and market data recipients. The Exchange states that it has previously provided ports free of charge to all Members and non-members that use such ports for order entry to the Exchange or for receipt of market data. However, the Exchange states that its infrastructure costs have increased over time. In addition, the Exchange believes that providing ports free of charge has not encouraged Members and non-members to reserve and maintain ports efficiently, but rather, has led to a significant number of ports that are reserved and enabled by such market participants, but are never used or are under-used. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the imposition of port fees will help the Exchange to continue to maintain and improve its infrastructure, while also encouraging Exchange customers to request and enable only the ports that are necessary for their operations related to the Exchange.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed port fees are equitably allocated among Members and non-members and do not unfairly or unreasonably discriminate between
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
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”)
CBOE is proposing to amend certain CBOE rules to (1) permit the Exchange to list Flexible Exchange Options (“FLEX Options”) on securities that are eligible for Non-FLEX options trading, even if the Exchange does not list Non-FLEX options on such securities, and (2) designate Corporate Debt Security Options as eligible for FLEX Options trading. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The first change being proposed by this filing is to permit CBOE to list FLEX Options on securities that are eligible for Non-FLEX options trading, even if the Exchange does not list Non-FLEX options on such securities. Currently, CBOE's rules only permit FLEX Options on those securities on which the Exchange lists and trades Non-FLEX options. For various reasons, exchange traded options are not listed on every NMS stock, index or other products approved for options trading. The Exchange recognizes that market participants may want access to options on such securities, in addition to the certainty and safeguards of a regulated and standardized marketplace. As an alternative to the over-the-counter marketplace, CBOE proposes to increase the spectrum of products that are eligible for FLEX Options trading, even if the Exchange does not list Non-FLEX options on such securities. In order to effect this change, the Exchange is proposing to amend its Flexible Exchange Options rules and other product rules (
The second change being proposed by this filing is to designate Corporate Debt Security Options as eligible for FLEX Option trading. To effect this change, the Exchange is proposing to adopt new rule 28.17, which is similar to other FLEX Option designation rules for other products that have stand alone chapters (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
As for permitting FLEX Options on Corporate Debt Security Options, the Exchange notes that new products brought up and approved by the SEC during the past couple of years (
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to revert to the previously approved requirements of certain listing standards that were inadvertently changed when adopting the new Listing Rules, and to complete certain conforming changes to the Listing Rules that were not fully implemented with their adoption. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized and proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) No change.
(b) When the Company's Primary Equity Security is not listed on [either] the Global Market or is
(a) When the Company's Primary Equity Security of the Company is listed on the Global Market or
(1) At least 100,000 Publicly Held Shares;
(2) A Market Value of Publicly Held Shares of at least $1,000,000;
(3) Minimum bid price of at least $1 per share;
(4) At least 100 Public Holders; and
(5) At least two registered and active Market Makers.
(b) When the Primary Equity Security of the Company is not listed on [either] the Global Market or
This rule provides the exemptions from the corporate governance rules afforded to certain types of Companies, and sets forth the phase-in schedules for initial public offerings, Companies emerging from bankruptcy and Companies transferring from other markets. This rule also describes the applicability of the corporate governance rules to controlled companies and sets forth the phase-in schedule afforded to Companies ceasing to be controlled companies.
(a) No change.
(1) No change.
IM–5615–1. No change.
(2) No change.
IM–5615–2. No change.
(3) No change.
IM–5615–3. No change.
(4) No change.
(5) Management Investment Companies
Management investment companies (including business development companies) are subject to all the requirements of the Rule 5600 Series, except that management investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 are exempt from the [requirements of] Independent Directors
Management investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 are already subject to a pervasive system of federal regulation in certain areas of corporate governance covered by 5600. In light of this, Nasdaq exempts from [Rule]
(b)–(c) No change.
IM–5615–5. No change.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On March 12, 2009, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change to revise the rules relating to the qualification, listing, and delisting of companies listed on, or applying to list on, Nasdaq to improve the organization of the rules, eliminate redundancies and simplify the rule language.
Nasdaq is proposing technical changes to conform Listing Rule 5415(b) and Listing Rules 5460(a) and (b) with the meaning of Old Rules 4420(k) and 4450(h), respectively, and to make them consistent with each other and the analogous Capital Market rules. Old Rules 4420(k) and 4450(h) provided quantitative initial and continued listing requirements for preferred stock and secondary classes of common stock. These rules also allowed the application of the respective initial and continued listing requirements applicable to common stock if the issuer's common stock or common stock equivalent security was not listed on either Nasdaq or another national securities exchange. In adopting Listing Rule 5415(a), Nasdaq replaced the term “national securities exchange” with the newly-defined term “Covered Security,”
Under Old Rule 4350(a)(2) and IM–4350–6, a management investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NASDAQ–2009–078. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rules 103B and 104 to increase the amount of time that a Designated Market Maker unit must maintain a bid and an offer at the National Best Bid and National Best Offer for an aggregate average period of time monthly. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Exchange market participants want a trading venue that encourages participants to add liquidity and facilitate their ability to trade larger orders more efficiently. The Exchange believes that essential to meeting the demands of its market participants and maintaining market quality is the availability of liquidity at the National Best Bid (“NBB”) and National Best Offer (“NBO”) (collectively herein “NBBO”).
The NYSE implemented sweeping changes to its market rules and execution technology designed to improve execution quality on the Exchange.
Moreover, the Exchange's market model was designed to encourage DMMs to add liquidity at the NBBO. Specifically, the Exchange implemented quoting requirements pursuant to Exchange Rules 103B (“Security Allocation and Reallocation”) and 104 (“Dealings and Responsibilities of DMMs”). The quoting requirement pursuant to Rule 103B is the single objective standard to determine DMM unit eligibility for participation in the allocation process. NYSE Rule 104 employs the same numerical standards as it relates to a DMM unit's affirmative obligations to maintain a continuous two-sided quote.
Under current Rules 103B and 104, for listed securities that have a consolidated average daily volume of less than one million shares per calendar month (“Less Active”) a DMM unit must maintain a bid and an offer at the NBBO for an aggregate average monthly time of 10% or more during a calendar month. For listed securities that have a consolidated average daily volume equal to or greater than one million shares per calendar month (“More Active”), the DMM unit must maintain a bid and an offer at the NBBO for an aggregate average monthly time of 5% or more during a calendar month. DMM units are required to satisfy the quoting requirement for both categories of their assigned securities.
Time at the NBBO is calculated as the average of the percentage of time the DMM unit has a bid or offer at the NBBO. For example, if a DMM unit maintains a quote at the National Best Bid for 6% of the trading day and a quote at the National Best Offer for 4% of the trading day, then the average of these times is 5%. The Exchange determines whether a DMM unit has met its quoting requirements on a month-by-month basis by calculating:
(1) The “Daily NBB Quoting Percentage” by determining the percentage of time a DMM unit has at least one round lot of displayed interest in an Exchange bid at the National Best Bid during each Trading Day for a calendar month;
(2) The “Daily NBO Quoting Percentage” by determining the percentage of time a DMM unit has at least one round lot of displayed interest in an Exchange offer at the
(3) The “Average Daily NBBO Quoting Percentage” for each Trading Day by summing the “Daily NBB Quoting Percentage” and the “Daily NBO Quoting Percentage” then dividing such sum by two;
(4) The “Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentage” for each security by summing the security's “Average Daily NBBO Quoting Percentages” for each Trading Day in a calendar month then dividing the resulting sum by the total number of Trading Days in such calendar month; and
(5) For the total Less Active Securities (More Active Securities) assigned to a DMM unit, the Exchange will determine the “Aggregate Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentage” by summing the Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentages for each Less Active Security (More Active Security) assigned to a DMM unit, then dividing such sum by the total number of Less Active Securities (More Active Securities) assigned to such DMM unit.
Below is an example of a quoting requirement calculation. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that DMM Unit 1 has two assigned securities, A and B and that there were 5 trading days in the selected calendar month.
The Average Daily NBBO for DMM Unit 1 is calculated for each security by summing the daily NBB and NBO of each security for that day and dividing that number by two:
The monthly average NBBO quoting percentage for DMM Unit 1 for each security is then calculated by summing the security's average Daily NBBO Quoting Percentages for all the Trading Days of the calendar month and then dividing the resulting total by the number of Trading Days in the calendar month (in this instance 5).
The Aggregate Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentage for DMM Unit 1 is determined by summing the Monthly Average NBBO for each security and then dividing such sum by the total number of securities.
The Exchange reviews each DMM unit's trading, as illustrated in the example above, on a monthly basis to determine whether the DMM unit has satisfied its quoting requirement.
The Exchange proposes to increase DMM units' quoting requirement for both Less Active and More Active securities in both NYSE Rules 103B and 104. For Less Active securities the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule 103B Section II(D) and NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(A) to increase the current requirement that DMM units be 10% of the time at the NBBO to 15%. For More Active securities, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 103B Section II(E) and NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(A) to increase the current 5% of the time at the NBBO to 10%. Time at the NBBO will continue to be calculated on a month-by-month basis as the average of the percentage of time DMM units have a bid or offer at the NBBO.
As proposed, assuming again that DMM Unit 1 has two assigned securities, A and B and that there were
The monthly average NBBO quoting percentage for DMM Unit 1 for each security is then calculated by summing the security's average Daily NBBO Quoting Percentages for all the Trading Days of the calendar month and then dividing the resulting total by the number of Trading Days in the calendar month (in this instance 5).
The Aggregate Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentage for DMM Unit 1 is determined by summing the Monthly Average NBBO for each security and then dividing such sum by the total number of securities.
In the example above, assuming Securities A and B were Less Active Securities, then DMM Unit 1 would not have met that component of the proposed quoting obligation for the month because the 12% aggregate monthly average is 3% less than the required 15% monthly average time at the NBBO for its Less Active Securities. If, however, Securities A and B were More Active Securities, then the DMM Unit 1 would have met that component of the proposed quoting obligation for that month because the 12% aggregate monthly average is 2% higher than the required 10% monthly average time at the NBBO for More Active Securities.
The Exchange will continue to review each DMM unit's trading on a monthly basis to determine whether the DMM unit has satisfied its quoting requirement for both Less Active and More Active Securities. The Exchange's current review of DMM units' trading on a monthly basis suggests that the proposed increase would not place an undue burden on DMM units. All DMM units currently exceed their quoting requirements on a monthly basis. Based on past performance, the Exchange anticipates that the changes proposed herein combined with the above referenced rebate changes will establish a new baseline for quoting by DMM units that will incentivize the DMM units to provide additional liquidity above the new proposed minimum standards. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed quoting requirements increase is reasonable, since it is anticipated to improve market quality by increasing liquidity at the NBBO, without adversely impacting the DMM units' ability to meet their market making obligations.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that increasing the quoting requirements pursuant to both NYSE Rules 103B and 104 is consistent with the Exchange's commitment to providing its customers with a trading venue that has deep liquidity at the NBBO and transparency, the hallmark of a fair and efficient market.
The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 retroactively waive the Cancellation Fee for the month of July 2009 and issue a rebate to member organizations for Cancellation Fees that were assessed in July 2009.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Website 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 proposed rule change is to rebate monies previously assessed for the Cancellation Fee in July 2009 to all member organizations. During the month of July 2009, member organizations were assessed $2.10 per order for each cancelled electronically-delivered
The Exchange assessed the applicable Cancellation Fee of $2.10 per order on member organizations, as specified above, during the month of July 2009. The Exchange believes that recent changes to the Cancellation Fee may have created confusion among its members as to the applicability of the fee and/or its calculation. The Exchange has explained the current fee applicability to its member organizations
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–Phlx-2009–76 and should be submitted on or before September 29, 2009.
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”),
BX is filing a proposed rule change to correct a typographical error in Rule 7018. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5
In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
BX is submitting this filing to correct a typographical error in Rule 7018.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
BX 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to modify the procedures followed when a listed company falls below certain listing requirements. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule upon approval.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
When the Listing Qualifications Department determines that a Company does not meet a listing standard set forth in the Rule 5000 Series, it will immediately notify the Company of the deficiency. As explained in more detail below, deficiency notifications are of four types:
(1)–(4) No change.
Notifications of deficiencies that allow for submission of a compliance plan or an automatic cure or compliance period may result, after review of the compliance plan or expiration of the cure or compliance period, in issuance of a Staff Delisting Determination or a Public Reprimand Letter.
(a)–(b) No change.
IM–5810–1. No change.
(c) Types of Deficiencies and Notifications.
The type of deficiency at issue determines whether the Company will be immediately suspended and delisted, or whether it may submit a compliance plan for review or is entitled to an automatic cure or compliance period before a Staff Delisting Determination is issued. In the case of a deficiency not specified below, Staff will issue the Company a Staff Delisting Determination or a Public Reprimand Letter.
(1) No change.
(2) Deficiencies for which a Company may Submit a Plan of Compliance for Staff Review.
(A) Unless the Company is currently under review by an Adjudicatory Body for a Staff Delisting Determination, the Listing Qualifications Department may accept and review a plan to regain compliance when a Company is deficient with respect to one of the standards listed in subsections (i) through (iv) below. In accordance with Rule 5810(c)(2)(C), plans provided pursuant to subsections (i) through (iii) below must be provided generally within [15]
(i)–(iv) No change.
IM–5810–2. No change.
(B) Staff Alternatives Upon Review of Plan Staff may request such additional information from the Company as is necessary to make a determination, as described below. In cases other than filing delinquencies,
(i) Grant an extension of time to regain compliance not greater than [105]
(ii)–(iii) No change.
(C) Timeline for Submission of Compliance Plans
Except for deficiencies from the standards of Rule 5250(c)(1) or (2), Staff's notification of deficiencies that allow for compliance plan review will inform the Company that it has [15]
(D)–(F) No change.
(3) Deficiencies for which the Rules Provide a Specified Cure or Compliance Period
With respect to deficiencies related to the standards listed in (A)–(E) below, Staff's notification will inform the Company of the applicable cure or compliance period provided by these Rules and discussed below. If the Company does not regain compliance within the specified cure or compliance period, the Listing Qualifications Department will immediately issue a Staff Delisting Determination letter.
(A)–(B) No change.
(C) Market Value of Listed Securities [(MVLS)]
A failure to meet the continued listing requirements for [MVLS]
(D) Market Value of Publicly Held Shares [(MVPHS)]
A failure to meet the continued listing requirement for Market Value of Publicly Held Shares shall be determined to exist only if the deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. Upon such failure, the Company shall be notified promptly and shall have a period of [90]
]Compliance can be achieved by meeting the applicable standard for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days during the [90]
(E)–(F) No change.
(4) No change.
(d) No change.
(a)–(d) No change.
(e) Computation and Adjustment of Time
(1) No change.
(2) When Staff determines whether a deficiency has occurred with respect to [bid price, market value of listed securities]
(3)–(4) No change.
(f)–(k) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq is proposing to modify certain of the listing rules that provide the compliance periods associated with Nasdaq's continued listing rules to make them more consistent and, in some cases, to provide additional time to companies to regain compliance. In addition, Nasdaq is proposing to modify the time available to a company to provide a plan to regain compliance with certain listing requirements and the length of the extension that Nasdaq staff can allow a company to regain compliance.
Under Nasdaq rules, if a company's security has a closing bid price below $1 for 30 consecutive trading days, it no longer meets the bid price requirement and is automatically provided 180 calendar days to regain compliance.
As revised, the maximum amount of time that could be afforded to a company that failed to meet the market value of listed securities or market value of publicly held shares requirements would be 18 months. A company could only receive an extension up to this 18-month maximum length if: (i) It failed to comply during the automatic 180-day compliance period;
Nasdaq also proposes to modify the periods applicable in cases where a company can provide staff with a plan to regain compliance, such as when a company fails to meet the minimum requirements for stockholders' equity, the number of publicly held shares, or the number of shareholders.
As revised, the maximum amount of time that could be afforded to a company that failed to meet a listing requirement that allows the submission of a plan to regain compliance would be 18 months. A company could only receive an extension up to this 18-month maximum length if: (i) After reviewing the company's compliance plan, Nasdaq staff granted the company the maximum 180-day period to regain compliance;
Any company that had not yet been notified that is was non-compliant with the market value of listed securities requirement upon Commission approval of the proposed rule change would not be notified until they were below the requirement for 30 consecutive trading days.
With respect to the proposed changes to the compliance plan process, if a company has not yet submitted its plan of compliance when the proposed rule change is approved, the deadline to submit that plan would be extended until 45 days from the date of staff's notification of the deficiency. If the company had submitted its plan of compliance when the proposed rule change is approved, but staff has not yet made a determination with respect to whether to grant additional time, staff would be permitted to grant the company up to 180 days from staff's notification of the deficiency to regain compliance. If the company has already received an extension of time to regain compliance from staff when the proposed rule change is approved,
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Nasdaq 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure on BOX, as described in Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the current BOX Fee Schedule. The Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure, and its respective charges and credits, currently applies to most classes listed for trading on BOX that are included in the Penny Pilot Program, as referenced in Chapter V, Section 33 of the BOX Rules (“Penny Pilot Classes”).
As proposed, the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure will no longer apply and instead `standard' execution fees will be applied to executions in all Penny Pilot Classes, except with regard to inbound P and P/A Order executions.
The Exchange is proposing that these changes become effective on September 1, 2009. In conjunction with this proposal, the Exchange proposes to issue a Regulatory Circular notifying BOX Options Participants of the impending change to pricing for executions on the BOX Market.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 (i) eliminate the requirement of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 that Market Makers establish and maintain certain specifically prescribed information barriers, (ii) add new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.7 regarding trading ahead of research reports, and (iii) revising NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.18 to incorporate compliance with NASD Rule 3010. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b–4 form. A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 that Market Makers on the Corporation maintain certain specifically prescribed information barrier procedures. At the same time, the Exchange further proposes new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.7, which (i) prohibits ETP Holders from trading ahead of research reports and (ii) requires each ETP Holder to establish, maintain and enforce procedures regarding the flow of information between research department personnel and trading department personnel. Finally, the Exchange proposes to revise NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.18 to incorporate compliance with NASD Rule 3010.
Presently, NYSE Arca requires that each ETP Holder
(a) trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that issuer; or
(b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; or
(c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, non-public information.
The Exchange also has several rules prohibiting ETP Holders from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on the ETP Holders' access to or receipt of material, non-public information. For example, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.16 prohibits an ETP Holder from trading ahead of its customer's limit orders.
In this context, by prohibiting the misuse of material, non-public information, the Exchange has appropriately defined the behavior that its participants must avoid. In the Exchange's view, prescribing the form that these policies and procedures must take is unnecessarily burdensome. By defining certain prohibited behavior (e.g., Rules 6.3, 6.16, and 6.6) the Exchange has placed its participants on notice as to their specific compliance
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to eliminate, in their entirety, the requirements set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 that Market Makers on the Corporation maintain certain specifically prescribed information barrier procedures. This proposal is consistent with the approach currently employed by the Nasdaq Stock Market, L.L.C. (“Nasdaq”), which does not generally require its members to establish or maintain information barriers.
By amending its rules in accordance with this proposal, the Exchange reinforces a regulatory structure that clearly identifies prohibited conduct (
“ETP Holders shall comply with NASD Rule 3010(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) as if such rule were part of NYSE Arca's Rules.”
The Exchange further proposes adding new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.7, prohibiting ETP Holders from establishing, increasing, decreasing or liquidating an inventory position in a security or a derivative of such security based on non-public advance knowledge of the content or timing of a research report in that security. Similar to FINRA Rule 5280, NYSE Arca hereby proposes to require that ETP Holders must establish, maintain and enforce procedures reasonably designed to restrict or limit the information flow between research department personnel and trading department personnel, so as to prevent trading department personnel from utilizing non-public advance knowledge of the issuance or content of a research report.
Second, like Nasdaq, market makers and Lead Market Makers on NYSE Arca do not have any advantages regarding relevant trading information provided by the Exchange, either at, or prior to, the point of execution vis-à-vis other market participants. The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca ETP Holders, Market Makers, and Lead Market Makers have equal access to the relevant trading information coming from or provided by the Exchange. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Exchange to establish the same approach with respect to information barriers as employed by Nasdaq.
Eliminating NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26, adding NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.7 and clarifying NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.18, as proposed herein, offers Exchange participants both certainty and flexibility. NYSE Arca participants are on notice as to their obligations to maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information. Like Nasdaq, NYSE Arca participants will now be afforded the same flexibility to maintain compliance mechanisms of their own design. The Exchange believes that this approach fosters a fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon its members.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
After careful consideration, 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.
The Exchange is proposing to eliminate NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 and the specifically prescribed information barriers described therein, and to adopt a more principles-based approach that would permit a Market Maker to develop and apply its own policies and procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 addresses concerns arising from the potential for the sharing of material non-public information between a Market Maker's market making activities and Other Business Activities of the Market Maker or its affiliates.
While the proposed rules will no longer specify policies and procedures a Market Maker must establish, the proposal will require that the policies and procedures be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, and with Exchange rules. The Commission believes that, with adequate oversight by the Exchange of its members, elimination of prescriptive information barrier requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of NYSE Arca rules requiring ETP Holders to establish and maintain systems to supervise the activities of ETP Holders, and written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the prohibition on misuse of material nonpublic information.
Specifically, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.3, which requires ETP Holders
Pursuant to this proposal rule change, ETP Holders may utilize the flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the securities market itself. An ETP Holder should be proactive in assuring that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. In addition, the Commission notes that, while information barriers are not specifically required under the proposal, an ETP Holder's business model or business activities may dictate that an information barrier or a functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
The Commission believes that the regulatory approach in this proposed rule change is substantially similar to the regulatory approach of Nasdaq. In particular, the NYSE Arca approach, like the Nasdaq approach, (i) enumerates the conduct that is prohibited by its members, including the potential misuse of material non-public information and (ii) provides for the policies and procedures that must be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the same. In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its current examination procedure for the review of appropriate supervisory systems and procedures will remain in place.
The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
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 proposes to establish its Risk Management Gateway (“RMG”) service. A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to offer, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Euronext Advanced Trading Solutions, Inc., the Risk Management Gateway (“RMG”) service as a facility
Traditionally, the customers of an ETP Holder gave orders to the ETP Holder who then submitted those orders to the Exchange on behalf of the customer. By means of sponsored access, an ETP Holder may allow its customers to enter orders directly into the trading systems of the Exchange as Sponsored Participants, without the Sponsoring ETP Holder acting as an intermediary.
To facilitate the ability of Sponsoring ETP Holders to monitor and oversee the sponsored access activity of their Sponsored Participants, NYXATS will offer an order-verification service to Sponsoring ETP Holders. This service will act as a risk filter by causing the orders of Sponsored Participants to pass through RMG prior to entering the Exchange's trading systems for execution. When a Sponsored Participant's order passes through RMG,
If the order is consistent with the parameters set by the ETP Holder, then RMG allows the order to continue along its path to the Exchange's trading systems. If the order falls outside of those parameters, then RMG returns the order to the Sponsored Participant. RMG will only return an order to the Sponsored Participant when the order fails to comply with the criteria set by the Sponsoring ETP Holder.
RMG software interacts with orders only prior to the orders' entry into the Exchange's trading system for execution. RMG does not have order execution or trade reporting capabilities (though it will allow a Sponsoring ETP Holder to monitor the orders of its Sponsored Participants). RMG maintains a record of all messages relating to Sponsored Participants' transactions and supplies a copy of such messages to the applicable Sponsoring ETP Holder.
The Sponsoring ETP Holder, and not RMG, will have full responsibility for ensuring that Sponsored Participants' sponsored access to the Exchange complies with the Exchange's sponsored access rules. The use of RMG by an ETP Holder does not automatically constitute compliance with Exchange rules.
NYXATS will host RMG software on NYXATS' infrastructure. After passing through RMG software, each order will enter the NYSE Arca's Gateway.
The Exchange does not require Sponsoring ETP Holders to use RMG. Sponsoring ETP Holders are free to use a competing risk-management service or to use none at all. The Exchange will not provide preferential treatment to Sponsoring ETP Holders using RMG.
The Exchange proposes to make RMG available to its Users, as a facility of the Exchange, pursuant to contractual arrangements.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
CHX proposes to amend its rules to create an early trading session beginning at 6 a.m. CT on days the Exchange is open for trading and to create a second Late Trading Session from 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. CT. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to create an early trading session beginning at 6 a.m. CT on days the Exchange is open for trading and to create a second Late Trading Session from 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. CT. We believe that CHX Participants may be interested in posting bids and offers on the CHX in an early trading session, as well as in a late session immediately after the close of the Regular Session. In order to facilitate additional trading activity, the Exchange proposes to create an early trading session and a second late trading session, both of which would operate under the same basic operational and regulatory framework as the Regular Trading Session. CHX Participants could enter orders to buy and sell eligible securities and those orders would either be executed or displayed (or entered without being displayed in the case of a reserve or undisplayed order) depending on the status of our book and the national market system. The rules applicable to the Regular Trading Session would govern the Early and Late Trading Sessions, with the exception that the Regulation NMS prohibitions regarding intermarket trade-throughs and locked and crossed markets would not be in force. The current Late Trading Session (which would be renamed the “Late Crossing Session”) would be available from 3:15 p.m. to 4 p.m. CT and would be available only to Participants seeking to execute cross orders.
In furtherance of this initiative, the Exchange proposes to add or amend the a [sic] number of applicable CHX rules. Definitions setting the times of the respective trading sessions would be added to Article 1. Due to the risk of illiquidity, the Exchange does not believe that it is appropriate to execute IOC Market Orders during any of the Extended Hours trading sessions and we propose to restrict use of that order type to the Regular Trading Session. We propose to add a new rule to the Article 8 business conduct rules mandating that Participants which allow customers to trade in extended hours trading sessions to make certain specific risk disclosures relating to such activity. These risk disclosures are modeled on the rules of the BATS Exchange, Inc. regarding extended hours trading.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 proposed rule change seeks to permit OCC to clear options based on index-linked securities (“Index-Linked Securities”).
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.
Index-Linked Securities are non-convertible debt of a major financial institution that typically have a term of at least one year but not greater than thirty years and that provide for payment at maturity based upon the performance of an index or indices of equity securities or futures contracts, one or more physical commodities,
OCC is proposing to amend its By-Laws and Rules to accommodate Index-Linked Security Options. OCC is proposing to add a definition of “index-linked security” to Article I of its By-Laws, to amend the definition of “stock option contract” in Article I of its By-Laws to include Index-Linked Security Options, and to amend the definition of “non-equity securities option contract” in Article I of its By-Laws to clarify that Index-Linked Security Options are excluded from the definition. OCC also is proposing to amend Interpretation and Policy .05 to Article VI, Section 11A of its By-Laws to clarify that call of an entire class of Index-Linked Securities will result in an adjustment of Index-Linked Security Options in the event of a cash merger, but that a partial call will not result in an adjustment. OCC also is proposing to add Interpretation and Policy .10 to Article VI, Section 11A of the By-Laws that would state that interest payments on Index-Linked Securities generally will be considered “ordinary cash dividends or distributions” within the meaning of paragraph (c) Article VI, Section 11A. In addition, OCC is proposing to add language to Rule 604(b)(4)(iii) stating that for the purposes of Rule 604, Index-Linked Securities will be treated as stock, assuming they meet the basic listing requirement applicable to stocks. Finally, OCC is proposing to amend Rule 604(b)(4) to conform to its practice of limiting the value of securities with the same CUSIP number, as opposed to securities of the same issuer, to 10% of the margin requirement of an account, and proposing to add Interpretation and Policy .14 to Rule 604(b)(4) stating that OCC may disapprove for margin credit a security that otherwise meets the Rule 604(b) criteria if other factors warrant such a disapproval.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 July 23, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In Amendment No. 1, ISE also clarified that the proposal is for a one year pilot period.
On June 5, 2009, ISE Holdings entered into a Membership Purchase Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”) with Optifreeze. Ballista Securities LLC (“Ballista Securities”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Optifreeze, is a member of the Exchange. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, ISE Holdings contributed cash to the capital of Optifreeze in exchange for membership interests representing 8.57% of the aggregate membership interests in Optifreeze. As a result of the purchase, ISE Holdings became a member of Optifreeze and is entitled to appoint one representative to the Optifreeze Board of Directors, but does not have any voting or other control arrangements with any other members of Optifreeze relating to its investment in Optifreeze.
In connection with the capital contribution by ISE Holdings in Optifreeze, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 312 (Limitation on Affiliation between the Exchange and Members) to allow for ISE Holdings' ownership interest in Ballista Securities on a one year pilot basis, and to set forth certain limitations and obligations regarding that relationship. ISE Rule 312 provides, in part, that, without prior Commission approval, the Exchange, or any entity with which the Exchange is affiliated shall not, directly or indirectly, acquire or maintain an ownership interest in a member or non-member owner. As a result of the transaction, an affiliate of the Exchange, ISE Holdings, maintains an indirect ownership interest in an ISE member, Ballista Securities, which, without Commission approval, would violate ISE Rule 312.
After careful consideration, 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.
In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the affiliation of an exchange, or an affiliate of the exchange, with one of its members raises potential conflicts of interest and the potential for unfair competitive advantage.
ISE has requested that the Commission approve the proposed relationship described above on a temporary basis for a period of one year, subject to certain limitations and conditions set forth in proposed ISE Rule 312(c). Specifically, proposed ISE Rule 312(c) provides that (1) so long as ISE Holdings, or another affiliate of the Exchange, maintains an ownership interest in Ballista Securities; and (2) Ballista Securities remains a member of ISE:
• FINRA, a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its affiliates (a “non-
• The Exchange shall enter into a plan pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Act
• With respect to unique ISE rules, ISE shall enter into a regulatory services contract with a non-affiliated SRO to perform certain regulatory responsibilities for Ballista Securities;
• The regulatory services contract with the non-affiliated SRO shall require the Exchange to provide the non-affiliated SRO with information, in an easily accessible manner, regarding all exception reports, alerts, complaints, trading errors, cancellations, investigations, and enforcement matters (collectively, “exceptions”) in which Ballista Securities is identified as a participant that has potentially violated ISE or Commission rules, and shall require that the non-affiliated SRO provide a report to the Exchange quantifying exceptions on not less than a quarterly basis;
• ISE shall establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to ensure that Ballista Securities and its affiliates do not develop or implement changes to its systems on the basis of nonpublic information obtained as a result of ISE Holdings' ownership interest in Ballista Securities, until such information is available generally to similarly situated members of the Exchange; and
• The ownership interest of ISE Holdings in Ballista Securities is subject to the foregoing conditions and is approved on a temporary basis, for a period not to exceed one year.
Additionally, ISE Holdings currently owns less than a 9% equity interest in Optifreeze and does not own a controlling interest in Optifreeze or otherwise have any veto or other special voting rights with respect to the management or operation of Optifreeze. The Exchange has acknowledged that neither it, nor any of its affiliates, may directly or indirectly increase its equity ownership in Optifreeze without prior Commission approval.
The Commission finds the proposed limitations and conditions of Rule 312(c) to be consistent with the Act, particularly Section 6(b)(5) thereunder.
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 extend until September 8, 2009, the operation of interim NYSE Rule 128 (“Clearly Erroneous Executions for NYSE Equities”) which permits the Exchange to cancel or adjust clearly erroneous executions if they arise out of the use or operation of any quotation, execution or communication system owned or operated by the Exchange, including those executions that occur in the event
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend until September 8, 2009, the operation of interim NYSE Rule 128 (“Clearly Erroneous Executions for NYSE Equities”) which permits the Exchange to cancel or adjust clearly erroneous executions if they arise out of the use or operation of any quotation, execution or communication system owned or operated by the Exchange, including those executions that occur in the event of a system disruption or system malfunction.
Prior to the implementation of NYSE Rule 128 on January 28, 2008,
In order for the NYSE to be consistent with other national securities exchanges which have some version of a clearly erroneous execution rule, the Exchange is drafting an amended clearly erroneous rule which will accommodate such other exchanges but will be appropriate for the NYSE market model.
The NYSE notes that the Commission approved an amended clearly erroneous execution rule for Nasdaq in May 2008.
On February 10, 2009, NYSE Arca submitted a proposal to the SEC to amend its clearly erroneous rule. The NYSE Arca proposed rule differed in certain respects from the Nasdaq clearly erroneous rule. On March 9, 2009, the Exchange filed with the SEC a request to extend the operation of interim Rule 128 until June 9, 2009
Thereafter, on April 24, 2009, NYSE Arca filed a revised rule change with the Commission to amend its clearly erroneous rule (NYSE Arca Rule 7.10).
The Exchange anticipates finalizing proposed rule text of its clearly erroneous execution rule shortly, and is, therefore, requesting to extend the operation of interim Rule 128 until September 8, 2009. Prior to September 8, 2009, the Exchange intends to formally file a 19b–4 rule change amending interim Rule 128.
The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
As articulated more fully in the “Purpose” Section above, the proposed rule would place the NYSE on equal footing with other national securities exchanges. This will promote the integrity of the market and protect the public interest, since it would permit all exchanges to cancel or adjust clearly erroneous trades when such trades occur, rather than canceling them on all other markets, but leaving them standing on only one market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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”),
BX is filing a proposed rule change to modify pricing for BX members using the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System. BX will implement the proposed rule change on September 1, 2009. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available at
In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
BX is proposing to modify its fees to execute transactions on the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System.
For securities other than those listed on NASDAQ and NYSE, BX currently charges a fee of $0.0014 per share executed to access liquidity and provides a credit of $0.002 per share executed for providing liquidity. Under the modified fee schedule, BX will raise the fee to access liquidity to $0.0016 and lower the liquidity provider credit to $0.0014. Although the change will result in a small fee increase, the level of fees is consistent with BX's goal of offering liquidity at extremely low cost to investors, and also reverses an inverted fee structure.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
BX 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 June 11, 2009, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR–DTC–2009–11 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
The proposed rule change eliminates one of the Indemnity Surety Programs (“PSP II”) of DTC's Profile Modification System (“Profile”).
On April 19, 2000, the Commission approved a DTC rule filing to establish Profile,
On November 17, 2000, the Commission approved a DTC rule filing to establish the Profile Indemnity Surety Program (“PSP”).
2000) [File No. SR–DTC–2000–09].
On June 26, 2008, the Commission approved a DTC rule filing to establish PSP II,
On June 3, 2009, the Commission approved a DTC rule filing to establish a new Profile Indemnity Insurance Program (“PIP II”) to replace PSP II.
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 registered clearing agency. In particular, the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F),
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
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” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Public Customer Orders on BOX which are not executable against the BOX Book are routed as Principal Acting as Agent (“P/A”) Orders via the OCC Hub System
For example, if a Public Customer Order is entered into the BOX Trading Host and is routed to an away market as an outbound P/A Order and subsequent to the routing executed, the trade execution will be free for the first 4,000 contracts traded each month, regardless of class. All subsequent Public Customer Orders traded as a result of an outbound P/A Order in excess of 4,000 contracts will be charged $0.50 per contract. Previously, such a transaction was exempt from transaction charges.
The Exchange requests that the effective date of the proposed rule change be September 1, 2009.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange is proposing an amendment to the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below, and the most significant aspects of such statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.
The Exchange recently submitted a proposed rule change
Executions on BOX resulting from inbound P and P/A Orders sent via the OCC Hub are subject to the same billing treatment as other executions on BOX. In conjunction with the above referenced rule change the Exchange is now proposing to remove Section 7 of the Fee Schedule in its entirety and the application of the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing to inbound P and P/A Orders sent to and executed on BOX in these Penny Pilot Classes. As a result the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure will no longer exist on BOX. Standard P and P/A fees, as set forth in Section 4 of the BOX Fee Schedule, shall instead apply to inbound P and P/A Orders in all Penny Pilot Classes. In addition, the current Section 8 of the Fee Schedule will be renumbered as new Section 7. If approved, this proposal will conform inbound P and P/A fees with the fees charged to BOX Options Participants for the transactions in the same Penny Pilot Classes.
For example, an inbound P or P/A Order, routed to BOX from an away market executes against an order resting on the BOX Book. The inbound P or P/A Order is the remover of the liquidity. Prior to this proposal, such a transaction may have been subject to the fees set forth in the Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure, resulting in the applicable “take” fee (currently $0.45) of Section 7 of the Fee Schedule. Under this proposal, the standard $0.20 inbound P and P/A Order fee would apply.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
After careful consideration, 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.
The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Grandfathered Rules of the Exchange. This proposal seeks to incorporate certain provisions of the former Constitution of the Boston Stock Exchange into the Grandfathered Rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet 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 NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. acquired the Boston Stock Exchange in August 2008. In the order approving the acquisition, the Constitution of the Boston Stock Exchange was replaced with the By-Laws of the Exchange as amended.
This proposal seeks to incorporate certain provisions of the former Constitution of the Boston Stock Exchange into the Grandfathered Rules. The provisions regard the following: (a) Participation (formerly Membership) rules, to supplement the By-Laws and the Grandfathered Rules to direct the Participants and prospective participants to Section 6(c) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as cited in the proposed rule text regarding the investigation and acceptance of an applicant; (b) Non-liability of the Exchange provision, to reinforce to Participants the “non-liability” of the Exchange for damages sustained from use of the facilities of the Exchange; (c) Insolvent Participants, to provide guidance for Insolvent Participants to notify the Exchange, of such insolvency and to state that the Exchange will notify the Commission of such insolvency; and (d) Exchange Inquiries to remind Participants that they may be subject to expulsion or suspension for failure to respond to an Exchange Inquiry.
The Exchange is seeking retroactive application of this proposal to the date which the new By-Laws were approved by the Commission.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of 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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail 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 July 2, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBSX is an all-electronic stock marketplace operated by the Exchange. The CBSX Floor Post is a location on the CBOE trading floor where market-makers can be stationed to respond to stock price discovery requests from CBOE's trading floor community. The Floor Post is a location for price discovery only; since CBSX is an electronic exchange, there is no open-outcry trading permitted, and any trades agreed to at the Floor Post must be entered into the CBSX system in accordance with the applicable rules.
Currently, only members who serve as Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPMs”) on CBSX may operate from the CBSX Floor Post.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2009–047) be, and it hereby is, approved.
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 assess a $.05 per contract fee for Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (“SPY”)
While changes to the Exchange's fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this proposal to be effective for trades settling on or after August 25, 2009.
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 proposed rule change is to create incentives for specialists, SQTs and RSQTs that receive directed order flow to provide liquidity in SPY equity options contracts sent to the Exchange for execution. The Exchange believes this incentive will allow the Exchange to remain competitive, while encouraging additional order flow in options overlaying SPY. The Exchange proposes to assess a $.05 per contract fee in SPY equity options that are directed to specialists, SQTs and RSQTs (“Directed Participants” or “Directed Specialists, RSQTs, or SQTs”
The Exchange currently provides a discount for ROTs (on-floor) and specialists that exceed 4.5 million contracts in a given month (the “Volume Threshold”) by assessing $ 0.01 per contract on contract volume above the Volume Threshold instead of the applicable options transaction charges. The Exchange aggregates the trading activity of separate ROTs (on-floor) and specialists for purposes of the Volume Threshold if there is at least 75% common ownership between the member organizations as reflected on each member organization's Form BB, Schedule A. The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.01 per contract instead of a $0.05 per contract fee for SPY equity option transactions when the Directed Participant exceeds the 4.5 million contracts Volume Threshold in a given month. The contract volume associated with SPY equity options contracts, including the proposal to assess a $.05 per contract fee in SPY equity options, would therefore be included in the Volume Threshold calculation and the $0.01 per contract rate would apply in the event a Directed Participant reaches the 4.5 million contracts Volume Threshold.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current information collection. Fractional Ownership is a program that offers increased flexibility in aircraft ownership.
Please submit comments by November 9, 2009.
Carla Mauney on (202) 267–9895, or by e-mail at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES–200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current information collection, FOQA is a voluntary program for the routine collection and analysis of digital flight data from airplane operations.
Please submit comments by November 9, 2009.
Carla Mauney on (202) 267–9895, or by e-mail at:
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES–200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to advise interested persons that PHMSA will conduct a public meeting to receive input and guidance for the upcoming Proof-of-Concept Study on the use of
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9 a.m.–3:30 p.m. and Wednesday October 14, 2009 9 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the DOT Headquarters, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Mr. Ryan Paquet, P.G., Assistant Director, Office of International Standards, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–0656.
The primary purpose of this public meeting will be to discuss the forthcoming HM–ACCESS Proof of Concept Study and specify requirements to be included in the Study's statement of work. In holding this public meeting, PHMSA seeks to receive feedback from a wide audience, representing myriad portions of the HM industry, including HM shippers, transporters, freight forwarders, emergency responders, other government agencies, technology providers, etc.
PHMSA's HM–ACCESS initiative aims to identify and eliminate barriers to the use of paperless tracking and hazard communications technologies, thereby (1) improving the availability and accuracy of hazard information; (2) improving the speed by which information is available to emergency responders when incidents occur; (3) and allowing U.S. companies to compete more effectively in the global economy by using the best tools available.
Spurred by competitive demands, just-in-time delivery requirements, and the globalization of supply chains, the transportation and logistics industries have embraced modern communication technologies; yet hazardous materials transport remains in a world of paper. The HM sector has harnessed many of the same technologies for streamlining commercial interchange, but information about shipments and packages is conveyed by markings on the package, placards on the vehicle, and shipping papers. Paper-based communication is slow, limits the information available, and is fraught with the potential for error. Inefficiencies and errors in the handling of hazardous materials produce increased risk throughout the transport chain due to increased storage time, mishandling, and ineffective or inaccurate hazard communication. Moreover, paper-based communication may be least effective at the very time when hazard communication is most critical—in the immediate aftermath of a transportation incident.
We expect the integration of electronic transfer of shipping information to be generational. A number of hazardous materials carriers, vessel, rail, and air transport organizations have stated that they are ready to begin utilizing electronic shipping paper technology, subject only to regulatory authorization. In the highway mode, the larger, technologically-advanced companies may be prepared to implement electronic systems, but widespread use among the industry is a longer-term proposition. In any case, however, no part of the HM transportation sector can transition to new hazard communication systems without ensuring that emergency response officials are prepared and equipped to receive the hazard information at least as quickly and reliably as under the current system.
Discussion points include:
1. What are shipping papers used for?
2. What information from a shipping paper should be immediately conveyed to emergency responders in the event of an incident?
3. What work has been/is being done on standardizing shipping paper information?
4. When electronic shipping papers are used, how is required information shared with emergency responders (professional, volunteer, urban, rural, etc.)? How is it shared with compliance inspectors/officers?
5. What benefits will electronic shipping papers have for companies shipping HM? HM transporters? Freight forwarders? Emergency responders? Other government agencies?
6. What challenges will electronic shipping papers create for companies shipping HM? HM transporters? Freight forwarders? Emergency responders? Other government agencies?
7. What existing efforts (government or private) are related to HM–ACCESS? Can these efforts be coordinated?
For more information on the HM–ACCESS and to check for updates on information related to this public meeting visit PHMSA's HM–ACCESS Web site at
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The City of Plano, Illinois (City) seeks a permanent waiver of compliance from a certain provision of the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222. The City intends to establish a New Quiet Zone under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 222.39. Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR Part 222.9, definition of a non-traversable curb so that an existing public crossing that is equipped with flashing lights, gates and medians that complies with all of the requirements necessary to be a “gates and medians” supplemental safety measure (SSM) with non-traversable curbs, except for the fact that the posted highway speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) instead of 40 mph as required in the definition, be deemed an acceptable SSM.
49 CFR Part 222.9, the definition of Non-traversable curb reads as follows: “Non-traversable curb means a highway curb designed to discourage a motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. Non-traversable curbs are used at locations where highway speeds do not exceed 40 miles per hour and are at least six inches high. Additional design specifications are determined by the standard traffic design specifications used by the governmental entity constructing the curb.”
The City is in the process of establishing a new quiet zone along the BNSF Railway's (BNSF) Chicago Division, Mendota Subdivision, which
The City provides several reasons why the 5 mph difference in speed limit would not diminish the effectiveness of the SSM, and thus the waiver should be granted. First, the existing median is much wider (12-foot) than the typical medians used for this application. The median is also twice as long as the nominal required length (100-foot) as it is 200 feet in length. The City points out that the median installation has performed properly and without incident since its installation, approximately 13 years ago.
Secondly, the design used by the Kendall County Highway Department (the public authority responsible for roadway and has consented to the establishment of the proposed new quiet zone) follows the Illinois Department of Transportation standard which allows curbed medians on highways with speed limits of 40 or 45 mph. The City feels that this standard should be allowable under the clause “Additional design specifications * * *” in the definition.
Lastly, the City states that the Kendall County Highway Department opposes the creation of a 40 mph speed zone in the vicinity of the crossing as it wants to avoid multiple speed zones on the same roadway. However, the County Engineer has expressed a willingness to post advisory 40 mph signs in advance of the crossing in each direction.
The City's waiver petition did not directly address efforts made to have the BNSF join in the waiver request. However, attachments that were included with the waiver request indicated that communication between the two parties on the subject of a joint waiver request did occur. On June 15, 2009, a representative of the consulting firm utilized by the City to assist with the establishment of the new quiet zone sent an e-mail to the Manager of Public Projects for BNSF. The e-mail specifically requested that BNSF participate in the process so that the waiver could be forwarded to FRA as a “joint waiver request” and to reconsider its interpretation of the definition of the non-traversable curb. In a letter to the City dated June 22, 2009, BNSF acknowledged receipt of the joint waiver request but did not specifically address the issue. BNSF stated that the questions should be posed to FRA and that BNSF was going by FRA's regulation which provides that the highway speed must be 40 mph or less. The City did not provide any justification as to why the absence of BNSF's participation in the waiver would affect safety.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The City of Vancouver, Washington (City) seeks a temporary waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222. The City intends to establish a New Partial Quiet Zone under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.39. Specifically, the City is seeking a waiver from: (1) The provisions of 49 CFR 222.9, definition of a New Partial Quiet Zone so that the hours of the new partial quiet zone will be from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; and (2) the provisions of 49 CFR 222.35(b)(1) so that the active grade crossing warning devices at Jefferson Street are not required to be equipped with constant warning time devices.
49 CFR 222.9, definition of New Partial Quiet Zone reads as follows: “New Partial Quiet Zone means a segment of a rail line within which is situated one or a number of consecutive public highway-rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., but are routinely sounded during the remaining portion of the day, and which does not qualify as a Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone or an Intermediate Partial Quiet Zone.”
49 CFR 222.35(b)(1) reads as follows: “Each public highway-rail grade crossing in a New Quiet Zone established under this part must be
The City is in the process of establishing a new partial quiet zone along the BNSF Railway's (BNSF) Northwest Division, Fallbridge Subdivision, which would extend from approximately Milepost 9.95 to Milepost 10.51. The new partial quiet zone will consist of three public at-grade crossings: West 11th Street (DOT #092276S), Jefferson Street (DOT #090249N), and West 8th Street (DOT #090248G). The City seeks a waiver from the defined hours for a new partial quiet zone (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) in order to have the new partial quiet zone's hours to be from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The City states that the change is sought to provide noise relief during the downtown residents and convention visitors prime sleeping periods while minimizing the effect on peak commercial traffic movements or safety. The City plans to utilize a temporary closure supplementary safety measure at the West 8th Street crossing and that there would be virtually no adverse impact on highway traffic if the street was open to traffic from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
The City's new partial quiet zone plan includes the use of medians at the Jefferson Street grade crossing. The medians will be alternative safety measures as the southern median will only extend 50 feet from the gate. Jefferson Street is currently equipped with automatic warning devices consisting of standard flashing lights with gates. However, the warning devices are not equipped with CWT. The City states that the use of CWT at this crossing is not reasonably practical at this location since the crossing will be closed by December 31, 2011, as part of the City's Waterfront Access project.
The City is requesting a temporary waiver through the end of 2011, at which time the crossings will be closed as part of the City's Waterfront Access project.
The City states that it works closely with BNSF on a variety of projects and believes that it has a good working relationship with the railroad. The City contacted BNSF immediately concerning the proposed waivers and that the BNSF did not express any reservation with the proposed new partial quiet zone hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The City requested input from BNSF on the quiet zone improvements proposed for Jefferson Street but had not received a response. The City does not anticipate BNSF support for the portion of the waiver concerning CWT and decided to file the waiver petition alone in order to expedite the process. It also states that the lack of a joint submission will not compromise public safety or will applying the requirement of a joint submission be likely to significantly contribute to public safety.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.—5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as sole Receiver for Bradford Bank, Baltimore, Maryland (OTS No. 01348), on August 28, 2009.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 21, 2009.
Marianne Ayala at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7978.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be Wednesday, October 14, 2009.
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009.
Sallie Chavez at 1–888–912–1227, or 954–423–7979.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Issue Committee will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 7, 2009.
Marianne Ayala at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7978.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at Noon, Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. For more information please contact Ms. Ayala at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009.
Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives Issue Committee will be held Thursday, October 8, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS Issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 22, 2009.
Janice Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee will be held Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 27, 2009.
Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee will be held Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 20, 2009.
Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 13, 2009.
Patricia Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 13, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 28, 2009.
Susan Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Wednesday, October 28, 2009, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 13, 2009.
Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718 488–3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, October 13, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 20, 2009.
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, October 19, 2009.
Sallie Chavez at 1–888–912–1227 or 954– 423–7979.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, October 19, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 6, 2009.
Dave Coffman at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Dave Coffman. For more information please contact Mr. Coffman at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 21, 2009.
Janice Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the
The agenda will include various IRS issues.