Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Bonneville Power Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Labor-Management Standards Office
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Security Administration
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM 100 dry cask storage system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Number 1014. Amendment No. 7 will modify the CoC to add the HI-STORM 100U system to the HI-STORM 100 cask systems. The HI-STORM 100U system allows for the underground storage of dry spent nuclear fuel (SNF) by utilizing an underground vertical ventilated module (VVM) that can accept certain Holtec multipurpose canisters (MPCs) previously certified for storage of SNF in the aboveground HI-STORM system. The amendment also incorporates a mandatory radiation protection perimeter around the loaded VVMs. In addition, the amendment will reinstate the decay heat limits for damaged fuel and fuel debris in Appendix B, Technical Specification (TS) 2.4, for the aboveground system that had been inadvertently deleted from Amendment Nos. 5 and 6; incorporate separate TS Appendices A and B for the aboveground system (Apps. A and B) and for the HI-STORM 100U system (Apps. A-100U and B-100U); revise Appendix B, TS 3.4.5, to be consistent with the required system thermal boundary conditions, as submitted in the applicant's safety analysis report for a fire accident condition, and with Holtec's original (
The final rule is effective December 28, 2009, unless significant adverse comments are received by November 12, 2009. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. If the rule is withdrawn, timely notice will be published in the
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
CoC No. 1014, the TS, the preliminary SER, and the environmental assessment are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843, e-mail
Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843, e-mail
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), states that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of SNF in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72, which added a new Subpart K within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241),
By letter dated April 27, 2007, and as supplemented on June 5, June 12, July 14, December 19, 2008, January 16, January 21, February 6, April 6, April 22, May 13, and June 23, 2009, Holtec submitted an application to the NRC that requested an amendment to CoC No. 1014. The amendment proposes to add the HI-STORM 100U system to the list of approved HI-STORM 100 cask systems. The HI-STORM 100U system allows for the underground storage of dry spent fuel by utilizing an underground VVM that can accept certain Holtec MPCs previously certified for storage in the Holtec aboveground overpacks. The fixed structure of the vertical storage cavity, identified by Holtec as the “Cavity Enclosure Container” (CEC), is made of a cylindrical container shell integrally welded to both a bottom plate and an upper container flange. A continuous weld between the container shell and the bottom plate is done to ensure that the CEC is completely sealed at its base. The constituent parts of the CEC are fabricated out of approximately 1-inch thick low-carbon steel plate and are coated with epoxy paint following fabrication. For installation in highly corrosive soils, the subsurface outer shell of the VVM would be encased in concrete for additional protection against corrosion.
As installed in the subsurface, an individual VVM extends approximately 5.8 meters (19 feet) below the ground surface and rests in a recess on a concrete support foundation of requisite thickness (0.61-0.91 meter) (2 to 3 feet). Engineered backfill surrounds the VVM for most of its subsurface interface. The VVM is capped by a massive steel and concrete ventilated closure lid that sits above the ground surface to about 0.74 meters (approximately 29 inches), and prevents its horizontal shifting during design basis events. Internally, the CEC is equipped with a removable insulated divider shell and MPC bearing pads to help meet cask thermal performance requirements. Air inlets and outlets allow air to circulate naturally through the cavity to cool the MPC interior. All ventilation openings in the VVM are covered with stainless steel wire mesh to preclude the entry of small birds and mammals.
The subterranean steel structure is seal welded to prevent ingress of any groundwater from the surrounding subgrade, and is mounted on a stiff foundation. The surrounding subgrade and a top surface pad provide significant radiation shielding. A loaded MPC is stored within the HI-STORM 100U storage VVM in the vertical orientation.
For the HI-STORM 100U underground system, the amendment also incorporates a mandatory radiation protection perimeter around the loaded VVMs. In Appendix B-100U, TS 3.4.8 requires that prior to an excavation activity contiguous to a Radiation Protection Space (RPS), a seismic evaluation of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) in the structurally most vulnerable configuration (
For the HI-STORM 100U underground system, Appendix B-100U TS 3.4.5.a. requires that the support foundation rest directly on a bedrock unless the shear wave velocity of the substrate on which the support foundation rests is greater than or equal to 3500 feet/second. As explained in the SER, item 3.1.7 entitled, “Evaluation of the HI-STORM 100U System Structural Design,” Holtec must submit an amendment request to CoC No.1014 if there is any deviation from the requirement set forth in Appendix B-100U TS 3.4.5.a. This requirement will ensure that the ISFSI can withstand the design basis seismologic events.
For the HI-STORM 100 aboveground system, the amendment will reinstate the decay heat limits for damaged fuel and fuel debris in TS Appendix B, Section 2.4. These requirements had been inadvertently deleted from Amendment Nos. 5 and 6. Amendment No. 7 does not alter the decay heat limits that were previously approved in the TS Appendix B.
For the aboveground system, the amendment will revise Appendix B, TS 3.4.5, to be consistent with the required system thermal boundary conditions as submitted in the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) for a fire accident condition. This revision to TS Appendix B does not add any new requirements but makes it consistent with the intent of Holtec's original (
For the aboveground system, the amendment will also revise and add certain definitions in Appendix A, TS 1.1. For example, “Vertical Ventilated Module” has been added and defined in the list of terms defined in Appendix A. The revisions and additions to the definitions in Appendix A make these terms usable in Appendices A, B, A-100U, and B-100U. Finally, the amendment will also incorporate minor editorial corrections in Appendices A and B for the aboveground system.
This direct final rule revises the HI-STORM 100 dry storage cask system listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1014. The amendment consists of the changes described above, as set forth in the revised CoC and TS. The amendment provides separate TS Appendices A and B for the aboveground system, and Appendices A-100U and B-100U for the underground system. As documented in the SER for Amendment No. 7, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected.
The amended HI-STORM 100 cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TS, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72; thus, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, entities holding a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load SNF into HI-STORM 100 casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1014 under 10 CFR 72.212.
Certificate No. 1014 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment No. 7. This amendment also corrects the CoC expiration date of June 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. The CoC No. 1014, Amendment 0 (65 FR 25241; May 1, 2000), incorrectly stated an expiration date of June 1, 2020, instead of May 31, 2020.
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 7 to CoC No. 1014 and does not include other
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
1. The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
a. The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
b. The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
c. The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
2. The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
3. The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TS.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the HI-STORM 100 cask design listed in § 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This rule will amend the CoC for the HI-STORM 100 cask design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license.
The amendment will modify the CoC 1014 to add the HI-STORM 100U system to the HI-STORM 100 cask systems. The HI-STORM 100U system allows for the underground storage of dry SNF. The amendment also incorporates a mandatory radiation protection perimeter around the loaded VVMs. The environmental impact of interim storage of SNF at an ISFSI has been evaluated in NUREG-1092, “Environmental Assessment for 10 CFR 72 Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.” The environmental assessment provided the basis for allowing deployment of ISFSIs under general licenses at nuclear power reactor sites without the need for additional site-specific approvals, but it did not consider subsurface designs. Because the HI-STORM 100U is an underground storage system, Holtec, under the requirements of 10 CFR 51.41, submitted an environmental report to NRC on June 2, 2008, as a reference document for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of this subsurface design. Holtec also provided supplemental information on December 19, 2008, in response to questions requesting additional information from the NRC staff.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. NRC has determined that the storage of SNF in an underground Holtec HI-STORM 100U cask system array within the controlled area of a licensed reactor site would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, either incrementally or cumulatively. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not warranted for the proposed action, and accordingly, a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.
NRC has prepared an environmental assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the subsurface ISFSI arrays under a general license for the HI-STORM 100U underground system. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843, e-mail
The environmental assessment concludes that there would be no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts from routine operation of the ISFSI. The
For the aboveground system, the amendment would reinstate the decay heat limits for damaged fuel and fuel debris in Appendix B, TS 2.4, that had been inadvertently deleted from Amendments 5 and 6, and revise Appendix B, TS 3.4.5, to be consistent with the required system thermal boundary conditions as submitted in the applicant's SAR for a fire accident condition. This revision to TS Appendix B does not add any new requirements but makes it consistent with the intent of Holtec's original (
The amendment will also incorporate separate TS Appendices A and B for the aboveground system (Apps. A and B) and for the HI-STORM 100U system (Apps. A-100U and B-100U), and revise and add certain definitions in Appendix A, TS 1.1, to include the VVM.
As such, Amendment No. 7 does not make any changes to the previously approved conditions of the HI-STORM 100 aboveground cask system. The NRC staff believes that the environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact prepared for earlier HI-STORM 100 system amendments continue to be valid and will bound the revisions to the TS.
This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for the storage of SNF under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store SNF if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license (as set forth in 10 CFR 72.212) are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), the NRC issued an amendment to Part 72 that approved the HI-STORM 100 cask design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. On April 27, 2007, and as supplemented on June 5, June 12, July 14, December 19, 2008, January 16, January 21, February 6, April 6, April 22, May 13, and June 23, 2009, the certificate holder, Holtec, submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1014 to add the HI-STORM 100U system to the HI-STORM 100 cask systems. The HI-STORM 100U system allows for the underground storage of dry SNF by utilizing a VVM that can accept certain MPCs previously certified for storage of SNF in the Holtec aboveground HI-STORM 100 system. The amendment also incorporates a mandatory radiation protection perimeter around the loaded VVMs. In addition, the application requested amending CoC No. 1014 to reinstate the decay heat limits for damaged fuel and fuel debris in Appendix B, TS 2.4, for the aboveground system that had been inadvertently deleted from Amendment Nos. 5 and 6, and revise Appendix B, TS 3.4.5, to be consistent with the required system thermal boundary conditions as submitted in the applicant's SAR for a fire accident condition. This revision to TS Appendix B does not add any new requirements but makes it consistent with the intent of Holtec's original (
The amendment will also incorporate separate TS Appendices A and B for the aboveground system (Apps A and B) and for the HI-STORM 100U system (Apps. A-100U and B-100U), and revise and add certain definitions in Appendix A, TS 1.1, to include the VVM. The amendment will also incorporate minor editorial corrections in the TS for the aboveground system.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 7 and to require any Part 72 general licensee, seeking to utilize the Holtec HI-STORM 100U system, to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested Part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
Certificate Number: 1014.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 31, 2000.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002.
Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005.
Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007.
Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008.
Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 14, 2008.
Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: August 17, 2009.
Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: December 28, 2009.
SAR Submitted by: Holtec International.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System.
Docket Number: 72-1014.
Certificate Expiration Date: May 31, 2020.
Model Number: HI-STORM 100 Systems.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Honeywell International, the manufacturer of the SPZ200 autopilot system installed on the EADS-CASA C-212 series aircraft, has identified a series of servo-motors * * * designed for use in the SPZ200 autopilot system, whose failure can lead to a potential unsafe flight condition. * * *
This AD becomes effective November 17, 2009.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 17, 2009.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1112; fax (425) 227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
Honeywell International, the manufacturer of the SPZ200 autopilot system installed on the EADS-CASA C-212 series aircraft, has identified a series of servo-motors, P/N [part number] 4006719-904 and P/N 4006719-913, designed for use in the SPZ200 autopilot system, whose failure can lead to a potential unsafe flight condition. To address and correct this situation, Honeywell International has published Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 4006719-22-A0016 (Revised) dated 1 November 2004, that identifies the affected servo-motors by serial number, recommending the removal of these units from the aircraft and including modification instructions to be accomplished prior to reinstallation.
EADS-CASA has determined that the flight safety of the C-212 aircraft is at risk. Consequently, Boletin de Servicio (Service
For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the identification of the affected servo-motors and modification or replacement with modified units.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $10,400, or $400 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 17, 2009.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to CASA Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD and C-212-CE airplanes, all serial numbers; certificated in any category; on which autopilot servo-drive actuators (servo-motors) having part number (P/N) 4006719-904 or 4006719-913 are installed.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22: Auto flight.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Honeywell International, the manufacturer of the SPZ200 autopilot system installed on the EADS-CASA C-212 series aircraft, has identified a series of servo-motors, P/N [part number] 4006719-904 and P/N 4006719-913, designed for use in the SPZ200 autopilot system, whose failure can lead to a potential unsafe flight condition. To address and correct this situation, Honeywell International has published Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 4006719-22-A0016 (Revised) dated 1 November 2004, that identifies the affected servo-motors by serial number, recommending the removal of these units from the aircraft and including modification instructions to be accomplished prior to reinstallation.
EADS-CASA has determined that the flight safety of the C-212 aircraft is at risk. Consequently, Boletin de Servicio (Service Bulletin) SB-212-22-16 has been published to advise C-212 operators of this condition and to recommend that the affected servo-motors are modified or replaced with modified units.
For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the identification of the affected servo-motors and modification or replacement with modified units.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD: Identify affected servo-motors having P/N 4006719-904 and P/N 4006719-913 and modify each unit or replace with a modified unit, in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-22-16, dated March 13, 2006.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a servo-motor having P/N 4006719-904 or 4006719-913, and any affected serial number identified in Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016, Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004 (referenced in EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-22-16, dated March 13, 2006, as the source of service information for accomplishing the modification), unless it has been modified in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
The 8 digit serial number specified in Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016, Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004, is a combination date code and serial number. The format is as follows: YYMMXXXX—YY is the year; MM is the month, and XXXX is a sequential manufacturing serial number (
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008-0144, dated August 1, 2008; EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-22-16, dated March 13, 2006; and Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016, Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004; for related information.
(i) You must use EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-22-16, dated March 13, 2006; and Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016, Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (The revision level of Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016, Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004, is indicated only on pages 1 and 2 of the document.)
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for RR RB211-535E4 series turbofan engines. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive inspections of the outer combustion case for cracks and possible removal if cracks are found. This AD requires the same inspections, but requires using RR Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999. This AD results from the FAA approving Revision 3 to the MSB, which adds an alternative eddy current inspection (ECI) method. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained outer combustion case burst, which could result in damage to the airplane.
This AD becomes effective November 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of November 17, 2009.
You can get the service information identified in this AD from Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone: 44 (0) 1332-242424; fax: 44 (0) 1332-249936.
The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 86-07-01, Amendment 39-5273 (51 FR 12511, April 11, 1986), with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to RR RB211-535E4 series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the
The current AD, AD 86-07-01, contains a paragraph pertaining to special flight permits. Even though this final rule does not contain a similar paragraph, we have made no changes with regard to the use of special flight permits to operate the airplane to a repair facility to do the work required by this AD. In July 2002, we published a new Part 39 that contains a general authority regarding special flight permits and airworthiness directives; see Docket No. FAA-2004-8460, Amendment 39-9474 (69 FR 47998, July 22, 2002). Thus, when we now supersede ADs, we will not include a specific paragraph on special flight permits unless we want to limit the use of that general authority granted in section 39.23.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Two commenters (RR and The Boeing Company) state that the engine model designation listed in the Applicability is incorrect and the engine models listed are incorrect. The commenters ask us to change RB211-534E4 to RB211-535E4 and to correctly list the engine models.
We agree. We changed the Applicability to correctly list the engine model as RB211-535E4 and changed the models affected to: RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75.
One commenter (RR) asks us to clarify that the ECI is an alternative to the FPI and doesn't replace the FPI.
We agree. We changed the AD to state that ECI is an alternative to FPI.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 300 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. No parts are required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $24,000.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General Requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 17, 2009.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 86-07-01, Amendment 39-5273.
(c) This AD applies to RR models RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines that don't incorporate RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-8045. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 757 and Tupolev Tu204 airplanes.
(d) This AD results from the FAA approving Revision 3 to Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) RB.211-72-7775, which adds an alternative eddy current inspection (ECI) method. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained outer combustion case burst, which could result in damage to the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Perform an initial inspection of the outer combustion casing. Use the
(1) For cases with 1,500 or fewer cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, inspect before accumulating 1,500 CSN.
(2) For cases with more than 1,500 CSN on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 50 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD.
(3) If you detect any cracks of 1.5 inches or more in length, replace the case before further flight.
(g) Thereafter, inspect cases at the following intervals. Use the Accomplishment Instructions paragraph 3.B. or paragraph 3.C. of RR MSB RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999.
(1) Inspect within 500 cycles-since-last inspection (CSLI) if you detected no cracks during the last inspection.
(2) Inspect within 100 CSLI if you detected cracks less than or equal to 0.5 inch in length during the last inspection.
(3) Inspect within 50 CSLI if you detected cracks greater than 0.5 inch but less than 1.5 inches in length.
(h) Cases inspected before the effective date of this AD using RB.211-72-7775, Revision 2, dated February 27, 1998, or earlier issue, meet the requirements of this AD for the initial or repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (f) through (f)(3) and (g) through (g)(3) of this AD.
(i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness directive 008-07-85, dated June 19, 1985, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(k) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
(l) You must use Rolls-Royce plc Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999 to perform the inspections required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone: 44 (0) 1332-242424; fax: 44 (0) 1332-249936, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or 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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-300 and 737-400 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the aft fuselage skin, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracks in the aft fuselage skin on both sides of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft fuselage skin along the longitudinal edges of the bonded skin doubler, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD is effective November 17, 2009.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 17, 2009.
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.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-300 and 737-400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the three commenters.
Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM.
Southwest Airlines requests that skin panel replacements accomplished in accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 1, dated August 17, 1995; and Revision 2, dated November 27, 1996; also be considered as terminating action for the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM. (We referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the NPRM for Model 737-300 series airplanes.)
We agree. We have reviewed the following service bulletins and have determined that these documents are also acceptable for terminating the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to include these additional documents. Also, for easier
The Aviation Group requests that paragraphs 1.E., “Compliance,” and 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; be added to the NPRM, either within the body of the AD or as an incorporated attachment. The commenter asserts that many owners, lessors, or their respective representatives, are routinely denied access to the manufacturer's Web site where the referenced service information is archived, making it very difficult or impossible to evaluate and schedule compliance with this AD.
We do not agree to add the compliance and effectivity sections of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; to this AD. Due to the length and complexity of the applicability and compliance times required in this AD, we referred directly to the service information to ensure the accuracy of those sections in this AD. We also gave notice for the compliance times in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM. Operators should note that type certificate holders are required under the Federal Aviation Regulations to make available the service information necessary for accomplishing AD requirements to affected operators. All service information that we incorporate by reference in our AD is available to those who operate the product that is the subject of the AD. The necessary service information has also been incorporated by reference in this AD; therefore, this information is also available for review at the FAA or the Office of the Federal Register, as specified in the
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects about 516 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour.
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
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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 November 17, 2009.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Boeing Model 737-300 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006.
(2) Boeing Model 737-400 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.
(e) This AD results from reports of cracks in the aft fuselage skin on both sides of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft fuselage skin along the longitudinal edges of the bonded skin doubler, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) At the applicable times specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006 (for Model 737-300 series airplanes); or Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007 (for Model 737-400 series airplanes); except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections and related investigative actions to detect cracks in the aft fuselage skin panels, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable; including Note (f) of Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. And, do the applicable corrective actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable; except as provided by paragraphs (h), (i), and (l) of this AD. Repeat the applicable inspections and related investigative actions thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable.
(h) If any crack is found during any inspection or corrective action required by this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006 (for Model 737-300 series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007 (for Model 737-400 series airplanes); except, where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable; specifies to contact Boeing, before further flight, repair according to a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(i) If any cracking of a repaired area is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006 (for Model 737-300 series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007 (for Model 737-400 series airplanes); specifies contacting Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(j) Doing the skin panel replacement before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the service information specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel only. As of the effective date of this AD, doing the skin panel replacement, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable; terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel only.
(k) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006 (for Model 737-300 series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007 (for Model 737-400 series airplanes); specifies compliance times after the release date of those service bulletins, this AD requires that the specified actions be done within the specified compliance times after the effective date of this AD.
(l) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006 (for Model 737-300 series airplanes); and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007 (for Model 737-400 series airplanes); specify to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
(m)(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 ATTN: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6447; fax (425) 917-6590. Or, e-mail 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.
(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you do the optional terminating action specified in this AD, you must use the service information specified in Table 2 of this AD, as applicable, to do the optional terminating action, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(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 establishes Class E airspace at Chuathbaluk, AK to provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). One Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) is being developed for the Chuathbaluk Airport at Chuathbaluk, AK. Also, this action makes a minor correction to the geographic coordinates and text description for the airport. This action establishes Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at Chuathbaluk Airport, Chuathbaluk, AK.
Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
On Monday, July 6, 2009, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The rule, with corrected coordinates, is adopted as proposed.
The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T,
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace at the Chuathbaluk Airport, AK. This Class E airspace is established to accommodate aircraft executing a new instrument procedure, and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Chuathbaluk Airport, Chuathbaluk, AK.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule 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 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 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures for the Chuathbaluk Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace.
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 7.5-mile radius of the Chuathbaluk Airport, AK, and within 3.5 miles either side of the 286° bearing from the Chuathbaluk Airport, AK, extending from the 7.5 mile radius, to 10.3 miles west of the Chuathbaluk, Airport, AK.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Eastsound, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Eastsound Orcas Island Airport, Eastsound, WA. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Eastsound Orcas Island Airport, Eastsound, WA.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On August 5, 2009, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009,
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Eastsound, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV (GPS) approach procedure at Eastsound Orcas Island Airport, Eastsound, WA.
The FAA has determined 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 discusses 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 Eastsound Orcas Island Airport, Eastsound, WA.
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.
Within a 3.8-mile radius of the Eastsound Orcas Island Airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 163° bearing extending from the 3.8-mile radius to 9.2 miles south of the Eastsound Orcas Island Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility directory.
Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, which govern the licensing and conduct of customs brokers. The rule specifies the proper CBP official who is authorized to decide the final administrative appeal of a failing grade on the customs broker written examination. The current regulations provide that the final administrative appeal on a failing grade on the broker's exam should be sent in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security, or her designee. This final rule amends the CBP regulations to specify that examinees should submit final administrative appeals to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
This final rule is effective on October 13, 2009.
Russell Morris, Broker Compliance Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6543.
Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Tariff Act), as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules and regulations relating to the customs business of brokers as necessary to protect importers and the revenue of the United States. Specifically, section 641 provides that a person (an individual, corporation, association, or partnership) must hold a valid customs broker's license and permit in order to transact customs business on behalf of others. In the case of an applicant for an individual broker's license, section 641 states that the Secretary of the Treasury may conduct an examination to determine an applicant's qualifications for a license.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Homeland Security Act) generally transferred the functions of the U.S. Customs Service from the Treasury Department to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 6 U.S.C. 101
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act, part 111 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the conduct and licensing requirements for customs brokers. Section 111.11 sets forth the basic requirements for obtaining a broker's license, including the requirement that the applicant must obtain a passing grade on the written examination within a 3-year period before submitting the application for a broker's license. 19 CFR 111.11.
Section 111.13(f) provides that an examinee can appeal a failing grade on the written examination by first filing a written appeal with Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 60 calendar days after the date of the written notice of the examination results. 19 CFR 111.13(f). After reviewing the submission, CBP provides the examinee with a written notice setting forth the decision on the appeal. If CBP's decision on the appeal reaffirms the result of the examination, the examinee may subsequently request review of CBP's decision on the appeal by writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security, or her designee, within 60 calendar days after the date of the notice from CBP.
As noted above, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to prescribe rules and regulations relating to customs brokers. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in turn, delegated some of this authority to the Commissioner of CBP including the authority to regulate brokers.
On October 19, 2007, CBP published a final rule in the
Since the publication of the final rule regarding this particular technical amendment, CBP has determined that the Assistant Commissioner in CBP's Office of International Trade is the most appropriate official to issue the final administrative appeal on a failing grade on the written customs broker's exam. This designation is consistent with DHS Delegation Number 7010.3, which delegates the authority to regulate customs brokers to the Commissioner of CBP. In addition, CBP notes that the Office of International Trade is staffed with examination subject matter experts and is uniquely positioned to independently and expeditiously review examination appeals. Accordingly, § 111.13(f) is being amended in this document by removing “Secretary of Homeland Security, or his designee” and adding, in its place, “Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
Since this rule pertains to matters relating to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, this rule is not a substantive rule and is exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Because this rule is not subject to the notice and public comment procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These amendments do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule.
This document is being issued by CBP in accordance with § 0.1(b)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(b)(1)).
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Licensing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 1641.
(f)
Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards Administration, Department of Labor.
Final Rule; Rescission of January 21, 2009 rule.
This final rule withdraws a rule published in the
Effective October 13, 2009, the Final Rule published January 21, 2009 amending 29 CFR parts 403 and 408 (74 FR 3678), for which the effective date was delayed on February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7814) and April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18132), is withdrawn.
Denise M. Boucher, Director, Office of Policy, Reports and Disclosure, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5609, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-1185 (this is not a toll-free number), (800) 877-8339 (TTY/TDD).
This rescission of the January 21, 2009 rule (January 21 rule) is issued pursuant to section 208 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 438. Section 208 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to implement the LMRDA's reporting provisions. Section 208 also provides that the Secretary shall “establish simplified reports for labor organizations or employers for whom [s]he finds that by virtue of their size a detailed report would be unduly burdensome,” and to revoke this authorization to file simplified reports for any labor organization or employer if the Secretary determines, after such investigation as she deems proper and due notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the purposes of section 208 would be served by revocation. Secretary's Order 01-2008, issued May 30, 2008, and published in the
The rescission of the January 21 rule is part of the Department's continuing effort to fairly effectuate the reporting requirements of the LMRDA. The LMRDA's various reporting provisions are designed to empower labor organizations and their members by providing the means and information to ensure a proper accounting of labor organization funds. The Department believes that a fair and transparent government regulatory regime must consider and balance the interests of labor organizations, their members, and the public. Any change to a union's recordkeeping, accounting, and reporting practices must be based on a demonstrated and significant need for additional information, consideration of the burden associated with such reporting and any increased costs associated with reporting additional information.
On January 21, 2009, OLMS published in the
Consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2009, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review” and the memorandum of January 21, 2009, from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), entitled “Implementation of Memorandum Concerning Regulatory Review,” on February 3, 2009, the Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) published a request for comments (74 FR 5899) on a proposed 60-day extension of the effective date of the January 21 rule and invited comment on legal and policy questions relating to the rule, including the merits of rescinding or retaining the rule.
On February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7814), OLMS extended the effective date of the January 21 rule until April 21, 2009, to allow additional time for the Department to review questions of law and policy concerning the rule, for the public to comment on the merits of it, and, meanwhile, to permit unions to delay costly development and implementation of any necessary new accounting and recordkeeping systems and procedures pending this further consideration. On March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11700), OLMS published a proposed rule to further extend the effective date until October 19, 2009 and to extend the applicability date until January 1, 2010. The Department published, on April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18132), a final rule delaying the effective date until October 19, 2009, and the applicability date until January 1, 2010.
Upon consideration of the comments received on questions of law and policy raised by the January 21 rule, the Department proposed the rule's withdrawal on April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18172), because we were concerned that it may not have been informed by an adequate review of the Department's experience under the relatively recent revisions to Form LM-2 in 2003, and because the comments indicated that the Department may have underestimated the increased burden that would be placed on reporting labor organizations by the January 21 rule. Finally, the Department concluded, based on the comments received, that the provisions related to the revocation of a small union's authorization to file a simpler form because it has been delinquent or deficient in filing that form are not based upon realistic assessments of such a union's ability to file the more complex form and are unlikely to achieve the intended goals of greater transparency and disclosure.
The Department initially published the NPRM with a 30-day comment period to expire on May 21, 2009. However, in response to comments requesting extension of the comment period, the Department extended the comment period to June 22, 2009. 74 FR 23811.
This final rule addresses the comments received on the NPRM, and withdraws the January 21 rule. This rule takes effect upon publication, thereby relieving labor organizations from complying with the requirements of the January 21 rule and incurring the attendant burden of that rule. By withdrawing the January 21 rule, today's rule operates to continue the Form LM-2 reporting requirements that have been in place since 2003. Delaying the effective date of today's rule would not alter reporting obligations (given that no report would be due under the January 21 rule until the close of a fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2010), but could confuse labor organizations about their reporting obligations, add unnecessary planning and recordkeeping burden on these organizations, and potentially delay the submission of Form LM-2 reports.
In enacting the LMRDA in 1959, a bipartisan Congress sought to protect the rights and interests of employees, labor organizations and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers, employees, and representatives. The LMRDA was the direct outgrowth of a Congressional investigation conducted by the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, commonly known as the McClellan Committee. The LMRDA addressed various ills through a set of integrated provisions aimed at labor-management relations governance and management. These provisions include financial reporting and disclosure requirements for labor organizations, their officers and employees, employers, labor relations consultants, and surety companies. See 29 U.S.C. 431-36, 441.
The Department has developed several forms for implementing the LMRDA's union financial reporting requirements. The annual reports required by section 201(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 431(b) (Form LM-2, Form LM-3, and Form LM-4), contain information about a labor organization's assets, liabilities, receipts, disbursements, loans to officers and employees and business enterprises, payments to each officer, and payments to each employee of the labor organization paid more than $10,000 during the fiscal year. The reporting detail required of labor organizations, as the Secretary has established by rule, varies depending on the amount of the labor organization's annual receipts. 29 CFR 403.4.
Forms LM-3 and LM-4 were developed by the Secretary to meet the LMRDA's charge that she develop “simplified reports for labor organizations and employers for whom [s]he finds by virtue of their size a detailed report would be unduly burdensome,” 29 U.S.C. 438. A labor organization not in trusteeship that has total annual receipts of less than $250,000 for its fiscal year may elect to file Form LM-3 instead of Form LM-2. See 29 CFR 403.4(a)(1). The Form LM-3 is a five-page document requiring labor organizations to provide particularized information by certain categories, but in less detail than Form LM-2. A labor organization not in trusteeship that has total annual receipts less than $10,000 for its fiscal year may elect to file Form LM-4 instead of Form LM-2 or Form LM-3. 29 CFR 403.4(a)(2). The Form LM-4 is a two-page document that requires a labor organization to report only the total aggregate amounts of its assets, liabilities, receipts, disbursements, and payments to officers and employees.
In 2003, the Department enacted extensive changes to the Form LM-2, the largest regulatory change to that form in the history of the LMRDA (2003 rule, 68 FR 58374 (Oct. 9, 2003)). As a result of the changes, labor organizations with annual receipts of $250,000 or more are required to file a Form LM-2 report electronically and to itemize receipts and disbursements of $5,000 or more, as well as receipts not reported elsewhere from, or disbursements to, a single entity that total $5,000 or more in the reporting year. Such disbursements are required to be reported in specific categories such as “Representational Activities” and “Union Administration.” The changes eliminated a category entitled “Other Disbursements” and, overall, sought much more detailed reporting. Labor organizations were permitted to report sensitive information for some categories that might harm legitimate union or privacy interests with other non-itemized receipts and disbursements, provided the labor organization indicated that it had done so and offered union members access to review the underlying data upon request pursuant to the statute (29 U.S.C. 431(c); 29 CFR 403.8(b)).
The 2003 rule also included schedules for reporting information regarding delinquent accounts payable and receivable, and it required labor organizations to report investments with a book value of over $5,000 that exceed 5% or more of the union's investments. Another new schedule required labor organizations to report the number of members by membership category, and allowed each labor organization to define the categories used for reporting. Finally, the 2003 rule required reporting labor organizations to estimate the proportion of each officer's and employee's time spent and the corresponding percentage of gross salary in each of the functional categories on the Form LM-2 and to report that percentage of gross salary in the relevant schedule.
For the reasons discussed below, the Department withdraws the January 21 rule. Its withdrawal, however, does not affect a labor union's continuing obligation to file detailed annual financial disclosure reports, as prescribed by the 2003 rule for Form LM-2 filers, thereby ensuring disclosure of financial information to union members, the Department, and the public as required under the LMRDA. The Form LM-3 was not changed by the January 21 rule and the existing form, therefore, continues in effect.
The January 21 rule modified Form LM-2 by requiring labor organizations to disclose additional information about their financial activities. On the revised form, labor organizations would provide additional information in Schedule 3 (“Sale of Investments and Fixed Assets”) and Schedule 4 (“Purchase of Investments and Fixed Assets”), which the rule justified by stating that the changes would allow verification that these transactions were performed at arm's length and without conflicts of interest. 74 FR at 3684-87. Schedules 11 and 12 were also revised to require reporting of the value of benefits paid to and on behalf of officers and employees. 74 FR at 3687-91. Labor organizations would report on Schedules 11 and 12 travel reimbursements indirectly paid on behalf of labor organization officers and employees. 74 FR at 3687-88. The preamble to the rule stated that these changes would provide a more accurate picture of total compensation received by labor organization officers and employees. 74 FR at 3689. The Form LM-2 changes also included additional schedules corresponding to the following categories of receipts: Dues
In its NPRM proposing rescission of the changes to the Form LM-2, the Department justified its proposed rescission on two grounds. First, the additional reporting requirements were imposed without an adequate review of the Department's experience under the relatively recent revisions to Form LM-2 in 2003, with the result that the Department may have underestimated the increased burden that would be placed on reporting labor organizations and overestimated the additional benefits to union members and the public of the increased data disclosures. 74 FR 18173, 18175. Second, this failure to consider the utility of increased reporting and its attendant burdens may have resulted in a reporting regime that lacks the balance between the need for transparency in union financial reporting and the need to protect unions from excessive burdens attendant with such reporting, a result contrary to the purpose of the LMRDA. Id. After considering carefully the comments received on the proposal to withdraw the January 21 rule, the Department, for the reasons just mentioned and those discussed below, has concluded to withdraw the rule.
The Department received comments from 27 individuals or entities on the proposed withdrawal of the January 21 rule. Four unions and a federation of unions supported the withdrawal of the rule. The remaining 22 commenters opposed rescission, arguing that the rule should be allowed to take effect. Of this total, 18 were submitted by individuals, including nine form letters. An employer trade association, a business federation, two public policy groups, and a Congressman submitted comments. For discussion, the comments and the Department's responses to them have been grouped as follows: the Department's process for withdrawing the January 21 rule, the necessity to balance transparency with burden in setting reporting requirements, and the adequacy of the Department's review of the 2003 Form LM-2 changes as a predicate to the January 21 rule.
A few of the commenters asserted that the Department was mistaken in delaying the effective date of the January 21 rule and proposing its rescission. They asserted that the rule did not raise questions of law or policy of the nature contemplated by the instructions provided Executive Branch agencies. See memorandum of January 20, 2009, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review” and the memorandum of January 21, 2009, from the Director of OMB, entitled “Implementation of Memorandum Concerning Regulatory Review.” The Department disagrees. Agencies were directed to consider extending the effective date of regulations for the purpose of reviewing questions of law and policy raised by the regulations in question. Thus, on February 3, 2009, the Department published a request for comments (74 FR 5899) on a proposed 60-day extension of the effective date of the January 21 rule, inviting comment on legal and policy questions relating to the rule, including the merits of rescinding or retaining the rule.
These same commenters assert that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551, (APA) effectively prevents the Department from lawfully withdrawing the January 21 rule. The commenters apparently believe that the Department may not withdraw the rule without first conducting a comprehensive study, including a new burden analysis in place of the analysis perceived as inadequate.
The Department noted that a failure to consider adequately the utility of increased reporting and its attendant burdens on unions may result in reporting requirements at odds with the reporting regime intended by the Congressional authors of the LMRDA. The Department is obliged to “strike a balance between the dangers of too much and too little legislation in this field.” 105 Cong. Rec. 816 (daily ed. Jan. 20, 1959) (quoting Senator John F. Kennedy), reprinted in 2
Multiple commenters agreed that the Department has an obligation to balance the need for transparency with the need to protect unions from excessive burdens when implementing the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. A federation of unions stated that the new provisions in the January 21 rule did not have any demonstrated utility that would justify their imposition, nor did the rule provide the information necessary to balance the competing interests.
An international union stated that Congress gave the Secretary the discretion to prescribe the categories and details of the annual financial disclosure reports, in order to ensure that it properly maintains the balance Congress sought between transparency and not overburdening unions. The union asserted that Congress intended a balance, citing the right of members to examine the union's books pursuant to section 201(c) of the Act. Further, it specifically expressed concern over the potential release of “trade secrets” to employers and management consultants, such as those related to job targeting, market recovery, and union organizing programs. The union also asserted that detailed reporting requirements are unnecessary because union members are sophisticated enough to seek information about union financial matters from their unions, as well as seek publicly available information, such as that provided by IRS. The union thus concluded that the January 21 rule failed to achieve the balance required by the LMRDA.
Only two commenters who opposed the proposal to rescind the January 21 rule specifically addressed the intent of Congress in this regard. One commenter, a trade association, rejected the Department's conclusions on the need for balancing interests. Another commenter, a business federation acknowledged that the “Department is certainly obliged to consider the intent of Congress” but expressed its view that the January 21 rule “carefully considered the intent of Congress to ‘strike a balance between too much and too little legislation in the field.’ ” Therefore, although the business federation disagreed with the Department regarding whether or not it conducted an adequate review of the 2003 changes and whether it carefully considered congressional intent in drafting the regulations, it did not disagree with the Department's conclusion that reporting requirements should reflect Congressional desire to “strike a balance.” The trade association offered its view that Congress did not evidence an intent to strike a balance between too much and too little legislation in this field, but rather desired to establish union financial transparency, an object it believed to have been achieved by the January 21 rule. The Department disagrees. As stated in the key Senate Report on the legislation that ultimately became the LMRDA:
In acting on this bill, the committee followed [these] principles:
1. The committee recognized the desirability of minimum interference by Government in the internal affairs of any private organization. Trade unions have made a commendable effort to correct internal abuses; hence the committee believes that only essential standards should be imposed by legislation. Moreover, in establishing and enforcing statutory standards great care should be taken not to undermine union self-government or weaken unions in their role as collective-bargaining agents.
2. Given the maintenance of minimum democratic safeguards and detailed essential information about the union, the individual members are fully competent to regulate union affairs. The committee strongly opposes any attempt to prescribe detailed procedures and standards for the conduct of union business. Such paternalistic regulation would weaken rather than strengthen the labor movement; it would cross over into the area of trade union licensing and destroy union independence.
These principles (which are not referenced in the trade association's comments) show an effort to strike a balance between regulation of union affairs and interference with such affairs,
The Department acknowledges the commenter's important observation that the Senate Report recognizes that “[t]he
In this regard, the Department agrees with the statement of an international union, which argued that Congress never intended that the annual reports designed by the Secretary should disclose to members, much less the general public, every “bit of probative financial information.” Rather, section 201(c) of the Act exists to enable the members, and not the general public, to have access to their unions' books if they can show “just cause.” The union cited decisions that illustrate that the “just cause” requirement is nominal, and that it does “not pose any barrier to a union member's honest inquiry into the supporting records [of the union].”
Several commenters expressed support for withdrawing the January 21 rule, agreeing with the Department's observations in the NPRM that the rule was promulgated too soon after the 2003 changes to the Form LM-2 reporting regime and without an adequate review of the benefits and costs of the changes. In support of the proposed rescission, a federation of unions stated that the Department had failed to properly consider the benefits and costs associated with such changes. It referenced earlier comments it had submitted, in which it stated the principle that a regulatory agency's first obligation in establishing and improving financial accounting and reporting is “to determine that a proposed standard will fill a significant need and that costs imposed to meet that standard, as compared with other alternatives, are justified in relation to the overall benefits of the resulting information.” FASB, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 117; Financial Statements of Not-for-Profit Organizations (June 1993) Section 38. In the federation's view, the January 21 rule failed this test. It asserted that the Department had ignored the experience under the 2003 rule in imposing additional reporting requirements; instead, it merely relied on the explanation it had offered in support of the 2003 rule. The federation explained that the 2003 rule imposed unprecedented itemization requirements on unions, necessarily requiring the Department at that time to make a speculative assessment of costs and benefits. However, it argued that this approach was an unacceptable substitute four years later when actual data and experience under the 2003 rule was available. Because itemization costs impose the principal recordkeeping and reporting burden on unions, it was imperative, in the federation's opinion, to obtain information on such costs before imposing additional itemization requirements. With respect to the anticipated public benefit of the reporting imposed by the 2003 rule, the federation asserted that the Department's own annual reports failed to show a significant increase in the number of enforcement actions—an expected outcome if the 2003 rule was fulfilling the objective of disclosing financial improprieties. Thus, it concluded that there was no basis for the Department's assessment that additional reporting would achieve the benefits predicted.
One international union recognized that the Department has collected “vastly increased amounts of information” from unions since the 2003 changes, but it has not conducted any empirical study of the costs or effects of those revisions. Further, the 2003 changes contained significant “start-up” costs, such as revising computer programs and accounting practices and training staff, which the union alleged cost millions of dollars for some unions, as well as more long-term costs regarding ongoing compliance. The union provided as an example the hundreds of additional pages that it filed in 2007 as opposed to 2004, the last year before the 2003 changes became effective. The 2007 report, in its view, was filled with “financial minutia” costly to track and without any purpose or benefit. Ultimately, it views the 2003 changes as “punitive and unnecessary.” The federation of unions and an international union explicitly supported the Department's assertion that a review of the information received since 2003, as well as an examination of the data regarding burden since 2003, would provide a foundation on which the Department could determine whether or not additional changes are needed. One national union offered several suggestions for calculating the burden on unions following the 2003 rule and the January 21 rule. For example, it asserted that the Department should have considered the increased costs incurred by unions in using outside accountants as opposed to internal ones in complying with Form LM-2 reporting, a practice that this national union and other large ones like it employ.
Other commenters related concerns with regard to the burdens and benefits of the 2003 rule, and opined that such a review would reveal undue burden, and thus militate against any additional reporting requirements such as those imposed by the January 21 rule. These union commenters argued that the Department should rescind the January 21 rule until it can accurately assess both the benefits and burdens of the 2003 rule. One international union referred to the 2003 revisions as “punitive and excessive” and urged the Department to examine their impact with a goal of significantly reducing the recordkeeping burden to a “more rational level, consistent with the LMRDA.” A national union stressed the “onerous” burden that the 2003 rule created for it and its affiliates, in terms of economics and operations, and argued that any additional burdens imposed by the rule are not justified by any meaningful benefits, the existence of which it doubted.
The remainder of the commenters opposed rescission of the January 21 rule. Most emphasized the general importance of union financial reporting and disclosure requirements, some asserting that withdrawal of the rule ran counter to the President's focus upon transparency. Six commenters opposed the rescission of the rule on substantive grounds. One individual, a retired union
Another individual commenter opposing rescission of the January 21 rule stressed the Department's enforcement record (
The Department disagrees that rescinding the rule will weaken the agency's ability to fight fraud and embezzlement. The Department has not carefully reviewed the potential deterrent effect, if any, associated with the 2003 revisions to the Form LM-2, and there is no support in the rulemaking record for drawing a reasonable inference about the probable impact of the additional reporting requirements prescribed by the January 21 rule. Indeed, the prior eight-year period of 1993-2000 actually yielded slightly higher results than the eight-year period of 2001-2008, with 1,193 indictments and 1,159 convictions. The year 2000 totals, 204 indictments and 191 convictions, are higher than any of the yearly totals from 2001-2008. Moreover, these results all derive from a period prior to the 2003 changes to the Form LM-2. In making this point, however, the Department does not suggest that previous versions of the Form LM-2 were more effective tools in fighting union corruption, or that there is a link between any specific Form LM-2 data and the overall rate of fraud and embezzlement. These figures are offered solely to show that there is an insufficient record to justify increases or reductions in reporting form data collection by reference to changes in enforcement statistics.
In particular, there has been no review as to whether the 2003 changes resulted in increased indictments or convictions; improved compliance; offered members information needed for self-governance, accountability or fiscal management; or otherwise aided the Department or the public in exposing union fraud or corruption. The Department concurs with commenters who have suggested that before moving forward with the additional reporting requirements imposed by the 2009 final rule, it should have engaged in a meaningful review to assess the benefits, effectiveness, and usefulness of the 2003 changes. The lack of such a review justifies today's rescission of the January 21 rule.
The Department fully recognizes and supports the importance of union reporting and disclosure to the union members and to the public, but it also believes that the LMRDA requires a balancing of transparency with the need to maintain union autonomy without overburdening unions with reporting requirements. The Form LM-2, as established by the January 21 rule, did not adequately consider this balance. In this regard, the Department does not believe that this necessary balancing is possible without a review of the 2003 changes to the Form LM-2, which the rulemaking process that culminated in the January 21 rule did not undertake. The commenters did not provide any contrary reasoning.
In proposing rescission of the January 21 rule, the Department stated that it was a mistake to propose further changes to the Form LM-2 reporting requirements so soon after the 2003 rule without proper consideration of the effects of these changes. Without undertaking such review, the Department could not adequately weigh the merits of the increased disclosure against the associated burdens on the union filers. 74 FR 18175. As there stated, the Department recognized that the January 21 rule did not adequately consider the effects of the 2003 changes, particularly regarding the assumed benefits of the changes. The January 21 rule did not adequately show that the 2003 changes either succeeded or failed in achieving their intended purpose. Further, the Department explained that additional review of the post-2003 reporting history would be beneficial before deciding that additional regulatory changes would facilitate these purposes. Additionally, the Department recognized that financial transparency is necessary to protect against union fraud and corruption, enhance accountability among union officials, and that it is necessary for members to effectively engage in union self-governance. However, it also noted that a review of the usefulness of the information that has been reported since the Form LM-2 was revised in 2003, as well as the burden placed on unions by that revision, would provide a better basis for determining whether additional changes are necessary than the unverified assumptions underlying the January 21 rule. This review would
In contrast to the Department's assessment that no meaningful review of prior Form LM-2 changes had been undertaken in connection with the January 21 rule, one commenter expressed the view that the rule reflects a “well reasoned culmination to eight years of solid work”, while another characterized it as a product of the “expertise” of Department officials and others in identifying and reviewing areas of the Form LM-2 that could be improved. A business federation stated that the rule is supported by comments that verified the assumptions underlying the 2003 burden estimates and that the Department had made significant changes to improve the methodology for estimating burden and improve the accuracy of its burden estimates.
After carefully considering the competing points of view among the commenters, the Department continues to hold the opinion that the Department failed to conduct an adequate analysis of the effects of the 2003 Form LM-2 revisions before it developed the additional reporting requirements adopted in the January 21 rule. Although the Department justified the January 21 rule, in part, on experience under the 2003 rule, see 74 FR 3681-82, that experience was neither documented not comprehensively analyzed. The informal, anecdotal information on which the Department relied was simply inadequate for the task. It was no substitute for a more comprehensive review such as, for example, a survey of all Department investigators or a documented review of the thousands of filings received by Department under the 2003 rule. See 74 FR at 3681 (referring to “opportunity to review thousands of forms and to tap the experience gained by its staff in investigating Form LM-2 issues and from their dialogue with union officials and union members while providing Form LM-2 compliance assistance to them”); 74 FR 3684 (citing to “OLMS experience over years of auditing and investigating union financial activities”). While such experience is valid, it is a poor substitute for a comprehensive review of experience under the 2003 rule.
The Department attempted to partially account for the absence of appropriate review by characterizing the January 21 rule as “incremental” reform to the Form LM-2. 74 FR at 3681. Indeed, the 2008 NPRM proposing the January 21 rule stated that the 2003 changes to the Form LM-2 “helped to fulfill the LMRDA's reporting mandate.” 73 FR 27348. However, the NPRM provided no indication that this conclusion was based on a comprehensive review of experience under the 2003 rule. Only when the Department has engaged in such review can it determine if “incremental” changes to the 2003 Form LM-2 reporting regime, such as those implemented in the January 21 rule, are justified in light of the need to balance competing interests. While increased disclosure provides beneficial information to members, it is by no means clear that such benefits outweigh the institutional cost to unions and the members themselves by disclosing information, in some instances comparable to trade secrets, to the general public. Thus, a review of experience under the 2003 rule should include an assessment of the burden that such increased reporting imposes on unions, not merely in terms of cost but also in terms of its impact on the unions' ability to represent its members. Yet the January 21 rule fails altogether to account for this cost to unions and their members. The Department, therefore, disagrees with the business federation's assertion that the Department evidenced “a meaningful and adequate review” in its January 21 rulemaking. A general reference in the preamble to the January 21 rule—to “the benefit of three cycles of reviewing forms * * * to assess the utility of the form and to identify areas in which improvement was needed”—falls short of a meaningful review of the benefits of the form to the reader or the burden to the filer. Such analysis simply cannot be completed within the four corners of the filed reports.
The same commenter asserted that the Department in revising its initial burden estimates for the January 21 rule had taken into account “actual costs and data that were identified by labor organizations in their comments and other data sources.” On the contrary, the Department expressly rejected the concept of using actual post-2003 costs. See 74 FR 3703. In the burden analysis to the January 21 rule, the Department conceded that “after considering the comments regarding actual costs associated with the LM-2 revision in 2003, the Department has decided to retain the approach adopted in the NPRM and use the costs
The business federation asserted that the Department provided for comment its 2006 publication of its paperwork burden package in the
In the course of this rulemaking, the Department received comments from labor organizations regarding burden issues that merit review. Even though such comments would be helpful in gauging the 2003 rule's impact on union members, information from a much larger sample of union members would be needed to provide a reasonable benchmark for considering changes in the reporting regimen. Review of such experience, among other lines of inquiry, might include the effects of the 2003 changes in such areas as the detection, prosecution, and deterrence of fraud and corruption; compliance assistance; the aiding of members in exercising their rights to view additional materials under section 201(c); the support of members in utilizing their
The failure to conduct appropriate review as a predicate for the new reporting requirements in the January 21 rule is compounded by the weaknesses in the 2003 data that was used to estimate the compliance burden. A national union asserted, based on its experience, that the 2003 burden estimates were “grossly underestimated.” This union estimates that the 2003 rule resulted in a 40-45% increase in its initial compliance costs, which were substantially larger than the Department's estimates in 2003, and the union offered similar data for its annual cost to comply with the 2003 changes, which it alleges are also multiple times higher than the Department's estimates. The commenter expressed fear that these errors led to equally erroneous calculations in the January 21 rule. As an example, the union states that the itemization for interest and dividends will result in substantially greater costs than estimated, because its accounting system does not maintain information on payment sources, payment amounts, payment dates, or payment purposes.
The Department agrees with the comments that the Department, in fashioning the January 21 rule, effectively overlooked the problem of relying on the necessarily speculative estimates for costs associated with the itemization of substantial disbursements, as required by the 2003 rule. In crafting that rule, the Department had no real cost experience to draw on in making the estimates. Indeed, as the Department's own explanation makes plain, see 74 FR at 3704-05, the Department had to substantially revise its own estimates of the burden associated with the 2003 rule, based on comments it received from labor organizations.
The Department agrees with a national union's comments regarding the necessity to review the post-2003 data in terms of the perceived benefits of the 2003 changes in such areas as protecting unions against fraud and corruption, assisting the Department in enforcing compliance, and providing meaningful information to union members so they can engage in self-governance. The union asserted that no evidence exists as to whether those objectives have been met by the 2003 changes. It shared its own experience under the 2003 rule: no instances of fraud or embezzlement have been uncovered; the new schedules have had no impact on the governance of the union; and no questions or issues related to the information reported on the new schedules have been raised by any member of the union, as evidenced by a review of correspondence from the members to the union's president, as well as member meetings attended by the president. As noted above, these issues need to be considered in reviewing the costs and benefits associated with the 2003 rule and that such review is a necessary predicate to any proposal to revise the 2003 reporting requirements.
For the reasons articulated above, the Department disagrees with a business federation's defense of the process and conclusions leading up to the January 21 rule, suggesting that the review was adequate and that at best the proposed rescission was merely a “policy disagreement” with the past Administration. Regardless of whether the Department agrees or disagrees with the January 21 rule, the rescission is based primarily on the Department's failure to undertake meaningful review of experience under the 2003 rule, including the benefits and burdens associated with the rule, leaving the Department unable to assess whether the reporting requirements achieve the balance intended by Congress.
A public policy group requested the Department to engage in a burden analysis, viewing the absence of a new burden analysis for the January 21 rule as fatal to the proposed rescission of that rule. Such analysis is not required for this action, as the Department is not proposing any changes to the existing Form LM-2 but, rather, is rescinding the changes made on January 21, 2009.
Additionally, the Department disagrees with the contention of a commenter that it was an improper use of government resources to engage in further rulemaking on the Form LM-2. The Department believes that resources spent on rescinding a poorly-justified rule are well-spent. Moreover, the burden on the public and the Department from permitting the January 21 rule to go into effect far outweigh the costs of rescinding them.
The Department's current view is that before implementing additional financial reporting requirements, a more comprehensive review of the experience under the 2003 rule should have been completed, along with engagement in a meaningful dialogue with labor unions and public policy groups interested in union financial reporting. The parties with a particular interest in financial reporting should be able to fully understand the Department's support for its proposals and, as appropriate, to comment on its sufficiency as rulemaking begins. In promoting transparency and accountability—purposes served by the disclosure and reporting provisions of the LMRDA—the Department must share with the public all the information it relies on in support of a proposed rule change.
The January 21 rule established standards and procedures for revoking the simplified report filing authorization provided by 29 CFR 403.4(a)(1) for those labor organizations that are delinquent in their Form LM-3 filing obligation, fail to cure a materially deficient Form LM-3 report after notification by OLMS, or where other situations exist where revoking the Form LM-3 filing authorization furthers the purposes of LMRDA section 208.
Under the revocation procedure, where there appear to be grounds for revoking a labor organization's authorization to file the Form LM-3, the Department could conduct an investigation to confirm the facts relating to the delinquency or other possible basis for revocation. If the Department after investigation finds grounds for revocation, the Department could send the labor organization a notice of the proposed Form LM-3 revocation stating the reason for the proposed revocation and explaining that revocation, if ordered, would require the labor organization to file the more detailed Form LM-2. The letter would provide notice that the labor organization has the right to a hearing if it chooses to challenge the proposed revocation, and that the hearing would be limited to written submissions due within 30 days of the date of the notice.
In its written submission, the labor organization would be required to present relevant facts and arguments that address whether (1) the report was delinquent or deficient or other grounds for the proposed revocation exist; (2) the deficiency, if any, was material; (3) the
After review of the labor organization's submission, the Secretary would issue a written determination, stating the reasons for the determination, and, as appropriate based on neutral criteria, inform the labor organization that it is required to file the Form LM-2 for such reporting periods as she finds appropriate.
In proposing to rescind the Form LM-3 standards and procedure for revocation, the Department justified its proposal on two grounds. First, the Department stated that the January 21 rule did not adequately assess the burden placed on smaller labor organizations by the standards and revocation procedure. The Department also stated its belief that, in light of that burden, there was no realistic likelihood that the standards and procedure would accomplish the intended results of increased transparency and more disclosure. The Department explained that there is no realistic likelihood that most small unions would have the information or means to file the more detailed Form LM-2. 74 FR 18176-77. Second, the Department explained, as discussed above, that the LMRDA requires a balancing of transparency and union autonomy, a balance that the January 21 rule failed to achieve. Id.
After having considered the comments received on this issue, the Department remains of the view that the standards and procedure for revocation should be withdrawn. As discussed below, the January 21 rule predicted that less than 100 labor unions per year would suffer revocation. Nevertheless, many times this number of unions would be drawn into the process, requiring the expenditure of time and effort without any demonstrated showing that Form LM-3 filers subject to revocation will be able to properly file a Form LM-2. Furthermore, as discussed below, the Act requires a balancing of transparency and union autonomy, and the January 21 rule did not take this mandate into account in formulating the standards for revocation (
The January 21 rule establishing the standards and procedure for revocation stated that unions that are deficient or delinquent in their Form LM-3 filings are more likely to experience financial corruption and, therefore, are in greater need of increased financial transparency through Form LM-2 reporting. 74 FR at 3697. However, as stated in the April 21 NPRM, the Department reevaluated the efficacy of the standards and procedure in achieving this end. 74 FR at 18176-77. In coming to this view, the Department determined that the January 21 rule did not adequately assess the burden on smaller unions in filing a Form LM-2 report and, therefore, misjudged the effectiveness of the revocation as a means to increase transparency. As stated in the proposal to rescind the January 21 rule, the revocation provisions of the rule are counter-intuitive and the rule fails to demonstrate that Form LM-3 filers required to file the more detailed and complicated Form LM-2 reports are likely to submit timely, complete, and accurate Form LM-2 reports. 74 FR at 18176. Moreover, the Department stated that there was insufficient support in the rule for the conclusion that revocation will reduce delinquency and deficiencies in reporting. Id.
As explained in the NPRM, the January 21 rule projected that 96 filers would be required to file the Form LM-2 and calculated the associated burden on that projection. This burden is necessarily understated due to the fact that some associated burden applies to all Form LM-3 filers, not merely those whose right to file a Form LM-3 is revoked. In order to file a Form LM-2, steps must be taken at the start of the fiscal year. Accounting systems and procedures must be in place that will track and maintain the data required by the Form LM-2. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the Department concluded that there is no realistic likelihood that most small unions would have the information or the means to file the more detailed Form LM-2, and that the revocation standards and procedure established by the rule will be unlikely to result in more disclosure. Id.
As stated in the NPRM, the Department agreed with comments that had previously been submitted that advocated a compliance assistance approach, particularly one drawing upon the cooperative efforts of national and international unions, rather than a revocation procedure. As stated in the NPRM, a revocation procedure is not likely to improve delinquency and deficiencies in Form LM-3 reporting, and it could actually contribute to continuing non-compliance since filers may have greater difficulty successfully meeting the Form LM-2 reporting requirements. The Department explained that a compliance assistance approach is more likely to increase proper reporting than a revocation approach that is counter-intuitive and likely to damage compliance assistance efforts. Id.
In response to the NPRM, four union commenters expressed specific support for the Department's proposal to rescind the revocation standards and procedure. A federation of unions stated that with outreach and compliance assistance, it would be a rare event that a small union would not comply with its Form LM-3 filing obligation, noting that in such instances it would be appropriate to use the enforcement mechanism provided by the LMRDA. The federation also referenced its earlier comments where it stated “[t]here is no reason to believe that a small labor organization that was not set up to fil[e] a timely or complete Form LM-2 report would be able to meet the enormous burden of retroactively adjusting its accounting system in a manner sufficient to file Form LM-2 reports.”
A national union offered specific evidence in support of the notion that smaller unions would not be able to file the Form LM-2, and it noted that the retroactive nature of the revocation procedure particularly impacted Form LM-3 filers. This union also felt that the “enormous financial strain” that revocation would cause could lead to further compliance problems, and it therefore stressed compliance assistance in its place. An international union expressed similar concerns, noting that Form LM-2 preparation requires electronic accounting and the professional assistance that will not be available to small unions. Another union concurred with the view expressed in the NPRM that the Department did not adequately consider
The Department received three comments that specifically opposed the proposal to rescind the Form LM-3 revocation standards and procedure. Only one commenter, a business federation, addressed the Department's concerns, as outlined in the NPRM, that the January 21 rule failed to adequately assess the burden the procedure would impose on the smaller labor organizations and the likelihood that, in light of that burden, the rule would accomplish the intended results of increased transparency and more disclosure. This commenter argued that the rulemaking record illustrated that smaller unions could file the Form LM-2, and cited Form LM-3 filers who ordinarily have less than $250,000 in annual receipts, but due to the sale of an asset or other reason, finish a fiscal year with greater than $250,000 in receipts and, therefore, must file a Form LM-2 report. The business federation also cited unions in trusteeship, for which a Form LM-2 must be filed on their behalf, regardless of the annual receipts of the union in trusteeship. Additionally, this commenter challenged the NPRM's reference to the “counter-intuitive” nature of the revocation procedure, explaining its view that the approach outlined in the January 21 rule was a sensible one that augmented other enforcement tools such as criminal enforcement and voluntary compliance.
The Department disagrees with those commenters questioning the NPRM's conclusions pertaining to the burden on smaller unions. The Department continues to believe that revocation is unlikely to result in the increased transparency and greater disclosure intended by the January 21 rule in view of the Form LM-2 burden it places on Form LM-3 filers. Initially, the Department notes that its argument is not that all Form LM-3 filers are unable to file a Form LM-2, but that those that do not properly or timely file a Form LM-3 are not likely to properly or timely file a Form LM-2, particularly given the retroactive nature of the revocation procedure, as several commenters noted. The Department finds the revocation procedure's steps of notification and voluntary cooperation only reinforce this notion, as unions that have difficulty properly filing a Form LM-3 are unlikely to properly submit a written statement contesting the revocation of the Form LM-3 filing authorization and unions that do not properly file a Form LM-3 after these efforts would seem less likely to properly file a Form LM-2.
Moreover, assuming that the revocation procedure is a tool available to the Department to address delinquent and deficient reporting, the problem remains that the revocation procedure is a poorly designed, burdensome method of resolving this problem. In fact, the stated goal of the revocation standards and procedure was to increase transparency in unions with reporting deficiencies and delinquencies, which the January 21 rule concluded were in need of greater disclosure. However, the Department, on its review of the rule, does not believe that increased transparency is likely through the revocation provisions, because it is unreasonable to expect delinquent and deficient Form LM-3 filers to properly and timely file the more complicated Form LM-2. No commenter adequately refuted this assertion.
In response to comments referencing those Form LM-3 filers that, under the 2003 rule and certain conditions, must file a Form LM-2 report, the Department stresses the statutory distinction between the requirement for the Secretary to establish simplified reports for certain smaller unions and the discretionary authority to revoke such authorization for simplified reports under certain conditions. The fact that some Form LM-3 filers during occasional fiscal years are required to alter their reporting procedures and file a Form LM-2 does not negate the fact that the burden placed on Form LM-3 filers by revocation makes the goal of increased transparency unlikely to be met. Indeed, as commenters have attested, their experience demonstrates that even smaller Form LM-2 filers, those only marginally exceeding the $250,000 filing threshold, have a great deal of difficulty meeting their requirements, thus justifying the mandate for simplified forms for smaller unions. Further, the Department recognizes that nonexistent records cannot be created retroactively. In this regard, the Department notes that section 206 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 436, requires “[e]very person required to file any
In its NPRM proposing the rescission of the January 21 rule, the Department also defended its proposal to withdraw the revocation standards and procedure by arguing that the LMRDA requires a balancing of transparency and union autonomy, a balance that the January 21 rule failed to achieve. All three of the commenters opposing rescission of the standards and procedure, asserted, in essence, that the Secretary possesses “clear and unambiguous” authority under section 208 to establish the revocation procedure. Two of these commenters contend that section 208 is self-operative, asserting that the Secretary retains the authority to revoke the simpler filing authorization even if the rule is rescinded. According to their view, the regulations merely “flesh[] out” the necessary procedures to implement the existing authority. As explained by one of commenters, the language of section 206 of the LMRDA (requiring covered unions to maintain records underlying required reports) prevents the Department from finding that “there is no realistic likelihood that most small unions would have the information” necessary to complete the Form LM-2.
The Department is not persuaded that section 208 is self-operating. As the commenters themselves point out, section 208 contemplates that the Department follow required procedures, the details of which are not prescribed. Thus, it is necessary for the Department to establish procedures as a condition for rescinding a filer's authorization to file a Form LM-3. In proposing rescission, the Department noted both that section 208 specifically mandates that the Secretary must issue simplified reports for labor organizations for which she finds that “by virtue of their size a
The third commenter opposing rescission also addressed the Secretary's authority under section 208. This commenter stressed the “unambiguous authority” granted to the Secretary and argued that section 208 thus does not require the Department to “balance” the need for financial transparency with burden. Further, the commenter emphasized that revocation was just one “tool” that the Secretary has to ensure compliance with the statute, and that the “purpose” of the section is preventing the “circumvention or evasion” of the Act's reporting requirements, not ensuring that the requirements are not unduly burdensome. The Department rejects these arguments, as it notes that section 208 grants the Secretary authority to rescind only if she determines that the “purposes” of the section would be served. The Department maintains that section 208 explicitly intends, among other purposes, that smaller labor organizations should not be subject to “unduly burdensome” reporting requirements.
Section 208 requires the Department to properly balance the size of the union and its burden to file the Form LM-2 with the need of greater transparency for that union. An international union asserted that revoking the Form LM-3 filing authorization for smaller unions merely because of delinquency or deficiency in their Form LM-3 reporting is “overkill,” constituting “collective punishment.” As such, it asserted that the Department had failed to properly balance these concerns, noting that the rule failed even as a “prophylactic” means to detect a “lack of sophistication and awareness” or “the rare instances” of financial corruption. The union stated that the root causes of delinquent and deficient reporting are “honest mistakes” and other “benign reasons” such as “over-worked, under-trained, part-time, officials often lacking both technical expertise in union administration and any institutional knowledge base from which to draw,” and not “the rare instances” of financial corruption. An international union predicted that if small unions were required to file the Form LM-2 local officials likely would quit their positions.
The Department concurs with these assertions, as it does not believe that the purpose of balancing the need for transparency without overburdening smaller unions is met by standards for revocation (delinquency or deficiency in reporting) that are so sweeping in nature,
Additionally, instead of risking the loss of union officials who may quit rather than assume the burden associated with the revocation procedure, an international union urged the Department to address the root causes of delinquent reporting by educating smaller unions. The union noted that where education and voluntary compliance efforts are unsuccessful, criminal investigations and prosecutions are effective tools to address financial corruption in smaller unions. The Department agrees with these comments. As stated in the proposal to rescind the January 21 rule, the Department, as a matter of policy, does “not intend to encourage or discourage the participation of union members from running and serving in union office, nor does it otherwise desire to unnecessarily interfere in the internal affairs of unions.” 74 FR at 18176-77. The Department further stated that it intends to implement the LMRDA with as little interference as possible, with an overarching goal of empowering members to govern their unions democratically. It also addressed other possibly detrimental consequences of the revocation procedure, such as the diversion of union officials from grievance handling and other core business, and stated its view that revocation cannot be justified by merely lessening or downplaying the acknowledged increased burden imposed by the Form LM-2 reporting requirements. Id. Compliance assistance is a vital aspect of this approach, as are audit and enforcement options, and both are better approaches than a revocation procedure that is viewed as punitive to Form LM-3 filers. The unions commented that criminal investigations and prosecutions are better used in addressing financial corruption in smaller unions. The Department agrees that the selective use of criminal investigation and enforcement is preferable to the approach in the January 21 rule because it is doubtful that the Department will discover embezzlements and other corruption through revocation (which theoretically would result in the filing of a Form LM-2), since the procedure is unlikely to result in increased reporting.
Finally, the Department disagrees with the commenter that suggested that, even if the revocation procedure is now deemed to be overly burdensome, the Department should not rescind the rule without first establishing a replacement procedure. In its view, section 208 requires the Department to have a published revocation procedure available in case it is needed. The commenter stated that if the Department is dissatisfied with the procedure in the rule, it should have proposed a procedure based on a “realistic assessment” of the ability of smaller unions to complete a Form LM-2, with the goal of preventing the circumvention or evasion of section 208. The Department believes that, for the reasons stated above, the revocation procedure and standards established by the regulations are flawed and, therefore, rescinds them. The Department retains the authority under section 208 to propose a new revocation procedure and standards, based upon a necessary balancing of transparency with union autonomy as required by the section and the Act, if it decides that such an action is necessary and appropriate.
This rule is considered to be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and was submitted to OMB for review before publication, because the proposed rule may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more, or in increased expenditures by the private sector of $100 million or more.
This rule contains no new information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Labor unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is finalizing its January 16, 2009, interim rule establishing oil pollution prevention equipment requirements with one minor amendment to the rule's effective date for vessels with equipment installed on or after January 1, 2005. The rule harmonizes Coast Guard regulations with new International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines and specifications issued under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex I. It implements these MARPOL Annex I regulations and, ultimately, is intended to reduce the amount of oil discharged from vessels and eliminate the use of ozone-depleting solvents in equipment tests. All vessels replacing or installing oily-water separators and bilge alarms must install equipment that meets these revised standards. Newly constructed vessels carrying oil in bulk must install monitoring systems that meet the revised standards.
This final rule is effective November 12, 2009, except that paragraphs 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4) are effective October 13, 2009. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November 12, 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-2004-18939 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Wayne Lundy, Systems Engineering Division (CG-5213), Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1379, e-mail
On November 3, 2005, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Pollution Prevention Equipment” in the
On January 16, 2009, the Coast Guard published an interim rule (74 FR 3364) that updated references for the international standard for pollution prevention equipment from the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee resolution, MEPC.60(33) to the new international standard in MEPC.107(49) and addressed the 80 comments on the NPRM. With the interim rule we also sought comment on three paragraphs: 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4), which proposed requiring any pollution prevention equipment installed on or after January 1, 2005, that does not comply with MEPC.107(49), which became an international requirement on January 1, 2005, to be replaced with pollution prevention equipment that does comply with the MEPC.107(49) standard. These three paragraphs were not included in the NPRM, and we solicited public comment on them in the interim rule. We received five comments, which are discussed below in
The interim rule, with the exception of the three paragraphs, became effective on March 17, 2009. Under the interim rule, the three paragraphs regarding equipment installed on or after January 1, 2005, were set to become effective on October 13, 2009. Under this final rule, however, the three paragraphs as amended by the final rule are effective October 13, 2009. The Coast Guard is making these paragraphs effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The discussion of the background that follows largely repeats the discussion of the background and purpose set forth in the interim rule.
This final rule will implement international standards for oil pollution prevention equipment designed for ships and oil tankers. These standards address the testing, certification, and approval for oil pollution prevention equipment, including discharge monitors, which will help prevent oily discharges from a ship into the water.
There are three types of equipment involved in this rulemaking that deal with oil, water, and other substances:
A
A
An
Under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Public Law 96-478, sections 2 and 4, 94 Stat. 2297, 2298 (Oct. 21, 1980), 33 U.S.C. 1901 and 1903, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act and of Annex I (Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating to that Convention (MARPOL 73/78). Under the Act of August 26, 1983, Public Law 98-89, 97 Stat. 500, 504, 522, subtitle II of title 46 of the U.S. Code (46 U.S.C.), specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to issue equipment regulations, and related maintenance and training regulations for vessels carrying liquid bulk dangerous cargo, including oil. Authority under both of these acts has been delegated to the Coast Guard under Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 II(77) and (92)(b).
This rulemaking implements revisions to the international oil pollution prevention standards for ships in MARPOL Annex I, specifically regulations 14, 18, and 31. Under Article 38 of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (Committee) is designated to consider IMO matters involving the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships.
In 1992, during its 33rd session, the Committee adopted a resolution, MEPC.60(33), containing guidelines and specifications for pollution prevention equipment for machinery space bilges of ships. In 2003, recognizing the advancement of technology since 1992, the Committee adopted resolution MEPC.107(49), which contained new guidelines and specifications that superseded those adopted in 1992.
The MEPC.107(49) changed the fluids used to test pollution prevention equipment so they would more closely represent the bilge wastes encountered on vessels. Emulsified oil in water, surfactants (for example, detergents), and other contaminants are typically found in bilge water. Under MEPC.107(49), the bilge separator must be capable of separating the oil from the
The MEPC.107(49) also changed the method by which oil content is measured in effluent samples during the approval process. Past methods permitted the use of ozone-depleting solvents, specifically carbon tetrachloride and Freon 113 (CFC 113). Both an international treaty and United States laws call for phasing out the use of these solvents. See the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, (“Montreal Protocol”), Sept. 16, 1987, 26 I.L.M. 1550, and Title VI of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q. Accordingly, MEPC.107(49) specifies a different test method that does not use ozone-depleting solvents.
The MEPC.107(49) guidelines and specifications were incorporated into Annex I after the 2004 adoption of resolution MEPC.117(52), which led to the revision of MARPOL Annex I. On January 1, 2007, the revised Annex I came into force. Resolution MEPC.107(49) is incorporated into Regulation 14 (Oil filtering equipment) of the revised Annex I.
Additionally, in 2003, the Committee also adopted resolution MEPC.108(49), which revised guidelines and specifications for oil discharge monitoring and control systems for oil tankers constructed after 2004. These new guidelines and specifications were incorporated into Regulations 18 (Segregated Ballast Tanks) and 31 (Oil discharge monitoring and control system) of the revised Annex I and apply to oil content meters as part of oil discharge monitoring and control systems installed on tankers constructed after 2004.
The new MEPC.108(49) guidelines and specifications call for:
• Only one category of a monitoring system to apply to all tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above;
• The monitoring system to be able to record position (latitude and longitude) from a vessel-position indicating device, allowing more accurate input of speed parameters;
• Greater control of oil mixture discharges by tightening the accuracy requirements for both the oil content meter and the flow meter; and
• A more objective specification for identifying crude oils: simply by number and assigned characteristics and parameters—such as density, viscosity, and cloud point—rather than geographical denominations used in Resolution A.586(14). See IMO Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment Report to the Maritime Safety Committee, DE 46/32 at 12 13 (April 4, 2003).
In response to our request for comments on the three paragraphs—33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4)—in the interim rule, we received five comments from three commenters. One comment was submitted jointly by two commenters who generally agree with the interim rule, but suggest that the Coast Guard adopt a pollution standard stricter than the 15 ppm set forth in MARPOL Annex I. While the Coast Guard appreciates the support for the interim rule, the commenters' suggestion to adopt a maximum oil discharge limit lower than 15 ppm is outside the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.
The four remaining comments came from a manufacturer, and one of his comments specifically addressed 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), one of the three delayed-effective date paragraphs on which we sought public comment in the interim rule. The three other comments sought clarification to other aspects of the interim rule. The Coast Guard provided the below responses to these four comments in direct communications to the manufacturer, unless noted otherwise. A summary and the substance of those communications are available in the docket where indicated under
Regarding 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), the commenter asked for clarification on when ship owners would have to comply with the requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(3), which will become effective on October 13, 2009. The commenter noted that it appears this paragraph requires all equipment installed after 2004 to be supplied or upgraded to satisfy these new international standards in MEPC.107(49), and asked if this needs to be accomplished by October 13. The Coast Guard's initial response in a direct communication to the manufacturer, which is included in the docket, deferred addressing this comment until the close of the comment period.
The Coast Guard recognizes that it may not be feasible for ship owners to comply with the requirements in § 155.350(a)(3) by October 13, and in response to this comment, we are adding an implementation period to allow ship owners to budget and plan for the work required to comply. Under revised paragraph (a)(3), a vessel owner must install equipment meeting the new requirements in MEPC.107(49) by one of two dates, as set forth in new paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii): either the date of the vessel's first drydock following October 13, 2009, or for those vessels going into international service for the first time since January 2005, the date of its first survey prior to receiving its International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate. The Coast Guard is making the same change to paragraphs 155.360(a)(2) and 155.370(a)(4).
The manufacturer's second comment requested clarification on the interim rule's affect on his backlog of equipment that complies with the older international standard, MEPC.60(33), and is ordered but not yet installed. The commenter noted that the interim rule may preclude the installation of any MEPC.60(33) equipment after March 17, 2009.
The Coast Guard's response to this comment is that equipment that has not been physically installed must comply with the current regulations, i.e., the MEPC.107(49) standard.
The commenter's third comment asked for clarification of whether, under the interim rule, bilge alarms replaced after March 17, 2009, on separators installed prior to January 1, 2005, must be replaced with bilge alarms complying with the revised 46 CFR 162.050 specifications. The Coast Guard notes this comment concerns what is meant by the term “good working order.”
After March 17, 2009, if a bilge alarm approved to MEPC.60(33) needs to be replaced, then it may be replaced by a bilge alarm approved to MEPC.60(33), but only for separators approved to MEPC.60(33) that were installed on the ship prior to January 1, 2005. This is allowed in recognition of the need for compatibility between the separator and bilge alarm, as well the relative ease to replace a bilge alarm. Separators approved to MEPC.60(33) that were installed on the ship prior to January 1, 2005, may continue to be used as long as they are maintained in good working order, which includes basic or routine maintenance and repair of such separators as well as replacement of components and consumables. If, however, a separator approved to MEPC.60(33) needs to be replaced, regardless of when it was installed on the ship, then it must be replaced with a separator approved to MEPC.107(49). In this case, the separator approved to MEPC.107(49) must also have a bilge alarm approved to MEPC.107(49).
Finally, the commenter's fourth comment sought confirmation that the definition of the term “expired” as used in the preamble to the interim rule (74 FR 3375) has the same meaning as “expired” on the United States Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange Web site, Approved Equipment
The Coast Guard response to this comment is that a bilge alarm or separator installed on a ship on or after January 1, 2005, but not having approval under MEPC.107(49), is subject to the requirements of 33 CFR 155.350, 155.360, and 155.370, (see 74 FR 3363 and 74 FR 6358), namely the requirement to be replaced by equipment approved under MEPC.107(49) unless it is determined to be unreasonable or impracticable. Bilge alarms and separators installed prior to January 1, 2005, having a Certificate of Approval issued by the Coast Guard, can remain installed on the ship as long as they are maintained in good working order. Please note: A Certificate of Approval is issued by the Coast Guard to a manufacturer usually for a period of five years. This five-year period primarily affects the manufacturer and not the ship. Equipment of a type approved by the Coast Guard that is manufactured during this five year period in accordance with the terms of the certificate may be installed on a ship in order to meet the applicable requirements for approved equipment. There is no requirement, however, that equipment be removed when the Certificate of Approval expires.
This rule finalizes the amendments set forth in the interim rule. A full discussion of the provisions of this rule may be found in the “Discussion of Interim Rule” section of the interim rule. 74 FR 3364, at 3375. We are making only one minor change to the interim rule in the final rule by adding implementation periods in 33 CFR 155.350(a)(3), 155.360(a)(2), and 155.370(a)(4), as discussed above.
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4.
We developed this final 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.
Public comments on the interim rule are summarized in Part IV of this preamble. The Coast Guard received no public comments, and have made no changes, that would alter our assessment of impacts in the interim rule. We have found no additional data or information that would change our findings in the interim rule. We have adopted the assessment in the interim rule as final. A summary follows.
We estimated 176 existing vessels and 46 new vessels annually will be affected by this rule and incur additional costs for installing OWS and bilge alarms.
We estimated the annual costs of the OWS and bilge alarms combined range from $9,000 to $19,000, depending on vessel type and size for both existing and new vessels: $9,000 for vessels below 400 gross tons; $13,000 for vessels 400 gross tons or more and less than 10,000 gross tons; and, $19,000 for vessels 10,000 gross tons and over.
We estimated non-discounted annual costs for existing vessels at approximately $2.3 million and approximately $550,000 for new vessels, or about $2.9 million combined. We estimated the total 10-year present value cost of the rule to be $21 million or $25 million based on a seven or three percent discount rate (all values rounded).
The benefits of this rule are improved environmental conditions from the use of PPE, which meets higher standards of pollution prevention. The new OWS equipment will better handle the separation of emulsified oils, surfactants, and contaminants from water. These pollutants will no longer be released into the environment because of these standards. See the assessments in the interim rule and the NPRM for additional details.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule has 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.
In the interim rule, we certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have found no additional data or information that would change our findings in the interim rule. We have adopted the certification in the interim rule for this final rule. See the “Small Entity” sections of the interim rule and the NPRM for additional details.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), 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. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Wayne Lundy, Office of Systems Engineering (CG-5213), Office of Design and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1379, e-mail
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.3501-3520). The paperwork burden associated with the manufacture, laboratory testing, approval tests, and marking of pollution prevention equipment is addressed in the existing collection of information, OMB #1625-0035, entitled “Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical and Engineering Equipment; Construction and Materials.” The Office of Management and Budget renewed its approval of this collection of information on May 27, 2009. It will expire after the 3-year approval period ends on May 31, 2012, unless renewed again.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of
The pollution prevention equipment regulations promulgated in this rule are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States, and therefore preemption under E.O. 13132 is not an issue.
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 (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 final rule uses the following consensus standards that are not voluntary standards:
• IMO Assembly Resolution A.393(X)—Recommendation on International Performance and Test Specifications for Oily-Water Separating Equipment and Oil Content Meters;
• IMO Assembly Resolution A.496(XII)—Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers;
• IMO Assembly Resolution A.586(14)—Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers;
• IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution MEPC.13(19)—Guidelines for Plan Approval and Installation Survey of Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers and Environmental Testing of Control Sections Thereof;
• IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee Resolution MEPC.108(49)—Revised Guidelines and Specifications for Oil Discharge Monitoring and Control Systems for Oil Tankers;
• International Organization for Standardization Standard ISO 8217 (2005) Petroleum products—Fuels (class F)—Specification of marine fuels;
• International Organization for Standardization Standard ISO 9377-2 (2000), Water Quality—Determination of hydrocarbon oil index—Part 2: Method Using solvent extraction and Gas Chromatography.
They are used because the United States is party to MARPOL Annex I and we must use these standards to effectively implement MARPOL Annex I regulations. The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 33 CFR 157.02 and 46 CFR 162.050-4.
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 that 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 section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction and under section 6(b) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy,” (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002), from further environmental documentation. This regulation fits within these categorical exclusions because it concerns equipment approval and carriage requirements and implements regulations designed to protect the environment. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3703; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Sections 155.100 through 155.130, 150.350 through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440, 155.470, 155.1030(j) and (k), and 155.1065(g) are also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1903(b). Section 155.490 also issued under section 4110(b) of Public Law 101-380. Sections 155.1110 through 155.1150 also issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735.
Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 40, 150, 151, and 153.
(a) * * *
(3) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 162.050 by the date set forth in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section, unless the equipment is installed on a ship constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or impracticable to meet those current standards.
(i) A ship entering international service for the first time since 2004, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section by the date of its initial survey prior to receiving its International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate.
(ii) Any ship, other than a ship described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section by the date of the ship's first drydock after October 13, 2009.
(a) * * *
(2) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 162.050 by the date set forth in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section, unless the equipment is installed on a ship constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or impracticable to meet those current standards.
(i) A ship entering international service for the first time since 2004, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section by the date of its initial survey prior to receiving its International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate.
(ii) Any ship, other than a ship described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section by the date of the ship's first drydock after October 13, 2009.
(a) * * *
(4) For equipment installed after 2004 to be approved under paragraph (a) of this section, it must meet current standards in 46 CFR part 162, subpart 162.050 by the date set forth in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, unless the equipment is installed on a ship constructed before 2005 and it would be unreasonable or impracticable to meet those current standards.
(i) A ship entering international service for the first time since 2004, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the date of its initial survey prior to receiving its International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) certificate.
(ii) Any ship, other than a ship described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, must comply with the requirements of paragraph (4) of this section by the date of the ship's first drydock after October 13, 2009.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are issuing final regulations for the delivery and format of reports of use of sound recordings for the statutory licenses set forth in sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act.
Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or e-mail at
On October 6, 2006, the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) issued interim regulations published in the
The Judges' December 30, 2008, NPRM set forth proposed revisions to the regulations governing the format and delivery requirements for reports of use of sound recordings that provided for three potential categories of change. First, the Judges proposed eliminating obsolete provisions of the interim regulations. Second, the Judges proposed placing definitions that were duplicated in various sections of the interim regulations into a new single definition section applicable throughout Part 370 unless otherwise defined in a specific section. Third, the Judges proposed expanded reporting to implement year-round census reporting. In connection with this expanded census reporting, the Judges proposed eliminating the aggregate tuning hours (“ATH”) approach previously available for nonsubscription services and requiring that such services now report actual total performances (“ATP”). However, the Judges proposed allowing pre-existing satellite digital audio radio services, new subscription services and business establishment services to achieve census reporting by continuing their use of the ATH option if technological impediments existed which thwarted the measurement of actual listenership. 73 FR 79727. In addition to these specific proposals, the Judges also solicited comments on technological developments which might warrant additional revisions to rules governing the method of reporting specific data elements and/or the delivery mechanism employed for reporting.
In response to the NPRM, the Judges received 43 comments from various categories of interested parties: (1) Representatives of copyright owners and performers, including SoundExchange, the Collective charged with collecting and distributing royalties; (2) copyright users and/or their representatives, including the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”), College Broadcasters Inc. (“CBI”), Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (“IBS”), various radio broadcasters affiliated with educational institutions, a noncommercial religious broadcaster, and an operator of radio and Internet stations featuring Christian programming; an Internet service that simulcasts the over-the-air and Internet-only broadcasts of primarily noncommercial terrestrial radio stations; and (3) several software providers of recordkeeping solutions to radio stations and Webcasters.
Most of the comments received from interested parties centered on the proposed move to full census ATP reporting. Comments focused on the technological reporting capabilities of small entities or less intensive users (particularly, users associated with educational institutions), as well as on various assertions about the costs and benefits of moving to full census ATP reporting for such users. Consequently, the Judges' April 8, 2009, NOI sought to obtain additional, more concrete information concerning the likely costs and benefits stemming from the adoption of the proposed census reporting provision as well as information on any alternatives to the proposal that might accomplish the same goals as the proposal in a less burdensome way, particularly with respect to small entities. 74 FR 15901.
In response to the NOI, the Judges received 14 comments and 6 reply comments from the following categories of interested parties: (1) Representatives of copyright owners and performers, including SoundExchange; (2) copyright users and/or their representatives and allied interested parties, including the NAB, CBI, IBS, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters (“NFCB”), various radio broadcasters affiliated with educational institutions, the American Council on Education (“ACE”); and (3) a software provider of recordkeeping solutions to radio stations and Webcasters.
Obsolete provisions proposed for deletion by the Judges in their December 30th NPRM raised no concerns for commenting parties. Similarly, the deletion of duplicative definitions for nine common terms that appeared in various sections of the interim regulation and their replacement by a single definition for each of the nine terms in a new General Definitions section at the head of the proposed regulation
Current requirements for the data to be included in reports of use and the frequency of reporting still largely reflect interim regulations adopted on March 11, 2004 (69 FR 11515) by the Copyright Office during an earlier phase of the recordkeeping rulemaking process that predated the transfer of rulemaking
A number of the most intensive users of the 114 and 112 licenses are already reporting on a census basis according to SoundExchange.
Both commercial and noncommercial broadcasters that are low-intensity users who typically simulcast over the Web appear to share a common technological characteristic-anachronistic systems or procedures that are not designed for easily reporting data on sound recordings simultaneously played as a Webcast.
While the absence of automated playlists represents one particular approach followed by some broadcasters for a variety of reasons-sometimes creative, sometimes pedagogical, and sometimes financially driven (
Some parallel exists in a commercial setting where small broadcasters with limited resources may engage small numbers of listeners through simulcasts on the Web of their over-the-air programming, but may not find such listenership sufficiently rewarding to make an immediate investment in adapting their old technology to permit easier recordkeeping. Here again, from the user's standpoint, there may be a reasonable relationship between the very low intensity use of Webcasting and the amount of resources the broadcasting entity is willing to invest in the effort. However, in the commercial case, broadcasters who do not adapt in the long run will fail as commercial entities to achieve the critical mass necessary to justify their presence on the Web. Therefore, they ultimately have a strong financial incentive to become more than very low intensity users, adapt their technology, ultimately achieve the same capabilities as their competitors on the Web and, in the process, attain comparable capabilities for full census reporting. Indeed, this process has been
By contrast, many low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters do not have similarly pressing financial incentives or, indeed, may only be secondarily motivated by financial considerations as noted above. Therefore, for low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters, the transition from old technological equipment and approaches may well proceed at a slower pace until such time as the activity in question generates more support in terms of its relative position in the overall mission of the affiliated institution. This is not to say that a permanent exception to the census reporting rule for low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters is in order. Clearly, the failure to report the full actual number of performances of a sound recording is at odds with the purpose of the recordkeeping requirement to the extent that, as a result, many sound recordings are under-compensated or not compensated at all from the section 114 and 112 royalties. Yet, at the same time, the low-intensity noncommercial broadcaster, by definition, does not enjoy the same pecuniary benefit from the use of the sound recordings at issue in this proceeding as does the low-intensity commercial broadcaster. Aggregate payments owed by low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters are dwarfed by payments by other users. Therefore, the tension between the relative cost of potential undercompensation to copyright owners and the relative cost of replacing outmoded systems employed by the low-intensity noncommercial broadcaster appears best resolved by allowing low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters to continue to report estimated usage on a quarterly basis in the same manner as under previous requirements until such time as either a reasonably priced technological solution is developed to facilitate census reporting under their current operational configurations and practices
Despite recognizing that there may be situations in which some low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters are not in a position to provide census reporting, SoundExchange nonetheless urges the adoption of census reporting as the default rule in this proceeding. The Judges decline to do so for this narrow class of users. While the rate of progress toward achieving census reporting capabilities among low-intensity noncommercial broadcasters is frustratingly slow, it would be unreasonable to adopt a regulation that may well reduce the ability of such users to submit reports beyond even their current level of effort. Such an action may also raise the transactions costs for both users and the Collective. Neither of these two results would inure to the benefit of copyright owners.
Most educationally affiliated noncommercial broadcasters and/or their representatives initially urged the Judges to allow them to continue to report two weeks out of every quarter and to continue to use ATH as a reporting alternative to ATP.
We do not agree that an additional data proxy fee in lieu of
The expanded scope of census reporting adopted in the final regulation also gave rise to two ancillary changes. One is a minor, noncontroversial change to harmonize references to the frequency of report delivery with the reporting period. That is, in those instances where monthly reports of use are required, the corresponding reporting period is defined as one month; and, in those cases where quarterly reports of use are maintained as the requirement, the corresponding reporting period is defined as one quarter. Second, a change to the previously existing rate category codes was required in the new § 370.4(d)(2)(ii) adopted today so as to prevent inconsistencies with different categories used during prior reporting periods. SoundExchange proposed the use of a new list of category codes with the addition of language indicating that the Collective “may from time to time publish an updated list of categories then applicable under the Webcaster Settlement Act or regulations, and Services shall identify the most specific category then applicable to them.”
In addition to the specific recordkeeping regulatory changes proposed by the Judges in the December 2008 NPRM, the Judges solicited comments on any technological developments that pointed to the need for further adjustment of the rules either in terms of the method of reporting specific data elements or with respect to the delivery mechanism employed for reporting. For example, the Judges specifically inquired as to what further improvements to the reporting regulations could be made in light of recent technological developments since the promulgation of the interim regulation, the new availability of reporting software or the advent of substantially reduced costs for certain delivery mechanism alternatives.
While approximately 18 proposals for additional regulatory changes beyond those proposed in the December 30, 2008 NPRM were submitted by SoundExchange, users and other interested parties, a number of the additional proposals went beyond the scope of the Judges' specific inquiry. That is, such proposals did not reflect technological developments which might warrant additional revisions to rules governing the method of reporting specific data elements and/or the delivery mechanism being employed for reporting. For example, SoundExchange proposed the addition of late fees for incomplete or tardy reports of use; or, as another example, Frederick Wilhelms III proposed the addition of various detail to the Collective's annual report requirements.
Other proposals, such as SoundExchange's request for the delineation of a separate certification form provided by SoundExchange to accompany the report of use (
A proposal that syndicated programming that is simulcast by broadcasters should be exempted from recordkeeping requirements (
Similarly, SoundExchange's proposal to authorize the Collective to distribute royalties based on a reasonable proxy when sufficient reports of use have not been filed within one year after receiving payment has been insufficiently developed in this proceeding.
Still other proposals, such as the proposal that the Collective be required to provide confirmation of the receipt of reports of use within a time certain (
In short, some of the proposals included in comments received by the Judges in this proceeding may merit further examination in a future rulemaking. However, they are not ripe for either adoption or rejection at the present time.
As a result, only a small number of proposals put forward in the parties' comments have been adopted in the final regulations. Some of these proposals relate to clarifying the final regulations as a result of changes made to the frequency reporting rule and are described herein above in connection with that rule. Of the remaining three party proposals adopted by the Judges, one adopted proposal reflects recent technological developments, another adopted proposal reflects a physical change of address for the Collective, and the remaining adopted proposal corrects an inconsistency in the delineation of the use of report dates in the NPRM. No controversy was raised by any of the commenting parties concerning these three proposals.
The change in the final regulation adopted from comments received by the Judges that is directly related to technological developments is the elimination of the delivery of reports of use by means of floppy diskette.
The remaining two changes adopted by the Judges from comments submitted by the parties are: (1) a correction in the e-mail address for the Collective to
Copyright, Sound recordings.
17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4), 114(f)(4)(A).
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a) A
(b) A
(c) A
(d) A
(e) A
(f) A
(g) A
(h) A
(i) A
(a)
(b)
(1) The full legal name of the Service that is either commencing digital transmissions of sound recordings or
(2) The full address, including a specific number and street name or rural route, of the place of business of the Service. A post office box or similar designation will not be sufficient except where it is the only address that can be used in that geographic location.
(3) The telephone number and facsimile number of the Service.
(4) Information on how to gain access to the online Web site or homepage of the Service, or where information may be posted under this section concerning the use of sound recordings under statutory license.
(5) Identification of each license under which the Service intends to operate, including identification of each of the following categories under which the Service will be making digital transmissions of sound recordings: Preexisting subscription service, preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, nonsubscription transmission service, new subscription service or business establishment service.
(6) The date or expected date of the initial digital transmission of a sound recording to be made under the section 114 statutory license and/or the date or the expected date of the initial use of the section 112(e) license for the purpose of making ephemeral phonorecords of the sound recordings.
(7) Identification of any amendments required by paragraph (e) of this section.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Information relating to identity, location and status as a sound recording copyright owner; and
(2) A “click-wrap” agreement not to use information in the Report of Use for purposes other than royalty collection, royalty distribution, and determining compliance with statutory license requirements, without the express consent of the preexisting subscription service providing the Report of Use.
(d)
(1) The name of the preexisting subscription service or entity;
(2) The channel;
(3) The sound recording title;
(4) The featured recording artist, group, or orchestra;
(5) The retail album title (or, in the case of compilation albums created for commercial purposes, the name of the retail album identified by the preexisting subscription service for purchase of the sound recording);
(6) The marketing label of the commercially available album or other product on which the sound recording is found;
(7) The catalog number;
(8) The International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) embedded in the sound recording, where available and feasible;
(9) Where available, the copyright owner information provided in the copyright notice on the retail album or other product (
(10) The date of transmission; and
(11) The time of transmission.
(e)
(f)
(1) ASCII delimited format, using pipe characters as delimiter, with no headers or footers;
(2) Carats should surround strings;
(3) No carats should surround dates and numbers;
(4) Dates should be indicated by: YYYY/MM/DD;
(5) Times should be based on a 24-hour clock: HH:MM:SS;
(6) A carriage return should be at the end of each line; and
(7) All data for one record should be on a single line.
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(2) An
(3) A
(4) A
(i) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (
(ii) A performance of a sound recording for which the service has previously obtained a license from the Copyright Owner of such sound recording; and
(iii) An incidental performance that both:
(A) Makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public events; and
(B) Other than ambient music that is background at a public event, does not contain an entire sound recording and does not feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as in the case of a sound recording used as a theme song).
(5)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) The name of the nonsubscription transmission service, preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, new subscription service or business establishment service making the transmissions, including the name of
(ii) The category transmission code for the category of transmission operated by the nonsubscription transmission service, preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, new subscription service or business establishment service:
(A) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions other than broadcast simulcasts and transmissions of non-music programming;
(B) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions of broadcast simulcast programming not reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming;
(C) For eligible nonsubscription transmissions of non-music programming reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming;
(D) [Reserved].
(E) [Reserved].
(F) [Reserved].
(G) [Reserved].
(H) For transmissions other than broadcast simulcasts and transmissions of non-music programming made by an eligible new subscription service;
(I) For transmissions of broadcast simulcast programming not reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming made by an eligible new subscription service;
(J) For transmissions of non-music programming reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming made by an eligible new subscription service; and
(K) For eligible transmissions by a business establishment service making ephemeral recordings;
(iii) The featured artist;
(iv) The sound recording title;
(v) The International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) or, alternatively to the ISRC, the:
(A) Album title; and
(B) Marketing label;
(vi) For a nonsubscription transmission service except those qualifying as minimum fee broadcasters: The actual total performances of the sound recording during the reporting period.
(vii) For a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, a new subscription service, a business establishment service or a nonsubscription service qualifying as a minimum fee broadcaster: The actual total performances of the sound recording during the reporting period or, alternatively, the
(A) Aggregate Tuning Hours;
(B) Channel or program name; and
(C) Play frequency.
(3)
(i) For each calendar month of the year by all services other than a nonsubscription service qualifying as a minimum fee broadcaster; or
(ii) For a two-week period (two periods of 7 consecutive days) for each calendar quarter of the year by a nonsubscription service qualifying as a minimum fee broadcaster and the two-week period need not consist of consecutive weeks, but both weeks must be completely within the calendar quarter.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(i) A service delivering a report of use via FTP must obtain a username, password and delivery instructions from SoundExchange. SoundExchange shall maintain on a publicly available portion of its Web site instructions for applying for a username, password and delivery instructions. SoundExchange shall have 15 days from date of request to respond with a username, password and delivery instructions.
(ii) A service delivering a report of use via e-mail shall append the report as an attachment to the e-mail. The main body of the e-mail shall identify:
(A) The full name and address of the service;
(B) The contact person's name, telephone number and e-mail address;
(C) The start and end date of the reporting period;
(D) The number of rows in the data file. If the report of use is a file using headers, counting of the rows should begin with row 15. If the report of use is a file without headers, counting of the rows should begin with row 1; and
(E) The name of the file attached.
(iii) A service delivering a report of use via CD-ROM must compress the reporting data to fit onto a single CD-ROM per reporting period. Each CD-ROM shall be submitted with a cover letter identifying:
(A) The full name and address of the service;
(B) The contact person's name, telephone number and e-mail address;
(C) The start and end date of the reporting period;
(D) The number of rows in the data file. If the report of use is a file using headers, counting of the rows should begin with row 15. If the report of use is a file without headers, counting of the rows should begin with row 1; and
(E) The name of the file attached.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(ii) A report of use must be compressed in one of the following zipped formats:
(A) .zip—generated using utilities such as WinZip and/or UNIX zip command;
(B) .Z—generated using UNIX compress command; or
(C) .gz—generated using UNIX gzip command.
(iii) Zipped files shall be named in the same fashion as described in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, except that such zipped files shall use the applicable file extension compression name described in this paragraph (e)(6).
(7)
(A) Name of service;
(B) Name of contact person;
(C) Street address of the service;
(D) City, state and zip code of the service;
(E) Telephone number of the contact person;
(F) E-mail address of the contact person;
(G) Start of the reporting period (YYYYMMDD);
(H) End of the reporting period (YYYYMMDD);
(I) Report generation date (YYYYMMDD);
(J) Number of rows in data file, beginning with 15th row;
(K) Text indicator character;
(L) Field delimiter character;
(M) Blank line; and
(N) Report headers (Featured Artist, Sound Recording Title, etc.).
(ii) Each of the rows described in paragraphs (e)(7)(i)(A) through (F) of this section must not exceed 255 alphanumeric characters. Each of the rows described in paragraphs (e)(7)(i)(G) through (I) of this section should not exceed eight alphanumeric characters.
(iii) Data text fields, as required by paragraph (d) of this section, begin on row 15 of a report of use with headers. A carriage return must be at the end of each row thereafter. Abbreviations within data fields are not permitted.
(iv) The text indicator character must be unique and must never be found in the report's data content.
(v) The field delimiter character must be unique and must never be found in the report's data content. Delimiters must be used even when certain elements are not being reported; in such case, the service must denote the blank data field with a delimiter in the order in which it would have appeared.
(8)
(i) ASCII delimited format, using pipe (|) characters as delimiters, with no headers or footers;
(ii) Carats (^) should surround strings;
(iii) No carats (^) should surround dates and numbers;
(iv) A carriage return must be at the end of each line;
(v) All data for one record must be on a single line; and
(vi) Abbreviations within data fields are not permitted.
(a)
(b)
(1) The Collective name, address, telephone number and facsimile number;
(2) A statement that the Collective has been designated for collection and distribution of performance royalties under statutory license for digital transmission of sound recordings; and
(3) Information on how to gain access to the online Web site or home page of the Collective, where information may be posted under this part concerning the use of sound recordings under statutory license. The address of the Licensing Division is: Library of Congress, Copyright Office, Licensing Division, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20557-6400.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cold
This rule is effective on December 14, 2009 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 12, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0620, by one of the following methods:
1.
2. E-mail:
3.
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On April 17, 2008, EPA determined that the submittal for SDAPCD Rules 67.6, 67.6.1, and 67.6.2 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
SDAPCD Rule 67.6 was approved into the SIP on December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64132). It was locally rescinded by SDAPCD on May 23, 2008 and replaced by Rules 67.6.1 and 67.6.2. There are no previous versions of Rules 67.6.1 and 67.6.2. The SDAPCD adopted these rules on May 23, 2007, and CARB submitted them to us on March 7, 2008.
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. The revised rules limit VOC emissions from cold solvent cleaning and vapor degreasing operations. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.
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 (see sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SDAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 67.6.1 and 67.6.2 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. “Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents” EPA 453/R06-001, September 2006.
4. “Determination of Reasonable Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations,” CARB, July 18, 1991.
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2009. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
52.220 Identification of plan.
(c) * * *
(354) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 67.6.1, “Cold Solvent Cleaning and Stripping Operations,” adopted May 23, 2007.
(2) Rule 67.6.2, “Vapor Degreasing Operations,” adopted May 23, 2007.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage cask regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM 100 dry storage cask system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Number 1014. Amendment No. 7 would modify the CoC to add the HI-STORM 100U system to the HI-STORM 100 cask system. The HI-STORM 100U system allows for the underground storage of dry spent nuclear fuel (SNF) by utilizing an underground vertical ventilated module (VVM) that can accept certain multipurpose canisters (MPCs) previously certified for storage of SNF in the Holtec aboveground HI-STORM system. In addition, the amendment would reinstate the decay heat limits for damaged fuel and fuel debris in Appendix B, Technical Specification (TS) 2.4, for the aboveground system that had been inadvertently deleted from Amendment Nos. 5 and 6; incorporate separate TS Appendices A and B for the aboveground system (Apps. A and B) and for the HI-STORM 100U system (Apps. A-100U and B-100U); revise Appendix B, TS 3.4.5, to be consistent with the required system thermal boundary conditions, as submitted in the applicant's safety analysis report for a fire accident condition, and with Holtec's original (i.e., initial certificate application or Amendment 0) submittal and the NRC's original safety evaluation report; and revise and add certain definitions in Appendix A, TS 1.1, to include the VVM. The amendment will also incorporate minor editorial corrections in the TS for the aboveground system.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before November 12, 2009.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0349 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this proposed rule using the following methods:
Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843, e-mail
For additional supplementary information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 7 to CoC No. 1014 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM 100 design. Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
1. The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
a. The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
b. The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
c. The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
2. The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
3. The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TS.
For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1014 is revised to read as follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the power control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps and jettison pumps, and the center tank scavenge pump, as applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupt (GFI) feature. The proposed AD also would require revising the maintenance program to incorporate Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-23 (for Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes), and Nos. 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 (for Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes). This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 27, 2009.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
As part of SFAR 88 analysis, Boeing determined that the power control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps and jettison pumps and the center tank scavenge pump should be replaced with new relays having a ground fault interrupt (GFI) feature. The relays are located in the P414, P415, and P52 panels. The GFI feature is intended to protect the fuel pumps from damage caused from electrical arcing by removing electrical power from the pump if a ground fault is detected. Electrical arcing, if not prevented, could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps and jettison pumps, and the center tank scavenge pump, as applicable, with new relays having a GFI feature. The replacement also includes reworking certain wiring and doing an operational test of the fuel boost pumps and new relays.
We have also reviewed the following documents, which include a repetitive inspection (test) to verify continued functionality of the GFI relays:
• For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes: Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document D621U400-9, Section 9, Revision April 2008. Subsection D of Revision April 2008 of the MPD includes new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29. (These AWLs were first introduced in Revision October 2007 of the MPD document.) Incorporating these AWLs are an optional action in AD 2008-10-06, Amendment 39-15512 (73 FR 25990, May 8, 2008).
• For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes: Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” of Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008. Subsection D of Revision March 2008 of the AWLs includes new airworthiness limitation AWL 28-AWL-23. (This AWL was first introduced in Revision September 2007 of the AWLs/CMRs document.) Incorporating this AWL is an optional action in AD 2008-10-07, Amendment 39-15513 (73 FR 25977, May 8, 2008).
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 258 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) We must receive comments by November 27, 2009.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009.
This AD requires a revision to a certain operator maintenance document to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these limitations, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
(e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the power control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps and jettison pumps, and the center tank scavenge pump, as applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupt feature, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2261, dated February 19, 2009.
(h) Concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating the applicable information in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. The inspection interval for AWLs 28-AWL-23, 28-AWL-28, and 28-AWL-29 starts on the date the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD is done.
(1) For Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes: Incorporate new airworthiness limitations 28-AWL-28 and 28-AWL-29 of Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Document D621U400-9, Section 9, Revision April 2008. (These AWLs were first introduced in Revision October 2007 of the MPD document.)
(2) For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes: Incorporate new airworthiness limitation 28-AWL-23 of Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” of Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008. (This AWL was first introduced in Revision September 2007 of the AWLs/CMRs document.)
(i) After accomplishing the action required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used, unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) 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.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to amend certain of its regulations in connection with electronic filing of financial reports and other notices (“Proposal”). The Proposal would broaden the language in the Commission's regulations applicable to electronic filings of financial reports to clarify that, to the extent a futures commission merchant (“FCM”) submits a Form 1-FR to the Commission electronically, it may do so using any user authentication procedures established or approved by the Commission. The Proposal also would permit registrants to electronically submit filings in addition to financial reports, including an election to use a non-calendar fiscal year, requests for extensions of time to file uncertified financial reports and “early warning” notices required under Commission regulations. In connection with the filing of financial reports, the Commission also is proposing to specify, consistent with other requirements and existing practice, that a statement of income and loss is included as a required part of the non-certified 1-FR filings for FCMs and introducing brokers (“IBs”). The Commission also is proposing to require more immediate, but less prescriptive, documentation regarding a firm's capital condition when a firm falls below its required minimum adjusted net capital. Finally, the Commission is proposing several other minor amendments to correct certain outdated references and to make other clarifications to existing regulations.
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2009.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AB87, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.cftc.gov, including any personal information provided.
Thelma Diaz, Associate Director, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone number: 202-418-5137; facsimile number: 202-418-5547; and electronic mail:
Section 4f(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the “Act”) authorizes the Commission to impose by regulation minimum financial and related reporting requirements on futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers (“IBs”).
The Commission amended Regulation 1.10 in 1997 to provide for the first time the regulatory means for FCMs and IBs to file financial reports electronically with the Commission.
FCMs that file their non-certified financial reports electronically with the Commission currently do so through WinJammer,
The WinJammer
Commission Regulation 1.10(c) generally sets forth the provisions governing where and how the financial reports required to be filed by FCMs and IBs under Regulation 1.10 must be filed. Regulation 1.10(c)(1) indicates with whom reports should be filed. Regulation 1.10(c)(2) addresses the method, rather than the location of filing and provides that certain non-certified financial reports may be submitted to the Commission via electronic transmission using a Commission-assigned personal identification number. Electronic submission of certified financial reports is addressed in Regulation 1.10(b)(2)(iii). This section provides that FCMs must file certified financial reports in paper form and IBs must file such reports electronically in accordance with electronic filing procedures established by NFA.
For clarification and ease of reading, the Proposal would move Regulation 1.10(b)(2)(iii) into a new subparagraph of Regulation 1.10(c)(2). Regulation 1.10(c)(2) would be amended as discussed below and divided into 2 new subparagraphs: Subparagraph (c)(2)(i) would address electronic filing by FCMs with the Commission and subparagraph (c)(2)(ii) would address electronic filings with NFA by IBs and by applicants for registration as IBs and FCMs.
Regulation 1.10(c)(2) currently provides that non-certified financial reports may be submitted to the Commission “in electronic form using a Commission assigned Personal Identification Number, and otherwise in accordance with instructions issued by the Commission * * *.” As discussed above, the anticipated changes to the user authentication process for WinJammer
Regulation 1.10(d)(4)(iii) provides that with respect to the electronic submission of a Form 1-FR, the transmission must be accompanied by the PIN or other user authentication assigned to the authorized signer under procedures established or approved by the Commission, and the use of such PIN or other user authentication will substitute for the manual signature of the authorized signer for the purposes of making the oath or affirmation required to accompany the filing of Form 1-FR. In light of the amendments to Regulation 1.10 discussed above related to user authentication procedures, the Proposal would delete from Regulation 1.10(d)(4)(iii) references to the use of a PIN.
Commission Regulation 1.12 requires FCMs, IBs and applicants for registration thereof to provide notice of a variety of predefined events as or before they occur.
Commission Regulation 1.10(d) sets forth the content requirements for financial reports filed with the Commission: Regulation 1.10(d)(2) applies to certified financial reports and Regulation 1.10(d)(1) applies to non-certified financial reports.
Certified financial reports are required to include, among other things, “statements of income (loss)” pursuant to Regulation 1.10(d)(2)(ii). This requirement is not currently included as part of Regulation 1.10(d)(1) in connection with the filing of non-certified financial reports. In practice, however, FCMs and IBs typically include such statements with all financial report filings made with the Commission, whether or not such reports are required to be certified. FCMs that are also registered with the SEC as broker-dealers and that carry or clear customer accounts already are required to file with their designated examining authority an income statement as part of their monthly FOCUS filing.
The income statement is an integral part of the financial report that the Commission believes should be available for review along with other relevant financial data filed on an interim basis. Additionally, requiring the filing of such statements should not add any additional burden to registrants. In fact, as mentioned, substantially all FCMs and IBs already include such statements as part of their non-certified financial reports filed with the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 1.10(d)(1)(ii) to require “statements of income (loss)” to be included as part of FCM and IB non-certified financial report filings. By requiring that firms file an income statement with their non-certified financial reports as well as with their annual certified report, the amended rule would ensure that Commission staff receive more current information and have the ability to review this information relating to a firm's financial health more than once a year. This amendment would not affect the ability of a broker-dealer to file with the Commission in accordance with Regulation 1.10(h) the FOCUS report under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, including the income statement currently provided in that report.
The Commission is proposing to amend Regulations 1.12(a)(2) and (a)(3) to require more immediate, but less prescriptive, reporting to the Commission when a registrant or applicant falls below its minimum net capital requirement. Regulation 1.12(a) requires a registrant or applicant for registration as an FCM or IB that knows or should have known that its adjusted net capital is less than the minimum required by the Commission or by its designated self-regulatory organization (“DSRO”) to provide notice of such event immediately by telephone and confirm such telephonic notice in writing by facsimile. Regulation 1.12(a)(2) further requires that, within 24 hours thereafter, the registrant (or applicant) must file certain financial records with the Commission. Specifically, an FCM (or applicant) is required to file: (1) A statement of financial condition; (2) a statement of the computation of its minimum capital requirements; (3) the statements of segregation requirements and funds in segregation for customers trading on U.S. commodity exchanges and for customers' dealer options accounts; and (4) the statement of secured amounts
When a firm falls below its minimum adjusted net capital requirement, the Commission's interest is to understand fully the circumstances that gave rise to the reduction in capital and to ensure that there are no imminent concerns regarding the firm's ability to meet its obligations to the market or customers, or to otherwise continue normal business operations. The statements required by the current regulation help provide a picture of a firm's financial position as of the time such statements are prepared. The regulations, however, currently allow up to 24 hours from the receipt of original notice of a net capital deficiency for such documentation to be provided. In practice, firms that notify the Commission of a fall below minimum net capital under Regulation 1.12(a) often simultaneously provide written information to the Commission sufficient to evidence the firm's then-current capital condition. Such information has not always taken the specific form prescribed in the regulation, however. Upon receipt of information from a registrant, Commission staff members have requested further information as determined appropriate and necessary in the circumstances. Firms generally have been prompt in providing such data.
The Commission has found that receiving more immediate information regarding a firm's capital condition better satisfies the Commission's interests and typically is of greater benefit than obtaining documentation in the specific form currently prescribed at the expense of a time delay. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 1.12(a) consistent with this practice. Under the Proposal, a firm must continue to provide immediate telephonic notice, confirmed in writing, in the event that its adjusted net capital falls below its required minimum. Paragraph 1.12(a)(2) would be amended to require that together with such initial telephonic notice and written confirmation, a firm must provide “documentation in such form as necessary to adequately reflect the firm's capital condition as of any date such person's adjusted net capital is less than the minimum required.”
As a corollary to the amendment to Regulation 1.12(a)(2), the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 1.12(i)(1). This section addresses the process for filing notices under Regulation 1.12 and currently requires, among other things, that the documentation required under Regulations 1.12(a)(2) and (a)(3) be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 1.10(d), which specifies the required content of financial reports. This requirement is no longer necessary as the specific financial statements currently referenced in Regulation 1.12(i)(1) would no longer be required under the Proposal. Accordingly, the Proposal would delete this requirement. Documentation required to be provided under amended Regulation 1.12(a)(2) would be submitted either by facsimile or electronically pursuant to amended Regulation 1.12(i)(3).
The Commission is proposing several minor amendments to Regulations 1.10 and 1.12 to correct certain outdated references and to otherwise clarify existing regulations. Regulation 1.10(c)(1) states generally that reports filed by IBs pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) (
Similarly, Regulation 1.12(i)(1) currently indicates that an applicant for registration as an FCM must file any notices required under Regulation 1.12 with, among others, the regional office of the Commission that has jurisdiction over the state in which the applicant's principal place of business is located and with the Commission's principal office in Washington, DC. The proposed, amended language in Regulation 1.12(i)(1) would make clear that an applicant for registration as an FCM would file such notices only with NFA and that such notices need not be filed with the Commission. The amended regulation would also make clear that any notice or report filed with the National Futures Association will be deemed to be filed with, and to be the official record of, the Commission.
The Commission also is proposing the following minor wording changes to Regulation 1.10(c)(1) for the purposes of consistency with other provisions of the regulations and/or general clarification as follows: (1) The reference to “[a] report filed by an [IB] pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii)” would be amended to clarify that “a report” in this context is meant to refer to Form 1-
Regulation 1.10(b)(2)(i) provides generally that an IB must file a Form 1-FR-IB semiannually as of the middle and close of each fiscal year “unless the [IB] elects * * * to file a Form 1-FR-IB semiannually as of the middle and close of each calendar year.” Regulation 1.10(b)(2)(ii) generally states further that an IB must file a certified 1-FR-IB as of the close of its fiscal year “(even if it files semiannual reports on a calendar year basis).” Prior to 1993, Commission regulations required IBs to file Form 1-FR on a quarterly rather than a semiannual basis, unless the IB's SRO permitted semiannual filing. The regulations also allowed IBs to elect to file reports on a calendar year basis rather than on a fiscal year basis.
Regulation 1.10(b)(3) provides generally that an FCM or IB can satisfy the 1-FR filing requirements applicable to them set forth in Regulations 1.10(b)(1) and (2), respectively, if the FCM or IB is a member of a DSRO and satisfies the minimum financial standards and reporting requirements established by rules of the DSRO which have been approved “after the effective date of these regulations by the Commission * * *.” The language “after the effective date of these regulations” is no longer relevant and, accordingly, the Commission is proposing to delete the language.
Finally, for purposes of clarification and consistency with the Commission's regulations the Commission is proposing to amend language within regulation 1.10(h) that references “NFA” by spelling out “National Futures Association.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601
With respect to IBs, the Commission stated that it is appropriate to evaluate within the context of a particular rule proposal whether some or all IBs should be considered to be small entities and, if so, to analyze the economic impact on such entities at that time.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
(Regulations and Forms Pertaining to the Financial Integrity of the Marketplace, OMB Control Number 3038-0024). Although the amendments if promulgated in final form would alter the method of collection of some of the information required in the above referenced collection, would provide a simpler approach of documenting compliance with certain regulatory obligations, and would add a requirement to include an additional statement as part of non-certified financial report filings, the estimated burden associated with this collection is not expected to increase or decrease as a result. The Commission is proposing to add a requirement for certain registrants to include statements of income and loss as part of their monthly non-certified financial report filings with the Commission. Substantially all registrants that file financial reports with the Commission already are filing this data in practice, however. Additionally, to the extent a firm did not already file this report with the Commission monthly, it would, nonetheless, need to have this information computed and available in order to file other currently required reports. Filing the information with the Commission would require nothing more than inputting a few extra data items into a form already required to be filed. Accordingly, the burden associated with such a filing already is included in the estimated burden for this collection. With respect to proposed
The Commission considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in—
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
Minimizing 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.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection should contact the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer of the Commodity Futures Commission. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 90 days after publication of this document in the
Section 15(a) of the Act, as amended by Section 119 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, Section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action.
Section 15(a) further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. The Commission, in its discretion, can choose to give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular regulation is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission has considered the costs and benefits of this proposed regulation in light of the specific provisions of Section 15(a) of the Act, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to propose the amendments discussed above. The Commission invites public comment on its application of the cost-benefit provision. Commenters also are invited to submit any data that they may have quantifying the costs and benefits of the proposal with their comment letters.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, Sections 4f, 4g and 8a(5) thereof, 7 U.S.C. 6f, 6g and 12a(5), the Commission hereby proposes to amend 17 CFR part 1 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23 and 24, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
2. Section 1.10 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii)(A), (b)(3), (c)(1) and (c)(2), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(4)(iii), and (h) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and (h) of this section, and except for an introducing broker operating pursuant to a guarantee agreement which is not also a securities broker or dealer, each person registered as an introducing broker must file a Form 1-FR-IB semiannually as of the middle and the close of each fiscal year. Each Form 1-FR-IB must be filed no later than 17 business days after the date for which the report is made.
(ii)(A) In addition to the financial reports required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, each person registered as an introducing broker must file a Form 1-FR-IB as of the close of its fiscal year which must be certified by an independent public accountant in accordance with § 1.16 no later than 90 days after the close of each introducing broker's fiscal year: Provided, however, that a registrant which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a securities broker or dealer must file this report not later than the time permitted for filing an annual audit report under § 240.17a-5(d)(5) of this title.
(3) The provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section may be met by any person registered as a futures commission merchant or as an introducing broker who is a member of a designated self-regulatory organization and conforms to minimum financial standards and related reporting requirements set by such designated self-regulatory organization in its bylaws, rules, regulations, or resolutions and approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 4f(b) of the Act and § 1.52:
(c)
(2)(i) Except as provided in the last sentence of this subparagraph, all filings or other notices prepared by a futures commission merchant pursuant to this section may be submitted to the Commission in electronic form using a form of user authentication assigned in accordance with procedures established by or approved by the Commission, and otherwise in accordance with instructions issued by or approved by the Commission, if the futures commission merchant or a designated self-regulatory organization has provided the Commission with the means necessary to read and to process the information contained in such report. A Form 1-FR required to be certified by an independent public accountant in accordance with § 1.16 which is filed by a futures commission merchant must be filed in paper form and may not be filed electronically.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, all filings or other notices or applications prepared by an introducing broker or applicant for registration as an introducing broker or futures commission merchant pursuant to this section must be filed electronically in accordance with electronic filing procedures established by the National Futures Association. In the case of a Form 1-FR-IB that is required to be certified by an independent public accountant in accordance with § 1.16, a paper copy of any such filing with the original manually signed certification must be maintained by the introducing broker or applicant for registration as an introducing broker in accordance with § 1.31.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Statements of income (loss) and a statement of changes in ownership equity for the period between the date of the most recent statement of financial condition filed with the Commission and the date for which the report is made;
(4) * * *
(iii) In the case of a Form 1-FR filed via electronic transmission in accordance with procedures established by or approved by the Commission, such transmission must be accompanied by the user authentication assigned to the authorized signer under such procedures, and the use of such user authentication will constitute and become a substitute for the manual signature of the authorized signer for the purpose of making the oath or affirmation referred to in this paragraph.
(h)
3. Section 1.12 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (i)(1);
b. Removing paragraph (a)(3); and
c. Adding paragraph (i)(3).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Provide together with such notice documentation in such form as necessary to adequately reflect the applicant's or registrant's capital condition as of any date such person's adjusted net capital is less than the minimum required. The applicant or registrant must provide similar documentation for other days as the Commission may request.
(i)(1) Every notice and written report required to be given or filed by this section (except for notices required by paragraph (f) of this section) by a futures commission merchant or a self-regulatory organization must be filed with the regional office of the Commission with jurisdiction over the state in which the registrant's principal place of business is located, with the principal office of the Commission in Washington, DC, with the designated self-regulatory organization, if any, and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if such registrant is a securities broker or dealer. Every notice and written report required to be given or filed by this section by an applicant for registration as a futures commission merchant must be filed with the National Futures Association (on behalf of the Commission), with the designated self-regulatory organization, if any, and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if such applicant is a securities broker or dealer. Any notice or report filed with the National Futures Association pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed for all purposes to be filed with, and to be the official record of, the Commission.
(3) Every notice or report required to be provided in writing to the Commission under this section may, in lieu of facsimile, be filed via electronic transmission using a form of user authentication assigned in accordance with procedures established by or approved by the Commission, and otherwise in accordance with instructions issued by or approved by the Commission. Any such electronic submission must clearly indicate the registrant or applicant on whose behalf such filing is made and the use of such user authentication in submitting such filing will constitute and become a substitute for the manual signature of the authorized signer.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cold solvent cleaning and vapor degreasing operations. We are proposing to approve two local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 12, 2009.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0620, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126,
This proposal addresses the following local rules: SDAPCD Rule 67.6.1 and SDAPCD Rule 67.6.2. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.
The Cascade Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Clear Prong Project. The entire project area is located in watersheds that drain into Clear Creek, which in turn drains into the North Fork of the Payette River downstream of Cascade Reservoir. The 11,056 acre project area is located 10 miles east of Cascade, Idaho, and about 120 miles
The Proposed Action would implement silvicultural activities, including thinning of sub-merchantable trees, prescribed fire, and aspen enhancement on 2,204 acres. An estimated 8.4 MMbf would be removed using tractor/off-road jammer, skyline, and helicopter yarding systems. The Proposed Action would employ a variety of silvicultural prescriptions including commercial thin, commercial thin with prescribed fire, sanitation/improvement, sanitation/improvement with prescribed fire, individual tree selection, thinning of sub-merchantable trees, prescribed fire to abate natural fuels, and aspen enhancement activities.
The Proposed Action would restore an estimated 0.8 miles of the #409 road through maintenance activities to reduce sedimentation. Specifically, gravel would be applied to the surface of the #409 road from near the #409/#409D intersection to Clear Creek Summit. In addition, 12 under-sized culverts along the #409 road would be replaced with culverts sufficient in size to accommodate a 100-year flow event, and designed to allow fish passage where habitat exists upstream. Roughly 1.1 miles of temporary road would be constructed to facilitate harvest activities.
An estimated 4.4 miles of existing road (#405B, #405B2, #405C, #405D, and #417HX1) not needed for the long term management of the area would be decommissioned to reduce future maintenance needs and to reduce sedimentation. Decommissioned sections of these five roads would be removed from the transportation system.
Comments concerning the proposed project and analysis are encouraged and should be postmarked or received within 30 days following publication of this announcement in the
Comments should be addressed to the Cascade Ranger District, ATTN: Keith Dimmett, P.O. Box 696, Cascade, ID 83611 or sent electronically to
Further information can be obtained from Keith Dimmett at the address mentioned above or by calling 208-382 7400.
An estimated 2,194 acres of the Peace Rock Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and an additional 252 acres of the Stony Meadows IRA lie within the Clear Prong Project Area. With the exception of a small portion of the prescribed fire, none of the activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur within either IRA.
The entire project area drains into Clear Creek which appears on the State of Idaho's 303(d) and 305(b) Integrated Report. The North Fork Payette River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was completed in July 2005 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August 2005. That document states that the beneficial uses of “Upper Clear Creek” (i.e. that portion that occurs within the project area) do not appear impacted, but may be threatened by increasing sediment levels.
The entire project area lies within Management Area 17 (North Fork Payette River), discussed on pages 111-290 through 111-301 in the Forest Plan.
The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to NutriGrown, LLC of Baltimore, Maryland, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/504,401, “Fertilizer Formulation for Reduction of Nutrient and Pesticide Leaching”, filed on August 14, 2006.
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2009.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as NutriGrown, LLC of Baltimore, Maryland, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council will meet in Washington, DC, October 28-29, 2009. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in urban and community forestry, work on Council administrative items and hear public input related to urban and community forestry.
The meeting will be held on October 28-29, 2009, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or until Council business is completed.
The meeting will be held at the Franklin Court Building, Washington, DC, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 5500 W, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-273-4695. Written comments concerning this meeting should be addressed to Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-1054 to facilitate entry into the building.
Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, 201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151, phone 202-205-1054.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public. Those interested in attending should contact Nancy Stremple to be placed on the list at the lobby security desk. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members; however, persons who wish to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff (201 14th St., SW., Yates Building (1 Central) MS-1151, Washington, DC 20250-1151, e-mail:
Public comments will be compiled and provided to the Secretary of Agriculture along with the Council's recommendations.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency within the USDA Rural Development mission area, solicits applications of two individual grants: one single grant from the passenger transportation funds appropriated for the Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) program and another grant for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes' (FRNAT) from funds appropriated for the RBEG program. USDA Rural Development will administer these awards under the RBEG program and7 U.S.C. 1932(c)(2) for fiscal year (FY) 2010. Historically, Congress has appropriated funding for these specific programs. This Notice is being issued prior to passage of aFY 2010 Appropriations Act, which may or may not provide an appropriation for these programs, to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, submit applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within the 2010 fiscal year. A subsequent notice identifying the amount received in the appropriations will be published, if any. Each grant is to be competitively awarded to a qualified nationalnon-profit organization. One grant is for the provision of technical assistance to rural transportation projects. The other grant is for the provision of technical assistance to rural transportation projects operated by FRNAT's only.
Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk.
The deadline for receipt of preapplications in the USDA Rural Development State Office is December 14, 2009. Applications received at a USDA Rural Development State Office after that date will not be considered for FY 2010 funding.
Entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the appropriate Rural Development State Office to receive copies of the application package. A list of the USDA Rural Development State Offices addresses and telephone numbers are as follows:
The Rural Development State Office identified in this notice.
The RBEG program is authorized by section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. The program is administered on behalf of RBS at the State level by the USDA Rural Development State Offices. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include on-site technical assistance to local and regional governments, public transit agencies, and related non-profit and for-profit organizations in rural areas; the development of training materials; and the provision of necessary training assistance to local officials and agencies in rural areas.
Awards under the RBEG passenger transportation program will be made ona competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 1942,subpart G, and in accordance with section 310B(c)(2) of the CONACT. Information required to be in the application package includes Forms SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information;” Scope of Work Narrative; Income Statement; Balance Sheet or Audit for previous 3 years;AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” Restrictions on Lobbying; RD 400-1, “Equal
Applicants must be qualified national non-profit organizations with experience in providing technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation service or facilities. To be considered “national” RBS requires a qualified organization to provide evidence that it operates rural transportation assistance programming in multiple States. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Under this notice, grants will be made to qualified, private, non-profit organizations for the provision of technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities.
The definitions are published at 7 CFR 1942.304.
To be considered eligible, an entity must be a private non-profit corporation serving rural areas. Grants will be competitively awarded to one or more qualified national organizations.
Matching funds are not required.
Applications will only be accepted from qualified national organizations to provide technical assistance for rural transportation.
Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements.
For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the USDA Rural Development State Office identified in this Notice to obtain copies of the application package.
Applicants are encouraged to submit applications through the Grants.gov web site at:
• When you enter the Grants.gov web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site as well as the hours of operation. USDA Rural Development strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• You may submit all documents electronically through the Web site, including all information typically included on the application and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• After electronically submitting an application through the Web site, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.
• USDA Rural Development may request that the applicant provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• If applicants experience technical difficulties on the closing date and are unable to meet the deadline, you may submit a paper copy of your application to your respective Rural Development State Office. Paper applications submitted to a Rural Development State Office must meet the closing date and local time deadline.
All applicants, whether filing applications through
Please note that applicants can locate the downloadable application package for this program by the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number or FedGrants Funding Opportunity Number, which can be found at
An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a USDA Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the CONACT. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 1942.305(b)(3), must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, will be provided by any interested applicant making a request to a USDA Rural Development State Office listed in this notice.
All projects to receive technical assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the USDA Rural Development State Office. Multiple project applications must identify each individual project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual project.
For multiple-project applications, the average of the individual project scores will be the score for that application.
The National Office will score applications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and will select a grantee subject to the grantee's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions.
Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from the USDA Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail. Grantees must further comply with applicable provisions of 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, 3019, and 3052.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development State Office identified in this Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0022.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.”
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Given the rapid demographic changes experienced in recent years and the strong expectation that such changes will continue and accelerate, the once-a-decade data collection approach to a census is no longer acceptable as a source for the housing and socio-economic data collected on the census long-form. To meet the needs and expectations of the country, the Census Bureau developed the ACS. This survey collects detailed socioeconomic data every month and provides tabulations of these data on a yearly basis. The ACS allows the Census Bureau to provide more timely and relevant housing and socio-economic data while also reducing operational risks in the census by eliminating the long-form historically given to one in every six addresses.
Full implementation of the ACS includes an annual sample of approximately three million residential addresses a year in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and another 36,000 addresses in Puerto Rico. A sample this large allows for annual production and release of single-year estimates for areas with a population of 65,000 or more. Lower levels of geography require aggregates of three and five years' worth of data in order to produce estimates of comparable reliability to the census long-form. However, an ongoing data collection effort with an annual sample of this magnitude requires that the ACS continue research, testing and evaluations aimed at improving ACS questionnaires content and related data collection materials. In addition, the ACS Methods Panel during the 2010-2012 period may include testing methods for increasing survey and operational efficiencies; alternative methods or procedures may be developed and evaluated that could potentially reduce the overall survey cost, lessen respondent burden, and improve response rates. At this time, specific plans are in place to propose three methods panel tests: A content reinterview study, the 2010 ACS Content Test, and an Internet Mode Test. Since the ACS Methods Panel is designed to address emerging issues, we may conduct additional testing as needed. Testing would focus on methods for reducing data collection costs or testing new questions that have an urgent need to be included on the ACS.
During Census 2000, a content reinterview study (CRS) was conducted in conjunction with the long form, which the ACS now replaces. The decennial CRS was an evaluation of the quality of the data collected in the census, focusing on response bias and simple response variance (reliability). The Census Bureau proposes to design and implement a CRS to look at the current ACS production questions on an ongoing basis. This will allow for the identification of problems with reliability. Results from the CRS will provide data users with concrete data quality measures (such as reliability or bias measures) for each ACS item.
The ACS CRS will allow the Census Bureau to continuously monitor the data quality of the ACS and identify questions that are currently unreliable or that may become unreliable due to changes in the survey climate (
Second, in response to Federal agencies' requests for new and revised ACS questions, the Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2010 ACS Content Test. Changes to the current ACS content and the addition of new content were identified through the Interagency Committee for the ACS and through recent legislative action. The primary objective of the 2010 ACS Content Test is to test whether changes to question wording, response categories, and redefinition of underlying constructs improve the quality of data collected. The Census Bureau proposes to evaluate changes to the questions, or for new questions, to compare the performance of question versions to each other as well as to other well-known sources of such information. The proposed topics for content testing are new questions to
A third test, the ACS Internet ModeTest, is planned to determine the best methods for informing sample households about an ACS Internet response option and encouraging them to respond. By offering an Internet response option in the ACS, the Census Bureau is taking further steps to comply with the e-gov initiative and potentially reduce collection costs. The objectives of the Internet ModeTest include: potential improvement in self-response rates; potential cost savings if we can change the distribution of responses by mode (
Two additional tests are currently planned. The specific details of these tests are not known at this time but would include an additional content test for new questions that have an urgent need to be included on the ACS as well as an additional test of new methods to address an emergent need.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail (
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer via the Internet at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, via the Internet at
U.S. Census Bureau.
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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to M. Adele Hilton, U.S. Census Bureau, 5H028B, Washington, DC 20233, 301-763-7943 (or via the Internet at
The Census Bureau presently operates a generic clearance covering activities involving respondent burden associated with updating our Master Address File (MAF) and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) system. The MAF is the Census Bureau's address database and the TIGER is the geographic database. We now propose to extend the generic clearance to cover update activities we will undertake during the next three fiscal years.
Under the terms of the generic clearance, we plan to submit a request for OMB approval that will describe, in general terms, all planned activities for the entire period. We will provide information to OMB at least two weeks before the planned start of each activity giving more exact details, examples of forms, and final estimates of respondent burden. We also will file a year-end summary with OMB after the close of each fiscal year giving results of each activity conducted. The generic clearance enables OMB to review our overall strategy for MAF and TIGER updating in advance, instead of reviewing each activity in isolation shortly before the planned start.
The Census Bureau used the MAF for mailing and delivering questionnaires to households during the Census 2000 and will do so for the Census 2010. The MAF is also used as a sampling frame for our demographic current surveys. In the past, the Census Bureau built a new address list for each decennial census. The MAF built for Census 2000 and 2010 is designed to be kept up-to-date, thereby eliminating the need to develop a completely new address list for future censuses and surveys. The Census Bureau plans to use the MAF for post-Census 2010 evaluations and as a sampling frame for the American Community Survey and our other demographic current surveys. The TIGER is a geographic system that maps the entire country in Census Blocks with applicable address ranges or living quarter location information. Linking MAF and TIGER allows us to assign each address to the appropriate Census Block, produce maps as needed and publish results at the appropriate level of geographic detail. The following are descriptions of activities we plan to conduct under the clearance for the next three fiscal years. The Census Bureau has conducted these activities (or similar ones) previously and the respondent burden remains relatively unchanged from one time to another.
The Demographic Area Address Listing (DAAL) program encompasses the geographic area updates for the Community Address Updating System (CAUS), the area and group quarters frame listings for many ongoing demographic surveys (the Current Population Survey, the Consumer Expenditures Survey, etc.), and any other operations which choose to use the Automated Listing and Mapping System (ALMI) for evaluations, assessments, or to collect updates for the MAF and TIGER. The CAUS program was designed to address quality concerns relating to areas with high concentrations of noncity-style addresses, and to provide a rural counterpart to the update of city-style addresses the MAF will receive from the U.S. Postal Services's Delivery Sequence File. The ongoing demographic surveys, as part of the 2000 Sample Redesign Program, use the MAF as one of several sources of addresses from which they select their samples. In fiscal year 2010, the DAAL program will also be used to assess a job aid used in the 2010 Address Canvassing operation to identify units in small multi-unit structures. The DAAL program is a cooperative effort among many divisions at the Census Bureau; it includes automated listing software, systems, and procedures that will allow us to conduct listing operations in a dependent manner based on information contained in the MAF.
The DAAL operations will be conducted on an ongoing basis in potentially any county across the country. Field Representatives (FRs) will canvass selected Census 2000 tabulation blocks in an effort to improve the address list in areas where substantial address changes may have occurred that have not been added to the MAF through regular update operations, and/or in blocks in the area or group quarters frame sample for the demographic surveys. FRs will update existing address information and, when necessary, contact individuals to collect accurate location and mailing address information. In general, contact will occur only when the FR is adding a unit to the address list, and/or the individual's address is not posted or visible to the FR. There is no pre-determined or scripted list of questions asked as part of this listing operation. If an address is not posted or visible to the FR, the FR will ask about the address of the structure, the mailing address, and, in some instances, the year the structure was built. If the occupants of these households are not at home, the FR may attempt to contact a neighbor to determine the best time to find the occupants at home and/or to obtain the correct address information.
DAAL is an ongoing operation. Listing assignments are distributed quarterly with the work conducted throughout the time period. We expect that DAAL listing operation will be conducted throughout the entire time period of the extension.
The list above is not exhaustive of all activities, which may be performed under this generic clearance. We will follow the approved procedure when submitting any additional activities not specifically listed here.
The primary method of data collection for most operations/evaluations will be personal interview by Census Listers, Verifiers, Enumerators or Field Representatives using the operation/evaluation's listing form or questionnaire. In some cases, the interview could be by telephone callback if no one was home during the initial visit.
1,294 GQs
2,138 GQs
1,781 GQs
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.
International Trade Administration.
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 December 14, 2009.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 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 Susan Crawford, phone 202-482-2050,
Certified Trade Missions are international trade events that have been accepted into the U.S. Department of Commerce's (DOC) trade promotion events program. Certified Trade Missions can be planned, organized and led by both Federal and non-Federal government export promotion agencies such as industry trade associations, State and local government agencies, Congressional representatives, chambers of commerce, regional groups and other export-oriented groups.
The Certified Trade Mission Program Application form is the vehicle by which individual mission organizers apply, and if accepted agree, to participate in the DOC's trade promotion events program, recruit U.S. companies, identify the products or services they intend to sell or promote, and report on results. The collection of information is required for DOC to properly assess the credentials of the missions and applicants.
The Certified Trade Mission Program Application is e-mailed by request to U.S. export-oriented organizations seeking DOC certification of their trade mission. Applicant firms complete the form and return it via e-mail to DOC.
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.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On July 27, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of a
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the final results of a new shipper review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the 90-day period for completion of the final results of a new shipper review to 150 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
As a result of issues raised in this new shipper review, specifically the issue of collapsing Kangtai into a single entity with its affiliated supplier, certain surrogate values, and surrogate financial ratios, the Department determines that this new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated and it cannot complete this new shipper review within the current time limit. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by 60 days until December 17, 2009, in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
October 13, 2009.
Jennifer Moats or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5047 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
On June 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 180 days. Completion of the final results of this review within the 120-day period is not practicable because the Department needs additional time to analyze and address complicated by-product and surrogate value issues for the final results. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of the administrative review by 30 days in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the final results will be due Thursday, November 5, 2009, which is 150 days from publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 5, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. In that notice, we preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to treat the Rubicon Group inclusive of Phatthana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (PFF) and Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Sea Wealth) as the successor-in-interest to the Rubicon Group as it operated during the period of investigation (POI) of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Further, we preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to revoke PFF and Sea Wealth from the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Thailand, effective as of January 16, 2009.
Henry Almond; AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0049.
On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the
Subsequent to the issuance of this order, the Thai Government challenged before the World Trade Organization (WTO) the Department's practice of not offsetting dumped sales with non-dumped sales in the LTFV investigation of shrimp from Thailand. In February 2008, the WTO dispute settlement panel found that the Department acted inconsistently with its international obligations when it performed average-to-average comparisons without providing offsets for comparisons where the export price was greater than normal value in the LTFV investigation.
In November 2008, the Department initiated a section 129 proceeding to implement the findings of the WTO panel, and in January 2009 it issued a final determination in that proceeding which resulted in the revocation of the order related to shrimp produced and exported by two entities—Thai I-Mei and the Rubicon Group.
On February 5, 2009, the Rubicon Group requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review under 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(iii) to consider also revoking PFF and Sea Wealth from the
On March 24, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review to consider the Rubicon Group's request.
On August 5, 2009, the Department published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review, where we preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to treat the Rubicon Group inclusive of PFF and Sea Wealth as the successor-in-interest to the Rubicon Group as it operated during LTFV investigation. Further, we preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to revoke PFF and Sea Wealth from the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Thailand.
The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the
The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
For the reasons stated in the preliminary results, the Department continues to find that the Rubicon Group in its current form, including PFF and Sea Wealth, is the successor-in-interest to the Rubicon Group as it existed during the POI of the LTFV investigation. Therefore, consistent with our preliminary results, we have revoked PFF and Sea Wealth from the
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation for all shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp produced and exported by PFF or Sea Wealth, either singly or in combination with any other Rubicon Group member. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties (release all bonds and refund all cash deposits) entries of frozen warmwater shrimp produced and exported by these entities, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 16, 2009.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 138, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the footwear and apparel warehousing and distribution facility of Abercrombie Fitch (AF), located in New Albany, Ohio. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on September 25, 2009.
The AF facility (453 acres, 2,631,585 sq. ft., 3,407 employees) is located at 6201/6301 Fitch Path 7795 Smiths Mill Road, New Albany, Ohio. The facility is used for warehousing and distribution of foreign-origin apparel and footwear for the U.S. market and export. FTZ procedures would be utilized to support AF's U.S.-based distribution activity. Foreign products to be admitted to the proposed subzone for distribution would include men's, boys', women's and girls' footwear, coats, suits, blazers, blouses, trousers, breeches, shorts, shirts, skirts, tops, ski jackets, underwear, petticoats, pajamas, swimwear, scarves, hats, shawls, mufflers, gloves and mittens. Certain textile fabrics (wool, cotton, silk; woven and knit) would also be distributed from the proposed subzone. Additional products that would be admitted to the proposed subzone for distribution are: articles of plastic; various vanity, attachĕ brief and suitcases; handtools; machinery; jewelry; leather goods; paintings, lamps; and, spotlights. The applicant is not seeking manufacturing or processing authority with this request.
FTZ procedures could exempt AF from customs duty payments on foreign products that are exported (about 2% of shipments). On its domestic sales, the company would be able to defer duty payments until the foreign merchandise is shipped from the facility and entered for consumption. FTZ designation would further allow AF to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry procedures. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facility's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Claudia Hausler of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 14, 2009. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 28, 2009.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Claudia Hausler at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Mississippi
The Max Home facilities (348 employees) consist of two sites on 35 acres:
The proposed scope of authority under FTZ procedures would only involve duty savings on foreign-origin, micro-denier suede fabrics (classified under HTSUS Headings 5407, 5512, 5515, 5516, 5903, 5906, 6001, 6005, 6006; duty rate range: 2.7-17.2%) finished with a caustic soda wash process, which the applicant indicates are not produced by U.S. mills. The application indicates that Max Home does not seek FTZ benefits on any of the other foreign fabrics used in production at the facilities (
FTZ procedures would exempt Max Home from customs duty payments on the foreign micro-denier suede fabric used in export production. On micro-denier suede fabric used in production for the U.S. market, Max Home could elect the finished upholstery cover (i.e., furniture part) duty rate (free) after the fabric has been cut, sewn, and formed into upholstery covers, at which time they are entered for consumption from the zone. Max Home would also have the option to elect the finished furniture duty rate (free) for the subject fabric when the finished furniture is entered for domestic consumption. The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facilities' international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002. The closing period for receipt of comments is December 14, 2009. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 28, 2009.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Foreign Trade Zone of Wisconsin, Ltd., grantee of FTZ 41, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the agricultural tractor and tractor components manufacturing facilities of CNH America, LLC (CNH), located in Racine, Wisconsin. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on October 6, 2009.
The CNH facilities (620 employees) consist of four sites in Racine, Wisconsin:
FTZ procedures could exempt CNH from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. CNH anticipates that some 30 percent of the plant's shipments will be exported. On its domestic sales, CNH would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the finished products—tractors, cabs, transmissions, axles, and valves (duty rate ranges from free to 4%)—for the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Diane Finver of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 14, 2009. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 28, 2009.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues related to 2010 Decennial Census Programs. Last-minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance notification of schedule changes.
November 5-6, 2009. On November 5, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:15 p.m. On November 6, 2009, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium and Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H182, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746, telephone 301-763-6590. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.
The 2010 Census Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and 20 member organizations—all appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee considers the goals of the decennial census, including the American Community Survey and related programs, and users' needs for information provided by the decennial census from the perspective of outside data users and other organizations having a substantial interest and expertise in the conduct and outcome of the decennial census. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section10(a)(b)).
The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must submit them in writing to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer named above at least three working days prior to the meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known—preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-3231 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) publishes these Categorical Exclusions (CEs) of actions that the agency has determined do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and thus, should be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. These CEs are intended to cover only the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).
This notice is implemented October 13, 2009.
This notice and the Administrative Record for the NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program categorical exclusions are available at:
Steve Kokkinakis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Program Planning Integration, SSMC3, Room 15723, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone: 301-713-1622 x189.
NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare environmental impact
On May 26, 2009, the Department of Commerce published a notice in the
Although some of the CE's outlined in the DOC-wide CE notice are applicable to BTOP, it was determined in consultation with CEQ that the existing NEPA requirements and the CEs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Services' (RUS) Telecommunication Program would serve as a better template for BTOP and the RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). Therefore, it was determined that similarities between the two programs suggested that an alignment of the requirements documents and applicable CEs would streamline the application process and reduce confusion for applicants and future BTOP decisions.
Accordingly, NTIA published a notice in the
The National Audubon Society (NAS) expressed concern that the proposed categorical exclusion for facilities would allow the construction of communication towers without appropriate environmental review, thus “unnecessarily sacrificing the safety of avian wildlife, their habitats, and the environment.” The NAS commented that “the proposed categorical exclusions for BTOP projects include exclusions for guyed towers and towers up to 400 feet in height with no findings regarding their individual or cumulative impacts.” The NAS commented that the administrative record does not support the CE for towers.
The list of BTOP CEs published on July 9, 2009 (74 FR 32876) did not include a specific CE for communication towers. The language that the NAS quotes in its comment is from the “Background” section of the document and was a general statement about the types of projects BTOP/BIP might fund. NTIA never intended the statement to be used to justify the use of a CE for these types of communication towers.
BTOP, however, does have an option for utilizing a CE for certain specific communications towers. The Department of Commerce published on July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33204) a final list of CEs available for use by all DOC Operating Units. That list included a CE for communication towers with specific limitations on tower height and guy wires: “A-4 Siting/construction/operation of microwave/radio communication towers less than 200 feet in height without guy wires on previously disturbed ground.” This CE did not receive a single public comment from the
The Kodiak Kenai Cable Company commented that NTIA should consider expanding Categorical Exclusion B.1, which covers “construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines, cables, and related facilities” to include submarine cables. The commenter noted that many underserved areas in Alaska are on remote islands where the only practical means of providing broadband access is with submarine cables. According to the commenter, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted an environmental assessment and issued a finding of no significant impact for a Nationwide Permit (NWP 12) involving “the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of utility lines and associated facilities in waters of the U.S.”, which are similar in nature to projects involving submarine cables.
At this time, NTIA does not have the necessary administrative record to add a CE for submarine cables, however, NTIA will consider the background information provided by the commenter regarding the COE NWP 12 in developing any future amendments to the BTOP CEs.
NTIA should consider a CE for Adirondack Park. Current siting procedures make it difficult to obtain broadband access and wireless communication services in rural areas of upstate New York, thus hindering the ability to communicate with residents and emergency management systems.
Categorical exclusions are intended to exempt certain activities, rather than specific locations, from further environmental review. Categorical exclusions apply to a range of activities that have been shown, individually or cumulatively, not to create significant environmental impacts on the human or natural environment. In addition, in order to qualify for a CE, a project must comply with all state and local laws and regulations. It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the project qualifies for a CE. Thus, if Adirondack Park has certain restrictions on siting of broadband or wireless services, then the applicant would need to address those concerns before the project would qualify for a CE and receive funding.
A.
A.1: The issuance of bulletins and information publications that do not concern environmental matters or substantial facility design, construction, or maintenance practices.
This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions and Environmental Assessments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Air Force.
A.2: Procurement activities related to the operation of BTOP. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, General Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
A.3: Personnel and Administrative Actions. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force.
A.4: Purchase of existing facilities or a portion thereof where use or operation will remain unchanged. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the General Services Administration.
A.5: Internal modifications or equipment additions (e.g., computer facilities, relocating interior walls) to structures or buildings. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
B.
B.1: Construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines, cables, and related facilities. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.2: Construction of microwave facilities involving no more than five acres (2 hectares) of physical disturbance at any single site. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions and Findings of No Significant Impact on Environmental Assessments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.3: Construction of cooperative or company headquarters, maintenance facilities, or other buildings involving no more than 10 acres (4 hectares) of physical disturbance or fenced property. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions and Findings of No Significant Impact on Environmental Assessments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the Economic Development Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
B.4: Changes to existing transmission lines that involve less than 20 percent pole replacement, or the complete rebuilding of existing distribution lines within the same right of way. Changes to existing transmission lines that require 20 percent or greater pole replacement will be considered the same as new construction. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.5: Changes or additions to existing substations, switching stations, telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers, or external changes to buildings or small structures requiring one acre (0.4 hectare) or more but no more than five acres (2 hectares) of new physically disturbed land or fenced property. This categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing categorical exclusion and administrative record. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Services. Based upon the extensive history of RUS application of these Categorical Exclusions and the lack of extraordinary circumstances associated with their application, this legacy Categorical Exclusion is determined to be applicable to BTOP projects.
B.6: Construction of substations, switching stations, or telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers requiring no more than five acres (2 hectares) of new physically disturbed land or fenced property. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.7: Changes or additions to microwave sites, substations, switching stations, telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers, buildings, or small structures requiring new physical disturbance or fencing of less than one acre (0.4 hectare).
This categorical exclusion is supported by a long-standing categorical exclusion and administrative record from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service. Based upon the extensive history of RUS application of these Categorical Exclusions and the lack of extraordinary circumstances associated with their application, these legacy Categorical Exclusions are determined to be applicable to BTOP projects and appropriate justification for this Categorical Exclusion.
B.8: Ordinary maintenance or replacement of equipment or small structures (e.g. line support structures, line transformers, microwave facilities, telecommunications remote switching and multiplexing sites). This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and
B.9: The construction of telecommunications facilities within the fenced area of an existing substation, switching station, or within the boundaries of an existing electric generating facility site. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.10: Testing or monitoring work (e.g., soil or rock core sampling, monitoring wells, air monitoring). This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.11: Studies and engineering undertaken to define proposed actions or alternatives sufficiently so that environmental effects can be assessed. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.12: Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or highway reconstruction requires the applicant to relocate the lines either within or adjacent to the new road or highway easement or right-of-way. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.13: Phase or voltage conversions, reconductoring or upgrading of existing electric distribution lines, or telecommunication facilities. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular, the review panel identified the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy.
B.14: Construction of standby diesel electric generators (one megawatt or less total capacity) and associated facilities, for the primary purpose of providing emergency power, at an existing applicant headquarters or district office, telecommunications switching or multiplexing site, or at an industrial, commercial or agricultural facility served by the applicant. This categorical exclusion is supported by long-standing categorical exclusion and administrative record from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Services. Based upon the extensive history of RUS application of these Categorical Exclusions and the lack of extraordinary circumstances associated with their application, this legacy Categorical Exclusion is determined to be applicable to BTOP projects.
This notice does not contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
These procedures supplement CEQ regulations and Department of Commerce NEPA procedures, and provides guidance to NTIA employees regarding procedural requirements for the application of NEPA provisions to BTOP decisions including grants and funding applicant actions. CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agency NEPA procedures are procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA. The requirements for establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3.
On September 14, 2009, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board published a notice seeking comments on proposed revisions to the format of annual reports that are submitted by grantees to the FTZ Board. The comment period on the revised proposal is being extended to November 16, 2009 to allow interested parties additional time in which to comment.
Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Submissions can be e-mailed to the address provided below.
Any questions about this proposal should be directed to Elizabeth Whiteman at
Thursday, October 15, 2009, 3:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the public.
Compliance Weekly and Monthly Status Reports—Commission Briefing.
The staff will brief the Commission on various compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Items 1-4, 9 a.m.-12 noon; Item 5, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Briefing/Meeting-Open to the Public.
1. Lab Accreditation Requirements for Lead.
2. Brass Lead Exclusions Petition.
3. Lead Determination Guidance.
4. Recreational Off Highway Vehicles (ROHVS) ANPR.
5. Toy Safety Certification Program, Toy Industry Association (TIA), Consumers Union (CU) and Consumer Federation of America (CFA).
(This meeting was requested by the participants. For the convenience of all of the Commissioners, the meetings are being consolidated into one public meeting.)
A live webcast of the Briefing can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed extension of collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received December 14, 2009.
You may submit comments, identified by document number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the TRICARE Management Activity, Performance Evaluation and Transition Management Branch, ATTN: [John J.M. Leininger], Aurora, CO 80011-9066 or call TRICARE Management Activity, Performance Evaluation and Transition Management Branch at (303) 676-3613.
This collection instrument is for use by beneficiaries under the TRICARE Program. TRICARE/CHAMPUS is a health benefits entitlement program for the dependents of active duty Uniformed Services members and deceased sponsors, retirees and their dependents, dependents of Department of Homeland Security (Coast Guard) sponsors, and certain North Atlantic Treaty Organizations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service eligible beneficiaries. DD Form 2642 is used solely by TRICARE/CHAMPUS beneficiaries to file for reimbursement of costs paid to providers and suppliers for authorized health care services or supplies.
Defense Contract Management Agency, DoD.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States Code as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 08) section 807, the DCMA Executive Director for Contracts, in coordination with the Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Office of Strategic Sourcing (DPAP/SS) will make available to the public the first inventory of activities performed pursuant to contracts for services. The inventory will be published to the DCMA Web site at the following location:
Inventory to be made publicly available within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Send written comments or suggestions concerning the inventory to William Javoroski, Contracts Directorate (AQP), Defense Contract Management
William Javoroski, (703) 428-0787 or e-mail at
NDAA 08, 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 DCMA inventory to Congress on September 29, 2009.
The DCMA Executive Director for Contracts submitted the DCMA Fiscal Year 2008 Services Contract Inventory to the Office of the DPAP/SS on August 28, 2009. Included with this inventory was a narrative that describes the methodology for data collection, the inventory data, and the plan for review of this inventory. The narrative and cover letters may be downloaded in electronic form (.pdf file) from the following location:
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States Code as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 08) section 807, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and the Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Office of Strategic Sourcing (DPAP/SS) will make available to the public the first inventory of activities performed pursuant to contracts for services. The inventory will be published to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Web site at the following location:
Inventory to be made publically available within 30 days after publication of this notice.
Send written comments and suggestions concerning this inventory to Pamela Bible, Procurement Analyst, MDA/DACP 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20307-7100.
Pamela Bible at (703) 882-6062 or e-mail
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, DoD.
Quarterly meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), this notice announces the November 5, 2009, quarterly meeting of the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University (USU) of the Health Sciences.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 5, 2009.
The meeting will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The meeting will be closed to the public from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay, 100 Heron Boulevard, Cambridge, Maryland 21613.
Janet S. Taylor, Designated Federal Official, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone 301-295-3066.
Contact Ms. Taylor for base access procedures.
The actions that will take place include the approval of minutes from the Board of Regents Meeting held August 11, 2009; approval of faculty appointments and promotions in both the School of Medicine and the Graduate School of Nursing; and the awarding of master's and doctoral degrees in graduate nursing and the biomedical sciences. The University President will also present a report. These actions are necessary for the University to pursue its mission, which is to provide outstanding health care practitioners and scientists to the uniformed services.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App 2, section 1), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces a closed meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group.
The meeting will be held October 29, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and October 30, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
The meeting will be held at the Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, NE 68113.
Mr. Bruce Sudduth, Designated Federal Officer, (402) 294-4102, 901 SAC Blvd, Suite 1F7, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6030.
For supplementary information, contact: Mr. Floyd March, Joint Staff, (703) 697-0610.
Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to include the Joint Staff, the U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Defense Field Activities, the U.S Court of Appeals and the Armed Forces and the following Defense Agencies: Defense Advance Research Projects Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Security Service, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Business Transformation Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
The Performance Review Board provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive and Senior Professional performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Secretary of Defense.
Effective October 26, 2009.
Deborah S. Munn, Assistant Director, Human Resources, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, (703) 699-1869.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Office of Defense PRB with specific PRB panel assignments being made from this group. Executives listed will serve a one-year renewable term, effective October 26, 2009.
Chairperson: Eric Coulter.
Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Defense Intelligence Agency is proposing to alter a system of records in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Freedom of Information Office, Defense Intelligence Agency (DAN-1A), 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.
The Defense Intelligence Agency system of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 1, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Passports and Visas (July 19, 2006, 71 FR 41004).
Delete entry and replace with “Name, address, phone number, Social Security Number (SSN), and forms and applications as required by the U.S. Department of State for obtaining passports, passports themselves, and Visa applications.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper files”.
Delete entry and replace with “By individual's last name.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are stored in office buildings protected by guards, controlled screenings, use of visitor registers, electronic access, and/or locks. Access to records is limited to individuals who are properly screened and cleared on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their duties. Passwords and User IDs are used to control access to the system data, and procedures are in place to deter and detect browsing and unauthorized access. Physical and electronic access are limited to persons responsible for servicing and authorized to use the system.”
Delete entry and replace with “Passports are returned to Department of State upon departure of the individual from DIA. Copies of forms and applications are destroyed by shredding or burning. Original forms are property of the U.S. Department of State.”
Delete entry and replace with “DIA's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DIA Instruction 5400.001 “Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy Program” or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Passports and Visas.
Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
All DIA personnel requiring passports and visas.
Name, address, phone number, Social Security Number (SSN), and forms and applications as required by the U.S. Department of State for obtaining passports, passports themselves, and Visa applications.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; DoD 1000.21-R, Passport Agent Services Regulation; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
Information is collected to obtain and for safekeeping of official passports until needed for travel and to obtain necessary visas from appropriate Embassies; to notify individuals to reapply when passports expire and to return passports to the Department of State upon departure of the individual from DIA.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the DIA's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Paper files.
By individual's last name.
Records are stored in office buildings protected by guards, controlled screenings, use of visitor registers, electronic access, and/or locks. Access to records is limited to individuals who are properly screened and cleared on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their duties. Passwords and User IDs are used to control access to the system data, and procedures are in place to deter and detect browsing and unauthorized access. Physical and electronic access are limited to persons responsible for servicing and authorized to use the system.
Passports are returned to Department of State upon departure of the individual from DIA. Copies of forms and applications are destroyed by shredding or burning. Original forms are property of the U.S. Department of State.
Operations Management Branch, ATTN: DAL-2B, Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).
DIA's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DIA Instruction 5400.001 “Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy Program” or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individual applicant; Department of State, Passport Office; and Embassies.
None.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice to delete a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense is proposing to delete the DUSDA 02 systems of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Personnel Administration Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227).
Based on a recent review of DUSDA 02, it was determined that this system of records is covered under the Government-wide SORNs, OPM Govt—1 (General Personnel Records) and OPM Govt—5. DUSDA 02 is duplicative and can therefore be deleted.
Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice to amend a system of records.
The Defense Intelligence Agency proposes to amend a system of records notice to its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Freedom of Information Office, Defense Intelligence Agency (DAN-1A), 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.
The Defense Intelligence Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Student Information Files (June 5, 2006, 71 FR 32322).
Delete and replace with “Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20340-0001.”
Delete and replace with “Current and former students of the National Defense Intelligence College.”
Categories of records in the system: Delete entry and replace with “Name, Date of Birth and Social Security Number (SSN), address, telephone number; information pertaining to personnel, past, present and projected assignments, educational background, academic/fitness reports, letters of course completion, rosters, grades and academic transcripts.”
Delete entry and replace with “DoD Instruction 3305.01, Section 2161 of Title 10, United States Code, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officer publication “Retention of Records—Guide for Retention and Disposal of Student Records, Middle States Commission on Higher Education Association “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and Standards of Accreditation, and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “This information is collected to provide data for managing the student population at the National Defense Intelligence College and for historical documentation.”
Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “By last name”.
Delete entry replace with “President, National Defense Intelligence College,
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individual should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).”
Delete entry and replace with “DIA's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DIA Instruction 5400.001.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual, military service component, educational institutions, previous employees and other Federal agencies.”
Student Information Files
Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Current and former students of the National Defense Intelligence College.
Name, Date of Birth and Social Security Number (SSN), address, telephone number; information pertaining to personnel, past, present and projected assignments, educational background, academic/fitness reports, letters of course completion, rosters, grades and academic transcripts.
DoD Instruction 3305.01, Section 2161 of Title 10, United States Code, American Association of Collegiate Registrar's and Admissions Officer publication “Retention of Records—Guide for Retention and Disposal of Student Records, Middle States Commission on Higher Education Association “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and Standards of Accreditation, and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
This information is collected to provide data for managing the student population at the National Defense Intelligence College and for historical documentation.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the DIA's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
By last name.
Records are maintained in a building protected by security guards and are stored in vaults, safes or locked cabinets and are accessible only to authorized personnel who are properly screened, cleared and trained in the protection of privacy information. Electronic records are maintained on a classified and password protected system.
Registration cards are held 2 years and then retired to the Washington National Records Center. They are destroyed when 25 years old.
President, National Defense Intelligence College,
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individuals should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act Office (DAN-1A/FOIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Individuals should provide their full name, current address, telephone number and Social Security Number (SSN).
DIA's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DIA Instruction 5400.001.
Individual, military service component, educational institutions, previous employees and other Federal agencies.
None.
Department of the Air Force.
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Alexium Ltd, a business entity of Cyprus, having a place of business at 2 Sophouli Street, Chanteclair House, 1096-Nicosia, Cyprus, Europe, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in: U.S. Patent Application No. 12/543,576 filed August 19, 2009, entitled
Jeffrey R. Moore, Attorney, Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, Building 11, Room E4, 2240 B Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109. Telephone: (937) 904-5088; Facsimile (937) 255-3733.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Army is proposing to alter a system of records in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905.
Mr. Leroy Jones, (703) 428-6185.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 1, 2009, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Army History Files (March 6, 2003, 68 FR 10706).
Delete entry and replace with “A0870-5 AAMH”
Delete entry and replace with “U.S. Army Center of Military History, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC 20310-0200.
Decentralized segments exist at historical offices at Headquarters, Department of the Army and field operating agencies, major commands, and the U.S. Army Military Historical Research Collection, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5021; U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20318-5058; U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Soldiers Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5021; National Museum of the United States Army, 6030 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6205. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”
Categories of individuals covered by the system: Delete entry and replace with “Military and civilian personnel associated with the Army; individuals who offer historically significant items or gifts of money to the Army Museum System; and individuals who respond to the Army's World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War Era, Cold War Era, and Post Cold War Era Service Survey Questionnaire.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals name, military status, biographical resumes and personal working files of U.S. Army personnel; personal papers donated by individuals for historical research; photographs of Army personages; requests for historical documents regarding U.S. Army activities and responses thereto; copy of donor's proffer of gift agreement and correspondence with donor regarding status and/or location of donation(s). Questionnaires and associated historical items received by the U.S. Army Military History Institute under its Veteran Survey Program. Associated historical items may include, but not limited to, audiotapes, books, camp/unit newspapers, diaries, documents, films, memoirs, and artifacts.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 16 U.S.C. 470, National Historic Preservation Act; and Army Regulation 870-5, Military History: Responsibilities, Policies and Procedures.”
Delete entry and replace with “To provide a record of donations and contributions of historical property to U.S. Army Museums and historical holdings; to enable Army museums and historical holdings to provide upon request by the donor or donor's heirs, information concerning the status/location of his/her donation; to enable the Army to establish title to the property. World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War Era, Cold War Era, and Post Cold War Era Survey Questionnaires will be used to document recollections and opinions of veterans for historical studies of the U.S. Army.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20318-5058.
Individual should provide full name and military status or other information verifiable from the record itself.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair Washington, DC 20318-5058.
Individual should provide full name and military status or other information verifiable from the record itself.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Army History Files.
U.S. Army Center of Military History, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC 20310-0200. Decentralized segments exist at historical offices at Headquarters, Department of the Army and field operating agencies, major commands, and the U.S. Army Military Historical Research Collection, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5021; U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20318-5058; U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Soldiers Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5021; National Museum of the United States Army, 6030 Goethals Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6205. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.
Military and civilian personnel associated with the Army; individuals who offer historically significant items or gifts of money to the Army Museum System; and individuals who respond to the Army's World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War Era, Cold War Era, and Post Cold War Era Service Survey Questionnaire.
Individual's name, military status, biographical resumes and personal working files of U.S. Army personnel; personal papers donated by individuals for historical research; photographs of Army personages; requests for historical documents regarding U.S. Army activities and responses thereto; copy of donor's proffer of gift agreement and correspondence with donor regarding status and/or location of donation(s). Questionnaires and associated historical items received by the U.S. Army Military History Institute under its Veteran Survey Program. Associated historical items may include, but not limited to, audiotapes, books, camp/unit newspapers, diaries, documents, films, memoirs, and artifacts.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 16 U.S.C. 470, National Historic Preservation Act; and Army Regulation 870-5, Military History: Responsibilities, Policies and Procedures.
To provide a record of donations and contributions of historical property to U.S. Army Museums and historical holdings; to enable Army museums and historical holdings to provide upon request by the donor or donor's heirs, information concerning the status/location of his/her donation; to enable the Army to establish title to the property. World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War Era, Cold War Era, and Post Cold War Era Survey Questionnaires will be used to document recollections and opinions of veterans for historical studies of the U.S. Army.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Information from this system may be disclosed to a municipal corporation, a soldier's monument association, a State museum, an incorporated museum or exhibition operated and maintained for educational purposes only, a post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the American Legion, or other Federal museums upon donation or transfer of the historical property to one of those organizations.
The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders, photographs, and on electronic media. Artifacts will be stored in a secure area.
By individual's name.
Records are maintained in secured areas accessible only to persons having need therefore in the performance of official duties.
Permanent. Some historical material and photographs are retired to the Washington National Records Center when no longer needed; other such material is transferred to the Military History Research Collection at Carlisle Barracks, PA for preservation. Inquiries about historical events or persons, and responses thereto, are destroyed when no longer needed.
Chief, U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20318-5058.
Director, U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, 22 Ashburn Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5008.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20318-5058.
Individual should provide full name and military status or other information verifiable from the record itself.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Army Center of Military History, 103 3rd Street, Fort McNair Washington, DC 20318-5058.
Individual should provide full name and military status or other information verifiable from the record itself.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual, his/her Army record, official Army documents, public records.
None.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to amend a system of records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to amend a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on November 12, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Head of Naval Operations (DNS-36), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.
Ms. Miriam Brown-Lam (202) 685-6545.
The Department of the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
NCIS Investigative Files System (April 10, 2008, 73 FR 19486).
Delete entry and replace with “Official investigative reports prepared by NCIS, DON, Department of Defense (DoD), or other Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign law enforcement or investigative bodies.
Biographic data, intelligence/counterintelligence debriefing reports, information concerning U.S. personnel who are missing, captured, or detained by a hostile entity. The information may be of criminal, counterintelligence, or general investigative interest.
Preliminary Investigation Reports (PIR) document receipt of information that at the initial stage indicates an incident occurred involving one or more criminal offenses, however it was subsequently determined that no criminal offense occurred or that the incident and offenses did not fall within NCIS' jurisdiction and or responsibility to investigate.
Case Control and Management documents which serve as the basis for recording, conducting, controlling, and guiding the investigative activity. Records identifying confidential sources and contacts with them. Index to persons reported by `Name Only'.
Delete entry and replace with “Maintained on paper records and electronic storage media.”
NCIS Investigative Files System.
Primary System: Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard, Building 111, 716 Sicard Street, SE., Washington, DC 20388-5380.
Consolidated Evidence Facilities maintain evidence inventory records. Current locations of NCIS decentralized segments may be obtained from the Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard, Building 111, 716 Sicard Street, SE., Washington, DC 20388-5380.
Persons in the following categories who require access to classified defense information and others who are of criminal, counterintelligence, security or general investigative interest to NCIS:
Active, reserve, and inactive members of the naval service; civilians, to include applicants for employment with NCIS; both citizen and alien employees located in both the U.S. and in overseas areas and including temporary, part-time, and advisory personnel employed by the Department of the Navy; industrial and contractor personnel; civilian personnel being considered for sensitive positions, boards, conferences, etc. Civilian personnel who worked or resided overseas,
Official investigative reports prepared by NCIS, DON, Department of Defense (DoD), or other Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign law enforcement or investigative bodies.
Biographic data, intelligence/counterintelligence debriefing reports, information concerning U.S. personnel who are missing, captured, or detained by a hostile entity. The information may be of criminal, counterintelligence, or general investigative interest.
Preliminary Investigation Reports (PIR) document receipt of information that at the initial stage indicates an incident occurred involving one or more criminal offenses, however it was subsequently determined that no criminal offense occurred or that the incident and offenses did not fall within NCIS' jurisdiction and or responsibility to investigate.
Case Control and Management documents which serve as the basis for recording, conducting, controlling, and guiding the investigative activity. Records identifying confidential sources and contacts with them. Index to persons reported by `Name Only'.
10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520 and 3504; 47 U.S.C. 605; DoD Directive 5210.48, Polygraph and Credibility Assessment Program; DoD Regulation 5240.1-R, Procedures Governing the Activities of DoD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons; DoD Directive 5505.9, Interception of Wire, Electronic, and Oral Communications for Law Enforcement; Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5430.107, Mission and Functions of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; Secretary of the Navy M-5510.30, Department of the Navy Personnel Security Program; Secretary of the Navy M-5510.36, Department of the Navy Information Security Program; OPNAVINST 5530.14, Navy Physical Security and Law Enforcement; MCO 558.2, Law Enforcement Manual; E.O. 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employees, in particular sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14; E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
The information in this system is (was) collected to meet the investigative, counterintelligence, and security responsibilities of the Department of the Navy. This includes personal, personnel security, internal security, criminal, and other law enforcement matters all of which are essential to the effective operation of the Department of the Navy.
The records in this system are used for the following purposes: Suitability for access or continued access to classified information; suitability for promotion, employment, or assignment; suitability for access to military installations or industrial firms engaged in government projects/contracts; suitability for awards or similar benefits; use in current law enforcement investigation or program of any type including applicants; use in judicial or adjudicative proceedings including litigation or in accordance with a court
Users of the records in this system include NCIS employees who require access for operational, administrative, or supervisory purposes; DoD criminal investigative and intelligence units; DoD components making suitability determinations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign) where the information is relevant to the recipient entity's law enforcement responsibilities.
(2) To a governmental entity lawfully engaged in collecting criminal law enforcement, criminal law enforcement intelligence, or national security intelligence information for law enforcement or intelligence purposes.
(3) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(4) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, or administrative or adjudicative body, when NCIS determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(5) To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or in informal discovery proceedings.
(6) To a former employee of NCIS for purposes of: responding to an official inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable NCIS regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where NCIS requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(7) To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
(8) To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
(9) To commercial insurance companies in those instances in which they have a legitimate interest in the results of the investigation, but only to that extent and provided an unwarranted invasion of privacy is not involved.
(10) To the White House for the purpose of personnel actions requiring approval of the President of the United States as provided for in DoD Instruction 1320.4.
(11) To any person or entity if deemed by NCIS to be necessary in order to elicit information or cooperation from the recipient for use by NCIS in the performance of an authorized law enforcement activity.
(12) To any individual, organization, or governmental entity in order to notify them of a serious terrorist threat for the purpose of guarding against or responding to such a threat. The DoD Blanket Routine Uses that appear at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of systems notices also apply to this system.
Maintained on paper records and electronic storage media.
NCIS closed case paper files are filed by numeric sequential number, alphabetic by company and topical title, and geographic location; microfilm files are filed by dossier number and location; and electronic/optically imaged files by case or control number, name, and Social Security Number (SSN).
In order to locate the file it is necessary to query the Defense Clearance Index of Investigations. Open case files may also be retrieved from NCIS automated systems by a case number assigned at the time the investigation was initiated.
Copies of the files in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Field Offices, Naval Criminal Investigative Service Resident Agencies, and Polygraph sites are retrieved by name.
Polygraph sites can also retrieve copies of the file by polygraph approval number. Wire, Electronic, and Oral Intercept Index records are retrieved by a combination of name, address, Social Security Number, telephone number/radio call sign, or case designation.
Buildings employ alarms, security guards, and/or rooms with security controlled areas accessible only to authorized persons. Classified and highly sensitive paper records are maintained in General Service Administrative approved security containers. Paper and microform records in NCIS records office are stored on open shelves and in filing cabinets in security controlled areas accessible only to authorized persons. Electronically, digital, and optically stored records are maintained in `fail-safe' system software with password protected access. Records are accessible only to authorized persons with a need-to-know who are properly screened, cleared and trained. Noncurrent hardcopy and master copy of microfilmed files are retired to the Washington National Records Center where retrieval is restricted to authorized NCIS personnel.
NCIS employees authorized to work offsite will safeguard government/agency records from unauthorized disclosure or damage by transporting only unclassified records in approved locked briefcases, satchels, or boxes. When not in use by the offsite employee, all records or case-related material is stored in a locked file cabinet or desk in the areas designated that is accessible only to authorized persons. Some documents will be prepared on government computers by NCIS employees at designated offsite locations. When offsite, computers may be connected securely to the Navy networks using approved virtual private network (VPN) software, and data and documents on government computers are protected using encryption. No data is authorized to be transferred to or stored on any employee's personal computer. Documents prepared at designated offsite locations and or temporarily held for the purposes of offsite work will not be printed at any unauthorized offsite location.
CI records are retained in the active file until the case is closed; then destroyed 25 years after the date of last action. Major CI investigations are retired to the NCIS records office upon case closure; then transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) when 25 years old.
Source records are retained in the active file until the operation is complete; then destroyed 75 years after the date of the last action.
Reciprocal CI investigative files regarding individuals or organizations under investigative jurisdiction of the requesting agency are disposed of as prescribed above for CI investigative records; except when the request is for CI personnel security matters; then the file is destroyed after one year.
CI defensive briefings are retained until case closure, retired to the NCIS records office; then destroyed after 15 years. Foreign national marriage and visa applicant investigations are retired to the NCIS records office upon case closure; then destroyed after one year except when the investigation surfaces significant derogatory material. These files are destroyed after five years.
Records pertaining to CI polygraph examinations conducted in support of CI activities are filed with the case file and disposed of in accordance with the guidance for the associated file. CI Security Polygraph Program (CSP) records are maintained in the active file until no longer needed; then disposed of after the final quality control review as follows: (1) CSP cases favorably resolved are destroyed after the final quality assurance review, except at NCIS Polygraph Units which retain the CSP investigative reports only; destroying it when no longer needed or after one year; (2) CSP cases other than favorably resolved are destroyed 25 years after completion of the final quality assurance review, except when an existing criminal investigation exists. In such cases the CSP Package is incorporated into the investigative file and disposed of in accordance with the disposition guidance for the dossier; and (3) audio tape recordings of routine CSP examinations with no significant responses are erased when no longer needed or after 90 days. Recordings referred for further investigation are incorporated into the investigative case file and disposed of in accordance with the disposition guidance for the dossier.
Completed NCIS investigative files on Personnel Security Investigations (PSIs) are destroyed after 15 years unless significant incidents or adverse information is developed, in which case they are destroyed after 25 years. PSI files on persons considered for affiliation with DoD will be destroyed within one year if the affiliation is not consummated.
Special Agent applicant records are retained for one year if the applicant declines offer of employment and five years if the applicant is rejected for employment. Non-DoD-affiliated applicant records are destroyed when no longer needed or after 90 days. Records for applicants who are accepted are retired to NCIS records office upon case closure; then destroyed 10 years after release, separation, transfer, retirement, or resignation.
Internal personnel inquiries records are retired to NCIS records office after case closure; then destroyed 25 years after the date of last action or 10 years after termination of employment, whichever is later.
Limited inquiries records are retired to NCIS records office at inquiry closure; then destroyed after 5 years.
Support applicant records are retired to NCIS records office at case closure; then destroyed after 15 years.
Criminal investigative files are destroyed after 25 years, except (1) controlled death investigations which are destroyed 75 years after date of case closure (2) files of cases determined to be of historical value are transferred to NARA 25 years after the date of the last action, except Grand Jury material which is destroyed at the time of transfer.
Incident Complaint Reports (ICR) received from Navy Shore Patrol and Marine Corps military police offices pertaining to categories of investigations/reports under the jurisdiction of NCIS are destroyed when 25 years old. Cases referred but determined not under NCIS jurisdiction are destroyed when no longer needed.
Criminal intelligence operations files are retired to NCIS records office upon closure; then destroyed 15 years after closure for Group 1 records and five years for Group 2.
Protective operations files involving protective details of distinguished persons are destroyed when five years old, except records where a threat or attempted threat materialized are destroyed when 25 years old.
Law enforcement source (also called “cooperating witness”) records are retired to NCIS records office after case closure and destroyed 15 years after the date of last action.
Information reports consisting of incidental information impacting on the security or discipline of commands or of interest to other law enforcement elements are destroyed when 25 years old.
Reciprocal investigative files regarding requests for investigative assistance from other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies are disposed of as prescribed for the criminal investigative reports and ICRs, as appropriate.
Polygraph examinations conducted for criminal investigations are quality assured and filed in the associated criminal investigation. Disposition is in accordance with the guidance for the investigative case file.
Wire, Electronic, Oral Interception Index computer entries are deleted upon destruction or transfer to NARA of the case file containing intercept information. Disposition of the case files is governed by the NARA approved retention period applied to the case dossier. Hardcopy records used to create the index are destroyed upon verification that the indexing information has been fully and accurately entered into the automated index.
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records that support Department of the Navy entries into the FBI's National Crime Information Center are destroyed after the related entry is deleted from the National Crime Information Center computer. Microfiche copies are destroyed when
(1) One fingerprint card set is forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the other set is destroyed when 75 years old.
(2) Fingerprint card indices and related correspondence are destroyed when all administrative needs have expired.
Counterintelligence records on persons not affiliated with DoD must be destroyed within 90 days or one year under criteria set forth in DoD Directive 5200.27, unless retention is required by law or specifically approved by the Secretary of the Navy.
Files retained in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Field Offices and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Resident Agencies and Polygraph sites are temporary and are destroyed after 90 days or one year, as appropriate.
Destruction of records will be by shredding, burning, or pulping for paper records; burning for microform records; and magnetic erasing for computerized records. Optical digital data and CD ROM records are destroyed as specified by NAVSO P-5239-26, “Remanence Security Guidebook” of September 1993.
Source records are retained in the active file until the operation is complete; then destroyed 75 years after the date of the last action.
Reciprocal CI/CT investigative files regarding individuals or organizations under investigative jurisdiction of the requesting agency are disposed of as prescribed above for CI/CT investigative records; except when the request is for CI/CT personnel security matters; then the file is destroyed after one year.
CI defensive briefings are retained until case closure, retired to the NCIS records office; then destroyed after 15 years. Foreign national marriage and visa applicant investigations are retired to the NCIS records office upon case closure; then destroyed after one year except when the investigation surfaces significant derogatory material. These files are destroyed after five years.
Records pertaining to CI polygraph examinations conducted in support of CI activities are filed with the case file and disposed of in accordance with the guidance for the associated file.
CI Security Polygraph Program (CSP) records are maintained in the active file until no longer needed; then disposed of after the final quality control review as follows: (1) CSP cases favorably resolved are destroyed after the final quality assurance review, except at NCIS Polygraph Units which retain the CSP investigative reports only; destroying it when no longer needed or after one year (2) CSP cases other than favorably resolved are destroyed 25 years after completion of the final quality assurance review, except when an existing criminal investigation exists.
In such cases the CSP Package is incorporated into the investigative file and disposed of in accordance with the disposition guidance for the dossier (3) audio tape recordings of routine CSP examinations with no significant responses are erased when no longer needed or after 90 days. Recordings referred for further investigation are incorporated into the investigative case file and disposed of in accordance with the disposition guidance for the dossier.
Special Agent applicant records are retained for one year if the applicant declines offer of employment and five years if the applicant is rejected for employment. Non-DoD-affiliated applicant records are destroyed when no longer needed or after 90 days. Records for applicants who are accepted are retired to NCIS records office upon case closure; then destroyed 10 years after release, separation, transfer, retirement, or resignation.
Internal personnel inquiries records are retired to NCIS records office after case closure; then destroyed 15 years after case closure.
Limited inquiries records are retired to NCIS records office at inquiry closure; then destroyed after 5 years.
Support applicant records are retired to NCIS records office at case closure; then destroyed after 15 years.
Law Enforcement Records: Criminal investigative files are destroyed after 25 years, except (1) controlled death and criminal sex investigations and investigations created on or after January 1, 1988 and where DoDI 5505.11 requires submission of offender criminal history data to the FBI are destroyed 50 years after date of case closure (2) files of cases determined to be of historical value are transferred to NARA 50 years after the date of the last action, except Grand Jury material which is destroyed at the time of transfer. Copies may be retained at NCIS Field Offices for one year after case closure unless extended retention is authorized.
Incident Reports (IR) received from Navy Law Enforcement and Marine Corps Military Police offices pertaining to categories of investigations/reports under the jurisdiction of NCIS and created prior to 1 January 1988 are destroyed when 25 years old. Cases created on or after 1 January 1988 are destroyed when 50 years old. Cases referred but determined not under NCIS jurisdiction are destroyed when no longer needed. Copies may be retained at the submitting office for two years after case closure unless extended retention is authorized. Criminal Initiative Operations files are retired to NCIS records office upon closure; then destroyed 15 years after closure for Group 1 records and five years for Group 2.
Protective Operations files involving protective details of distinguished persons are destroyed when five years old, except records where a threat or attempted threat materialized are destroyed when 25 years old.
Law enforcement source records are retired to NCIS records office after case closure and destroyed 15 years after the date of last action.
Preliminary Investigation Reports (PIR) records are used to document the receipt of information that at the initial stage indicated an incident occurred involving one or more criminal offenses, however, it was subsequently determined that no criminal offense occurred or that the incident and offenses did not fall within NCIS' jurisdiction and/or responsibility to investigate. These records are destroyed/deleted 5 years after case closure.
Reciprocal investigative files regarding requests for investigative assistance from other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies are disposed of as prescribed for the criminal investigative reports and IRs, as appropriate.
Polygraph examinations conducted for criminal investigations are quality assured and filed in the associated
Wire, Electronic, Oral Interception Index computer entries are deleted upon destruction or transfer to NARA of the case file containing intercept information. Disposition of the case files is governed by the NARA approved retention period applied to the case dossier.
Hardcopy records used to create the index are destroyed upon verification that the indexing information has been fully and accurately entered into the automated index.
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records that support Department of the Navy entries into the FBI's National Crime Information Center are destroyed after the related entry is deleted from the National Crime Information Center computer.
Microfiche copies are destroyed when all cases on the fiche are cleared from the National Crime Information Center.
(1) Digital capture of one fingerprint card set is forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the card is destroyed when it is verified that the digital copy was accurately captured and transferred.
(2) Second fingerprint card, indices, and related correspondence are destroyed when 5 years old.
Counterintelligence records retained solely for the purpose of determining whether the information may be permanently retained on persons not affiliated with DoD must be destroyed within 90 days, unless retention is required by law or specifically approved by the Secretary of the Navy.
Counterintelligence Security Polygraph packages forwarded to Naval Criminal Investigative Service headquarters are destroyed when 35 years old. Files retained in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Field Offices and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Resident Agencies and Polygraph sites are temporary and are destroyed after 90 days or earlier if no longer needed.
Destruction of records will be by shredding, burning, or pulping for paper records; burning for microform records; and magnetic erasing for computerized records. Optical digital data and CD ROM records are destroyed as specified by Department of the Navy, Information Assurance Remanence Publication 5239-26.
Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard, Building 111, 716 Sicard Street, SE., Washington, DC 20388-5380.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard, Building 111, Code 00JF, 716 Sicard Street, SE., Washington, DC 20388-5380.
Requests must contain the full name of the individual and at least one additional personal identifier such as date and place of birth, or Social Security Number (SSN). Persons submitting written requests must properly establish their identity to the satisfaction of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard, Building 111, Code 00JF, 716 Sicard Street, SE., Washington, DC 20388-5380.
Requests must contain the full name of the individual and at least one additional personal identifier such as date and place of birth and Social Security Number(SSN). Persons submitting written requests must properly establish their identity to the satisfaction of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.
The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From individual, DoD and Military Department records; Federal Agency records; foreign law enforcement agencies, security, intelligence, investigatory, or administrative authorities; State, county, and municipal records; employment records of public schools, colleges, universities, technical and trade schools; hospital records; real estate agencies; credit bureaus; financial institutions which maintain credit information on individuals such as loan and mortgage companies, credit unions, banks,
Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), since the information is compiled and maintained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Command, which performs as its principle function the enforcement of criminal laws.
Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1-R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
Records maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President and other individuals under 18 U.S.C. 3506, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3).
Records maintained solely for statistical research or program evaluation purposes and which are not used to make decisions on the rights, benefits, or entitlement of an individual except for census records which may be disclosed under 13 U.S.C. 8, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4).
Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 701, subpart G. For additional information, contact the system manager.
Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held on October 20, 2009, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France, in connection with a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) on October 20 and 21, 2009.
October 20-21, 2009.
9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France.
Diana D. Clark, Assistant General for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-3417.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) of the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France, on October 20, 2009, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the same location beginning at 2 p.m. on October 20 and continuing at 9:30 a.m. on October 21. The IAB meeting is in preparation for the SEQ meeting. The agenda for this preparatory meeting is to review the agenda for the SEQ meeting and to discuss the availability and suitability of public emergency oil stocks.
The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC). The Federal Advisory Committee
Friday, November 6, 2009; 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Hilton Hotel at the Ballpark, One South Broadway, St. Louis, MO 63102.
Michael J. Ducker, U.S. Department of Energy; 4G-036/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 202-586-7810.
Take notice that on September 28, 2009, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) seeking authorization to amend its existing certificate to reduce to the maximum certificated capacity on the East Southeast Expansion Project facilities to reflect refined flow characteristics after a year of operational experience, all as more fully described in the application.
This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to: J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, at 713-47908033 or fax at 713-479-1846.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors 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 intervenor 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.
Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
The existing Cedar Lake dam and integral powerhouse are owned by the City of Nashua, Iowa (Nashua) and were constructed in 1917 and used for power generation until 1965. Nashua currently operates the dam to maintain the reservoir's water surface elevation. Nashua is proposing to rehabilitate the hydro project by installing the new turbine generators and transmission equipment. As proposed, the project will operate in run-of-river mode.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
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 under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor 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.
l.
The project would have an estimated annual generation of 4,400,000 kWh (kilowatt-hours). The applicant plans to use most of the generated energy.
m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
n. Development Application—Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Protests or Motions To Intervene—Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
q. All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing the original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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 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:
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
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 September 30, 2009, pursuant to section 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717d, Texican N. La. Transport, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Southern Natural Gas Company (Respondent) alleging that Respondent violated the NGA, Commission precedent, and Respondent's FERC Gas Tariff by awarding capacity in an open season pursuant to a new methodology that was not timely revealed to bidders, therefore precluding bidders from taking a new approach into account when formulating their bid. Complainant requests, inter alia, that the Commission declare Respondent's capacity awards to be void and order Respondent to award the capacity accordingly.
The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 2, 2009, RRI Energy Services, Inc., on behalf of itself, RRI Energy Coolwater, Inc., RRI Energy Ellwood, Inc., RRI Energy Etiwanda, Inc., RRI Energy Mandalay, Inc., and RRI Energy Ormond Beach, Inc. filed a compliance refund report pursuant to the Commission's order issued on August 18, 2009, 128 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2009) (Order on Remand).
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 October 2, 2009, Mirant Energy Trading LLC filed a compliance refund report pursuant to the Commission's order issued on August 18, 2009, 128 FERC¶ 61,165 (2009) (Order on Remand).
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
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and notice of floodplain and wetlands involvement.
BPA intends to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated substations. The project would be located in Cowlitz and Clark counties, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon. The new BPA transmission line would extend generally southeast from a new substation proposed near Castle Rock in Cowlitz County, Washington (referred to as Castle Rock Substation), to a new substation proposed near BPA's existing Troutdale Substation near the city of Troutdale in Multnomah County, Oregon. Multiple preliminary transmission line route segments have been identified that, when combined, result in various transmission line routing alternatives approximately 70 miles long. The proposed transmission line and substations are needed to help ease transmission system congestion in the southwest Washington and northwest Oregon area, allowing BPA to fulfill existing and new transmission service requests for existing and new generation; improve system reliability; and meet continued electric load growth.
With this NOI, BPA is initiating the public scoping process for the EIS. BPA is requesting comments about potential environmental impacts that it should consider as it prepares the EIS for the proposed project, as well as comments on preliminary transmission line route segments and the proposed substations that have been identified.
In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements, BPA will prepare a floodplain and wetlands assessment to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within any affected floodplains and wetlands. The assessment will be included in the EIS.
Oral and written scoping comments are due to BPA no later than November 23, 2009. Comments may also be made at the EIS scoping meetings to be held between October 27 and November 7, 2009 at the addresses below.
Send letters with comments on the proposed scope of the EIS to I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project, P.O. Box 9250, Portland, OR, 97207, or by fax to (888) 315-4503. You may also call BPA's comment and information line at (800) 230-6593 and leave a comment, or submit comments online at
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, an open-house style scoping meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Amboy Middle School, 22115 NE Chelatchie Road, Amboy, Washington 98601. On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, a scoping meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Clark College, Gaiser Student Hall, 1933 Fort Vancouver Way, Vancouver, Washington 98663. On Thursday, October 29, 2009, a scoping meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Mark Morris High School, 1602 Mark Morris Court, Longview, Washington 98632. On Tuesday, November 3, 2009, a scoping meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Liberty Middle School, 1612 NE Garfield Street, Camas, Washington 98607. On Thursday, November 5, 2009, a scoping meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Gresham Holiday Inn, 2752 NE Hogan Drive, Gresham, Oregon 97030. On Saturday, November 7, 2009, a scoping meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at Hazel Dell Grange, 7509 NE Hazel Dell Avenue, Vancouver, Washington 98665. The Hazel Dell Grange is not wheelchair accessible.
At these informal meetings we will provide maps and other information about the project and have members of the project team available to answer questions and accept oral and written comments. You may stop by any time during these open houses.
Nancy Wittpenn, Environmental Project Lead, Bonneville Power Administration KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone 1-800-282-3713; direct telephone 503-230-
Southwest Washington and northwest Oregon, including Vancouver, Longview, Portland, and surrounding suburban cities and towns, have a high concentration of industrial, commercial and residential electric load. The power plants that serve this area include hydroelectric dams; gas, coal and nuclear plants; and more recently, wind farms. These power facilities use the electrical transmission system to get the power they produce to the people and industries that use it.
The transmission system in this area has become increasingly congested and is approaching its capacity as power production, particularly from wind, and electrical use have increased. In addition, BPA continues to receive requests for more transmission service. BPA's annual Network Open Season process allows utilities, power generators, and other power marketers to make long-term transmission service requests on BPA's transmission system. Existing and new requests received through BPA's 2008 Network Open Season process further increases the likelihood that the transmission system will exceed its capacity. BPA must respond to these requests for transmission service under its Open Access Transmission Tariff. This tariff, which is generally consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's pro forma open access tariff, has procedures that provide access to BPA's transmission system for all eligible customers, consistent with all BPA requirements (including the availability or development of sufficient transmission capacity) and subject to an environmental review under NEPA. If an additional line is not built, continued congestion will jeopardize transmission system reliability and, possibly, lead to power interruptions or blackouts in the area.
The proposed I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project would help respond to these existing and new requests for transmission service, help accommodate load growth, and address reliability concerns. BPA, therefore, will prepare an EIS under NEPA to assist the agency as it decides whether to build the proposed project, and if a decision is made to build a line, which transmission line alternative should be constructed.
BPA will be the lead agency for preparation of the EIS. In furtherance of existing cooperative agreements between BPA and the States of Washington and Oregon, the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Washington EFSEC) and the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council (Oregon EFSC) will be cooperating agencies in the NEPA process. Among other things, these state agencies will assist BPA in evaluating transmission line alternatives, identifying State interests that should be addressed in the EIS, and participating in preparation of the EIS. Additional cooperating agencies for the EIS may be identified as the proposed project proceeds through the NEPA process.
Preliminary Route Segments for Developing Alternatives. BPA's proposed 500-kV transmission line would extend from a new substation near Castle Rock, Washington, to a new substation near Troutdale, Oregon. BPA has identified many preliminary transmission line route segments that can be combined in various ways to form different potential routes for the proposed transmission line. All potential transmission line routes generally extend southeast from Castle Rock through Cowlitz County, Washington, and then generally south through Clark County, Washington, to a proposed crossing of the Columbia River near the city of Camas, Washington. Just south of this river crossing, all potential line routes would end at the proposed new substation directly north of the city of Troutdale in Oregon.
The route segments vary in length and are composed of either existing or new rights-of-way, or parallel existing rights-of-way. Route segments cross privately and publicly owned urban and rural lands. Depending on the combination of these route segments, potential routes for the proposed transmission line vary in length but are approximately 70 miles long.
While many preliminary route segments have already been identified, other route segments may be identified and existing route segments may be modified or eliminated as a result of the scoping process. BPA will use comments received during the scoping period, continuing discussions with various interested parties, and further transmission line design work to develop route segments into transmission line alternatives to be studied in the draft EIS. BPA will also consider the No Action Alternative, that is, not building the transmission line and substations, in the draft EIS.
Public Participation and Identification of Environmental Issues. The potential environmental issues identified for most transmission line projects involve land use, recreation, transportation and aviation, socioeconomics, cultural resources, visual resources, public health and safety, noise, electric and magnetic field effects, sensitive plants and animals and their habitats, soil erosion, wetlands, floodplains, and fish and water resources. BPA will conduct a 45-day scoping period during which tribes; affected landowners; concerned citizens; special interest groups; local, State, and Federal governments; and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the route segments under consideration and the environmental impacts to be evaluated. Scoping will help BPA add, modify, or eliminate route segments and ultimately help BPA develop transmission line alternatives to be studied in the EIS. Scoping will also ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal is addressed in the EIS, and also will identify significant or potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project. When completed, the draft EIS will be circulated for review and comment, and BPA will hold public meetings to answer questions and receive comments. BPA will consider and respond to comments received on the draft EIS in the final EIS. The final EIS is expected to be published in spring 2012. BPA's decision will be documented in a Record of Decision that will follow the final EIS.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Wilton Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that
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 October 20, 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(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Inupiat Energy Marketing'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 October 20, 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Fox Island Electric Cooperative Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is October 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,
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive 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 Cross Border Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is October 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(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Notice of Bonneville's July 31, 2009, application was published in the
Notice of Bonneville's September 3, 2009, errata corrections was published in the
Under the Northwest Power Act, the Commission's review of Bonneville's regional power and transmission rates is limited to determining whether Bonneville's proposed rates meet the three specific requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act:
(A) They must be sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System over a reasonable number of years after first meeting Bonneville's other costs;
(B) They must be based upon Bonneville's total system costs; and
(C) Insofar as transmission rates are concerned, they must equitably allocate the costs of the Federal transmission system between Federal and non-Federal power.
Commission review of Bonneville's non-regional, non-firm rates also is limited. Review is restricted to determining whether such rates meet the requirements of section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act,
(A) Recover the cost of generation and transmission of such electric energy, including the amortization of investments in the power projects within a reasonable period;
(B) Encourage the most widespread use of Bonneville power; and
(C) Provide the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles.
Unlike the Commission's statutory authority under the Federal Power Act, the Commission's authority under sections 7(a) and 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act does not include the power to modify the rates. The responsibility for developing rates in the first instance is vested with Bonneville's Administrator. The rates are then submitted to the Commission for approval or disapproval. In this regard, the Commission's role can be viewed as an appellate one: to affirm or remand the rates submitted to it for review.
Moreover, review at this interim stage is further limited. In view of the volume and complexity of a Bonneville rate application, such as the one now before the Commission in this filing, and the limited period in advance of the requested effective date in which to review the application,
The Commission declines at this time to grant final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed wholesale power and transmission rates. The Commission's preliminary review nevertheless indicates that Bonneville's wholesale power and transmission rates filing appears to meet the statutory standards and the minimum threshold filing requirements of Part 300 of the Commission's regulations.
In addition, we will provide an additional period of time for parties to file comments and reply comments on issues related to final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. This will ensure that the record in this proceeding is complete and fully developed.
Interim approval of Bonneville's proposed wholesale power and transmission rates is hereby granted, to become effective on October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2011, subject to refund with interest as set forth in section 300.20(c) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2009), pending final action and either their approval or disapproval.
Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, parties who wish to do so may file additional comments regarding final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. Parties who wish to do so may file reply comments within twenty (20) days thereafter.
The Secretary shall promptly publish this order in the
This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated to the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—Central, under 18 CFR 375.307 of the Commission's Regulations. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 2009.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009 0494, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Michael Le Desma; Legal Counsel Division; Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training; Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80025; telephone number: (303) 462-9453; fax number: (303) 462-9075; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA 2009-0494, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information to those who 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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burdens or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Those persons that provide tips need not supply contact information or other personal identifiers. Those who do supply such information, however, should know that this information may be shared by EPA with appropriate administrative, law enforcement, and judicial entities engaged in investigating or adjudicating the tip or complaint.
It is expected that a total of 630 people will complete the tips and complaints form each month, for a total of 7,560 people per year. Given that people typically arrive at the form with all of the information needed to complete the form, EPA expects that the form will take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Accordingly, EPA expects that the total annual burden hours will be approximately 3,780. EPA does not anticipate any capital or start-up costs associated with completion of this form.
EPA also does not anticipate that, in the usual case, burden hours associated with the tips and complaint form will translate into actual labor costs; EPA expects relatively few tips or complaints to be submitted as part of an employee's official duties. For this reason, EPA believes that the relevant “labor costs” associated with the form are best calculated as the wage opportunity cost to people of the form's estimated burden hours. The wage opportunity cost of the burden hours associated with this form can be estimated by multiplying the total number of burden hours by the average national hourly wage reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS reports the average hourly wage in July 2007 to have been $19.88 per hour; accordingly, the total wage opportunity cost associated with the tips and complaints form would be approximately $75,146 per annum.
There is an increase of 1980 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects the fact that tips and complaints are being filed at a higher rate than originally anticipated, a strong indication of the success of this program. There has been no change in the information being reported or the estimated burden per respondent.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of meeting.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2009 Fall Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context.
The meeting will be held on November 5, 2009 starting at 9 a.m. (EST) and ending at 5 p.m.
Hotel Monaco Baltimore, 2 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201; (443) 692-6170.
For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 638, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; e-mail:
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the “Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.” Section 184(a) establishes an “Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the Ozone Transport commission is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
New York has scheduled a Special General Election on November 3, 2009, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the Twenty-Third Congressional District vacated by Representative John M. McHugh.
Political committees participating in the New York Special General Election on November 3, 2009, shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Mr. Kevin R. Salley, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463;
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the New York Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 22, 2009; and a 30-day Post-General Report on December 3, 2009. (
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's Year-End filing in January 2010. (
Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2009 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (
Political committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election should continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the New York Special General Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $16,000 during the special election reporting periods (
On behalf of the Commission.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a request for comments regarding a new information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this document announces that GSA is planning to submit a request to replace an emergency Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, GSA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2009.
Submit your comments regarding this collection of information to:
Marion Royal, General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, 1800 F Street NW., Room 2018, Washington, DC 20405-0001; telephone number: 202-208-4643; fax number: 202-501-6455; e-mail address:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) 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,
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments.
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by GSA, be sure to identify the ICR title on the first page of your response. You may also provide the
(1) A five-star rating and text “Comment on this Data” field to give visitors information about which datasets other visitors found most useful and interesting on the Data.gov webpage,
(2) A “Suggest Other Datasets” entry page for the public to submit ideas for datasets with an optional contact e-mail address provided for those visitors wishing to identify themselves,
(3) A field for visitors to rank datasets suggested by other visitors at an estimated annual burden of 17 hours,
(4) A “Contact Us” entry page with an optional contact e-mail address for those visitors wishing to identify themselves,
(5) A Collaborative Work Environment using wiki web pages and e-mail discussion forum,
(6) Pages for visitors to advise how they leverage the datasets in new and different ways to build applications, conduct analysis, and perform research,
(7) Pages for visitors to rate the benefit of the reported new solutions, etc.
The estimated annual burden request is summarized here:
GSA did not receive comments to its first
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite Data.gov, in all correspondence.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed information collection request for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
Awardees will indicate the progress made toward each of the financial and programmatic objectives noted on their cooperative agreement application (CAA) on the mid-year progress report. The end of year report on annual activities will require Awardees to provide additional details on objective achievement and budget/fiscal management. The end of year report will also require Awardees to present improvements made toward achieving the program's critical benchmarks.
In addition, the reporting will increase ASPR's ability to quickly and efficiently analyze data, identify trends, make timely program decisions, and provide the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Congress, and other Operating Divisions with data and information.
Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold its twenty-first meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and Wednesday, October 28, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.
The Sheraton National Hotel, 900 South Orme Street, Arlington, Virginia 22204. Phone: 703-521-1900.
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Director, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), or Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; e-mail address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for Health on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
On October 27, 2009, the Committee will be briefed on harmonization efforts undertaken by the National Institutes of Health and discuss possible implications for future SACHRP committee work. Following this, Dr. Marjorie Speers will present and discuss the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs' recently revised standards for accreditation. The day will conclude with a report from the Subpart A Subcommittee focusing on issues surrounding consent for future use of specimens or data; this subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP about the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment. This subcommittee was established by SACHRP at its October 4-5, 2006 meeting.
On October 28, 2009, SACHRP will hear remarks from the Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Howard Koh. This will be followed by a panel presentation focusing on types of informed consent tools and mechanisms
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact persons. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on both days of the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed materials distributed to SACHRP members for this scheduled meeting should submit materials to the Executive Director, SACHRP, prior to the close of business Thursday, October 22, 2009. Information about SACHRP and the draft meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee onBlood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will take place Thursday, November 19 and Friday, November 20, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Universities at Shady Grove, 9630 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 301-738-6000.
Jerry A. Holmberg, PhD, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8803, FAX (240) 453-8456, e-mail
The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability provides advice to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health on a range of policy issues that impact (1) Definition of public health parameters around safety and availability of the blood supply and blood products, (2) broad public health, ethical and legal issues related to transfusion and transplantation safety, and (3) the implications for safety and the availability of various economic factors affecting product cost and supply.
In keeping with its established mission, the ACBSA has been asked to review and comment on the current processes and parameters which should be used in the decision-making process for transplantation safety policy. At the November 19 and 20, 2009 meeting, the Committee will be asked to comment and make recommendations on current safety decision making processes within the Department of Health and Human Services while considering those same processes within the Private Sector.
During the meeting, the ACBSA will be provided a briefing on Biovigilance (surveillance of blood, organs, and tissues safety). Specifically, the committee will be asked to comment on the white paper entitled, “Biovigilance in the United States: Efforts to Bridge a Critical Gap in Patient Safety and Donor Health.”
The public will have opportunity to present their views to the Committee on both meeting days. A public comment session has been scheduled for November 19 and 20, 2009. Comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker and must be pertinent to the discussion. Pre-registration is required for participation in the public comment session. Any member of the public who would like to participate in this session is encouraged to contact the Executive Secretary at his/her earliest convenience. It is requested that those who wish to have printed material distributed to the Committee provide thirty (30) copies of the document to be distributed to the Executive Secretary, ACBSA, prior to close of business November 16, 2009. If it is not possible to provide 30 copies of the material to be distributed, then individuals are requested to provide at a minimum one (1) copy of the document(s) to be distributed prior to the close of business November 16, 2009. It also is requested that any member of the public who wishes to provide comments to the Committee utilizing electronic data projection submit the necessary material to the Executive Secretary prior to close of business November 16, 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 Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
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 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. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN) Reporting System (OMB #0920-0612, exp. 1/31/2010)—Revision—National Center
Cardiovascular disease (CVD), which includes heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke, is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, and is largely preventable. The WISEWOMAN program (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation), administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was established to examine ways to improve the delivery of services for women who have limited access to health care and elevated risk factors for CVD. The program focuses on reducing CVD risk factors and provides screening services for select risk factors such as elevated blood cholesterol, hypertension and abnormal blood glucose levels. The program also provides lifestyle interventions and medical referrals. On an annual basis, 15 grantees funded through the WISEWOMAN program have provided services to approximately 30,000 women who are already participating in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), also administered by CDC. CDC plans to increase the reach of the WISEWOMAN program by increasing the number of grantees from 15 to 21.
CDC currently collects information from WISEWOMAN grantees to support continuous program monitoring and improvement activities. CDC seeks to extend OMB approval for three additional years. The total estimated annualized burden will increase due to the increase in the number of funded grantees. However, the burden to each respondent will decrease due to a reduction in the frequency of data collection for items that were previously collected on a quarterly basis. During the next OMB approval period, all information will be collected twice per year.
Information reported to CDC includes baseline and follow-up data (12 months post enrollment) for all women served through the WISEWOMAN program. These data, called the minimum data elements (MDE), include data elements that describe risk factors for the women served in each program and data elements that describe the number and type of intervention sessions attended. Funded grantees compile the data from their existing databases and report the MDE to CDC in April and October of each year. The MDE data provide an assessment of how effective the WISEWOMAN program is at reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors among women who utilize program services. The information collected from grantees is also used to assess the cost-effectiveness and impact of the program. The overall program evaluation is designed to demonstrate how WISEWOMAN can obtain more complete health data on vulnerable populations, promote public education about disease incidence and risk-factors, improve the availability of screening and diagnostic services for under-served women, ensure the quality of services provided to under-served women, and develop strategies for improved interventions. The information reported to CDC also includes programmatic information related to grantee management, public education and outreach, professional education, service delivery, cost, and progress toward meeting stated programmatic objectives.
All MDE information will be submitted to CDC electronically. Progress reports will be submitted in hardcopy format. Because certain demographic information has already been collected as part of NBCCEDP, the additional burden on grantees will be modest. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by December 14, 2009.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3793.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA evaluated an application for an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of influenza subtype H5 (Asian lineage), commonly known as avian flu. FDA concluded that this device is properly classified into class II in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B), because it is a device for which the general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance.
The statute permits FDA to establish as special controls many different things, including postmarket surveillance, development and dissemination of guidance recommendations, and “other appropriate actions as the Secretary deems necessary” (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). This information collection is a measure that FDA determined to be necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses.
FDA issued an order classifying the H5 (Asian lineage) diagnostic device into class II on February 3, 2006, establishing the special controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of that device and similar future devices. The new classification will be codified in 21 CFR 866.3332, a regulation that will describe the new classification for reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses and set forth the special controls that help to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of devices classified under that regulation. The regulation will refer to the special controls guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Reagents for Detection of Specific Novel Influenza A Viruses,” which provides recommendations for measures to help provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these reagents.
The guidance document recommends that sponsors obtain and analyze postmarket data to ensure the continued reliability of their device in detecting the specific novel influenza A virus that it is intended to detect, particularly given the propensity for influenza viruses to mutate and the potential for changes in disease prevalence over time. As updated sequences for novel influenza A viruses become available from the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, and other public health entities, sponsors of reagents for detection of specific novel influenza A viruses will collect this information, compare them with the primer/probe sequences in their devices, and incorporate the result of these analyses into their quality management system, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(1). These analyses will be evaluated against the device design validation and risk analysis required by 21 CFR 820.30(g), to determine if any design changes may be necessary.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that 10 respondents will be affected annually. Each respondent will collect this information twice per year, estimated to take 10 hours. This results in a total data collection burden of 200 hours (10 x 20= 200). FDA estimates that cost of developing standard operating procedures for each data collection is $500 (10 hours of work at $50/hour). This results in a total cost to industry of $5,000 ($500 x 10 respondents).
The guidance also refers to previously approved information collections found in FDA regulations. The information collections in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and
National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (OMB no. 0920-0469 exp. Date 1/31/2010)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 1992, Congress passed the Cancer Registries Amendment Act, which established the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). The NPCR provides support for central cancer registries (CCR) that collect, manage and analyze data about cancer cases. The NPCR-funded CCR, which are located in states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, report information to CDC annually through the National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS) (OMB No. 0920-0469, exp. 1/31/2010). CDC plans to request OMB approval to continue collecting this information for three years.
The NPCR CSS allows CDC to collect, aggregate, evaluate and disseminate cancer incidence data at the national level, and is the primary source of information for
Each responding CCR is asked to report a cumulative file containing incidence data from the first diagnosis year for which the cancer registry collected data with the assistance of NPCR funds (
The Revision request will include changes. First, data definitions will be updated to reflect changes in national standards for cancer diagnosis and coding. In addition, the number of respondents will decrease. Respondents will be 45 State-based CCR, the CCR of the District of Columbia, the CCR of Puerto Rico, and the CCR that aggregates information from 10 flag territories and freely associated States in the Pacific Islands. States that receive sole funding from the National Cancer Institute are not included as respondents. The adjusted number of respondents will result in a reduction in the total estimated burden hours for the NPCR CSS. The estimated burden per response will not change.
There are no costs to respondents except their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 96.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening until October 26, 2009, the comment period for the notice published in the
Fax written comments on the collection of information by October 26, 2009. FDA is requesting approval of this emergency processing by November 2, 2009.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-5806, or e-mailed to
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3794, e-mail:
In the
FDA originally identified its plan to collect the information submission requirements of sections 905, 904(a)(1), and 904(a)(4) through a single electronic portal. In addition to the electronic portal, FDA also plans to provide a paper based form to collect this information for those individuals who choose not to use the electronic portal. FDA originally planned to launch the electronic portal for the collection of this information on October 1, 2009. FDA now plans to launch the electronic portal for the collection of this information on November 2, 2009. If FDA were to use the normal PRA clearance procedures, the availability of the electronic portal and the submission of information by respondents could not begin with adequate time to meet the respective statutory deadlines (December 22, 2009, for section 904, and December 31, 2009, for section 905).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Subcommittee for Planning the Annual Strategic Planning Process.
The purpose of the Subcommittee for Planning the Annual Strategic Planning Process is to plan the process for annually updating the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research. The Subcommittee meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference call. This meeting is open to the public through a conference call phone number.
Please Note: The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number. Individuals who participate using this service and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request at least 4 days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. This phone call may end prior to or later than 4 p.m., depending on the needs of the subcommittee.
This meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations for the Subcommittee to review and discuss the outcomes from the IACC Workshop and to be able to present their proposals at the IACC meeting on October 23.
Information about the IACC is available on the Web site:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; File No. OMB-6, Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance; OMB Control No. 1653-0019.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 14, 2009.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Joseph M. Gerhart, Chief, Records Management Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, SW., Room 3138, Washington, DC 20024; (202) 732-6337.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 14, 2009. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 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 clarity of the information to be collected;
(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.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Requests for a copy of the proposed information collection instrument, with
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of waiver.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has granted a limited nationwide waiver of the buy American provision contained in sec. 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 303 (2009) under the authority of sec. 1605(b)(1) (public interest exception) provided that at least 95 percent of the costs of each Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) project will comply with sec. 1605(a).
This notice is effective October 13, 2009.
Office of Acquisitions/Acquisitions Policy Office, TSA-25, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6025.
Ronald B. Gallihugh, Office of Acquisitions/Acquisitions Policy Office, TSA-25, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6025; telephone (571) 227-2402; facsimile (571) 227-1372; e-mail
On February 17, 2009, the Recovery Act was enacted to assist those most impacted by the recession by creating and preserving jobs and promoting economic recovery. The funding was specified for multiple areas of national interest. TSA received $1 billion to invest in the procurement and installation of checked baggage explosives detection systems and checkpoint explosives detection equipment to be obligated by September 30, 2010. Approximately $500 million in Recovery Act funding will be allocated to facility modification projects to be administered through TSA's EBSP. This program directly benefits the traveling public, air carriers, airport authorities, and our Nation as a whole.
TSA's EBSP supports the DHS goals of protecting our Nation from dangerous goods and protecting our Nation's critical transportation infrastructure by strengthening screening of checked baggage to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist or other criminal attack to the air transportation system. Since December 31, 2002, EBSP has been responsible for ensuring 100 percent screening of checked baggage in the United States. The EBSP's objective is to deter, detect, mitigate, and prevent transportation of explosives or other prohibited items in checked baggage on commercial aircraft. One significant way EBSP accomplishes its objectives is through the construction of Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (CBIS). These projects form the backbone of TSA's EBSP and represent the highest level of baggage screening capability in terms of processing efficiency and security. TSA has identified twenty-six airports across the country with “shovel ready” facility modification projects that include CBIS construction. These projects are dependent on Recovery Act funding. Several of these projects, however, are on hold and in jeopardy because of concerns over compliance with sec. 1605(a).
Section 1605(a) of the Recovery Act, the buy American provision, states that none of the funds appropriated by the Act, including the funds that have been dedicated to project awards under EBSP, “may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” Subsections 1605(b) and (c) of the Recovery Act authorize the head of a Federal department or agency to waive the buy American provision by finding that: (1) Applying the provision would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) the relevant goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of the goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the project by more than 25 percent. If the head of the Federal department or agency waives the buy American provision, then the head of the department or agency is required to publish a detailed justification in the
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that it would be inconsistent with the public interest—and particularly with the Recovery Act's directives to ensure expeditious spending of construction funds consistent with prudent management, as cited above—to apply the buy American requirement to an entire CBIS project where at least 95 percent of the costs of the project will comply with sec. 1605(a).
A CBIS is a highly sophisticated electromechanical system for screening checked baggage. It consists of hundreds of mechanical and electrical items. It includes a mechanical conveyor system or baggage handling system (BHS) that transports checked baggage through the system. The CBIS also features a security screening matrix area where baggage is fed through one or more Explosion Detection Systems (EDS) or Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) systems to be analyzed. All of the mechanical and electrical items and processes that make up the CBIS are controlled by a central programmable logic controller (PLC) or programmable controller. The PLC is essentially a computer `brain' used for the automation of electro-mechanical processes, such as the control of machinery on factory assembly lines. The PLC controls all aspects of the CBIS including conveyor belt speeds, baggage tracking and managing the BHS merge points or windows.
CBIS projects are comprised of thousands of manufactured goods, such as conveyor, conveyor motor drives, electrical and communications controls, programmable logic controllers, electronic tracking devices, high speed diverters, vertical sorters, specialty fasteners and switches. Not all of these items are domestically available. Furthermore, in many instances, the geographic origin of the equipment is not readily ascertainable. While arguably the Secretary of Homeland Security could have relied on the authority under sec. 1605(b)(2) (non-availability waiver), the burden placed on TSA and contractors in sourcing and evaluating equipment availability would be unduly burdensome, impracticable and not in keeping with the Recovery Act's overall goal of expeditious spending of recovery funds.
In the construction of such a sophisticated system as a CBIS, complete adherence to the requirements of section 1605(a) is impracticable, if not impossible. In addition, it has become a serious obstacle to ensuring that all identified airports will be able to sign construction contracts by September 30, 2010. Some airport authorities have simply been unable or unwilling to certify that the construction contracts it signs are compliant with the buy American provisions. The alternative would be for the airports and communities to lose their Recovery Act assistance, requiring TSA to reallocate funds, which is inconsistent with the public interest and the intent and purpose of the Recovery Act.
DHS has considered the disproportionate cost and delay that would ensue if a limited waiver is not issued. The exercise of ascertaining whether compliant products exist or can be made to meet these requirements is already becoming a demanding and time-consuming task far out of proportion to the total percentage of project costs. On balance, the public interest in having these projects completed outweighs the Buy American requirement; particularly where the value of noncompliant goods is relatively small when compared to total project cost. CBIS projects significantly benefit aviation security, baggage screening efficiency and the flying public in general. Also, these projects help stimulate job growth for local construction workers, technicians, equipment designers, engineers, and others who will operate and maintain the equipment.
Therefore, the Secretary granted a limited, nationwide public interest waiver, having found that it would be inconsistent with the public interest—and particularly with the Recovery Act's directives—to apply the buy American requirement to an entire CBIS project in which at least 95 percent of the costs of the project will comply with section 1605. The Secretary determined the five percent limit based on research and informed professional judgment as to the maximum total amount of costs used in most CBIS projects.
Accordingly, the Secretary granted a limited, nationwide waiver of the requirements of section 1605(a) of the Recovery Act, Public Law 111-5, buy American requirements, based on the public interest authority of section 1605(b)(1), provided that at least 95 percent of the costs of each TSA EBSP project will comply with section 1605. This waiver applies to all eligible EBSP projects for which the TSA has awarded or will award a project award using Recovery Act funds, and where at least 95 percent of the costs of the project will comply with sec. 1605.
TSA will attempt to obtain 100 percent compliance with the buy American provision on all airport projects. This limited nationwide waiver is available to airports that cannot comply 100 percent with the buy American provision because applying the provision would be inconsistent with the public interest in accordance with sec. 1605(b)(1). TSA will ensure that on all projects at least 95 percent of the costs will comply with section 1605. Recipients who wish to use this waiver should, in consultation with their contractors determine the items to be covered by this waiver, must retain relevant documentation as to those items in their project files, and must summarize in reports to TSA the types and/or categories of items to which this waiver is applied, the total cost of the goods covered by the waiver, and the calculations by which they determined the total cost of materials used in and incorporated into the project.
Notice.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for a three-person National Indian Gaming Commission. One member, the chairman, is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Two associate members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Before appointing members, the Secretary is required to provide public notice of a proposed appointment and allow a comment period. Notice is hereby given of the proposed appointment of Steffani A. Cochran as an associate member of the National Indian Gaming Commission for a term of 3 years.
Comments must be received before November 12, 2009.
Comments should be submitted to the Director, Office of Executive Secretariat, United States Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 7229, Washington, DC 20240.
John A. Strylowski, Executive Secretariat, United States Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 7229, Washington, DC 20240; telephone 202-208-3071.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701
The Secretary proposes to appoint Steffani A. Cochran as an associate member of the Commission for a term of 3 years. Ms. Cochran is well qualified to serve as a member of the Commission, by virtue of her broad background in the law and her work for both State and tribal governments on issues affecting Indian tribes. Her extensive legal experience includes service in New Mexico State government as a Special Counsel for Indian Affairs and as an Administrative Law Judge for the State of Oregon. She has also served tribal governments as General Counsel for the Pueblo of Pojoaque and as an Associate Judge for the Isleta Tribal Court and judge pro tem on the Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals. Working at different times for tribal and State governments, Ms. Cochran has participated in negotiations and addressed issues of critical importance to both constituencies. She is a member of the Chickasaw Nation. Ms. Cochran does not have any financial interests that would make her ineligible to serve on the Commission under 25 U.S.C. 2704(b)(5)(B) or (C).
Any person wishing to submit comments on this proposed appointment of Steffani Cochran may submit written comments to the address
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Notice of a new information collection.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an information collection request (ICR) for approval of the paperwork requirements for the National Coal Resources Data System (NCRDS) competitive grant program. This notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of this project.
You must submit comments on or before November 12, 2009.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior via e-mail to
Please also submit a copy of your written comments to Phadrea Ponds, USGS Information Collection Clearance Officer, 2150-C Center Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); (970) 226-9230 (fax); or
Susan Tewalt by mail at U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192 or by telephone at 703-648-6437.
The primary objective of the NCRDS is to advance the understanding of the energy endowment of the United States (U.S.) by gathering and organizing digital geologic information related to coal, coalbed gas, shale gas and other energy resources. The NCRDS of the USGS will issue a call for proposals to support researchers that can provide geologic data to support the National Coal Resources Data System and other solid-fuel energy assessment projects being conducted by the Energy Resources Program. Additional data is needed to data to support regional or national assessments concerning coal and coal bed gas occurrences. Requesting external cooperation is the very best way for NCRDS to collect energy data and perform research on the characterization of coals and organic-rich shale, and obtain other information (including geophysical or seismic data, sample collection for generation of thermal maturity data) that can be used in solid-fuel resource assessments. Data submitted to NCRDS by external cooperators will constitute more than two-thirds of the USGS point-source stratigraphic database (USTRAT) on coal occurrence. In 2010, NCRDS plans to support 26 projects in 23 States. The program will be conducted under various authorities, including 30 U.S.C. 208-1, 42 U.S.C. 15801, and 43 U.S.C. 31
On May 14, 2009, we published a
We again invite comments concerning this ICR on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 anytime. 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Maryhill Museum of Art, Goldendale, WA, that meet the definition of “unassociated funerary objects” under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1943, Native American cultural items were loaned to the Maryhill Museum of Art by Harvey T. and Bessie
At an unknown date, cultural items were removed from graves that were “10 miles South of the East Bank of Columbia River.” The two unassociated funerary objects are one lot of dentalium shells and one regalia fragment (Box 62).
On November 3, 1920, cultural items were removed from a grave that was “1/4 mile NW of Vulcan Station and about 200 feet from the Columbia River.” The six unassociated funerary objects are a piece of diatomaceous earth, one knife, two stone projectile points, one bone point, and one bone awl (Box 63).
On November 4, 1920, cultural items were removed from a grave “Along Columbia River in North end of Grant Co., about two miles below Vulcan.” The five unassociated funerary objects are one broken knife, one pendant, one lot of bead forms, and two bottles of red ochre (Box 64).
In October 1920, cultural items were removed from two graves “in the slide rock, at edge of bluff, East of Vantage camp site.” The 55 unassociated funerary objects are 2 pestles, 1 obsidian knife, 12 shaft abraders, 1 antler handle, 18 bone fragments, 11 antler fragments, 1 modified antler tine, 1 utilized horn tool, 1 utilized antler tine, 6 points, and 1 lot of fiber (Boxes 65-67).
On July 2, 1922, cultural items were removed from a grave on the “Columbia River at Vulcan.” The one unassociated funerary object is a petrified wood biface (Box 69).
At an unknown date, cultural items were removed from a grave at “Wahluke Ferry.” The one box of unassociated funerary objects contains 10 bags (Box 68), which includes, but are not limited to, miscellaneous bead forms in sand; numerous beads; a basalt cobble; a beaded awl sheath; 2 small abraders; a group of dentalium shells; 2 pipes; 2 clam shells; points; metal, cordage, and mat fragments; an elk horn wedge; copper bracelets, pieces, and fragments; and 2 chisels.
On October 20-25, 1922, and numerous unknown dates until 1924, cultural items were removed from a grave at “1/2 mile upriver from the Richmond Ferry.” The one box of unassociated funerary objects contains 27 bags of uncounted objects (Bags 1-27, #836-847).
At an unknown date, cultural items were removed from a grave at the “Mouth of the Yakima River.” The one box of unassociated funerary objects contains approximately 65 pieces of stone tools (Box 71).
On an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from a grave, which is located about “1 mile South of Vulcan.” The one unassociated funerary object is a pestle (#484).
Sometime between September 3 and 10, 1923, cultural items were removed from the surface of “Memaloose Island.” Memaloose Island is known to have many Native American burials. The unassociated funerary object is one lot of beads.
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho; and the Wanapum Band, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, are descendants of the Native American communities that used the Columbia River area. Based on museum records and consultation evidence, Maryhill Museum of Art officials have determined that the Harding Collection was collected along the shores of the Columbia River. Based on linguistic, oral tradition, geographic and consultation evidence, Maryhill Museum of Art officials have determined that there is a shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the above-mentioned Indian tribes and group.
Officials of the Maryhill Museum of Art have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(B), the 74 unassociated funerary objects, including 3 boxes of unassociated funerary objects, described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from specific burial sites of Native American individuals. Officials of the Maryhill Museum of Art also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; and Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho. Furthermore, officials of the Maryhill Museum of Art have determined that there is a cultural relationship between the unassociated funerary objects and the Wanapum Band, a non-Federally recognized Indian group. The above-mentioned Indian tribes and group have submitted a joint claim for repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Colleen Schafroth, Executive Director, Maryhill Museum of Art, 35 Maryhill Museum Drive, Goldendale, WA 98620, telephone (509) 773-3733, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho; and the Wanapum Band, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Maryhill Museum of Art is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Bemidji, MN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Clearwater County, MN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council professional staff in consultation with representatives of the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
In 1952, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from site 21-CE-5, Ponsford Landing Site, Clearwater County, MN, by Mr. Robert H. Littlewolf's father. In 1959, Mr. Littlewolf, a White Earth band member, gave the human remains and associated funerary objects to the University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota transferred control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council per a transfer agreement dated June 16, 1989. No known individual was identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are 1 ceramic sherd, 1 bone needle, 1 bone shaft straightener, 1 bone punch, 1 bone harpoon, and 7 pieces of worked bone.
Based on material culture, the burial at site 21-CE-5 has been identified as a post-contact burial related to the local Ojibwe population, who were later relocated to the White Earth Reservation after 1867. The geographic location is consistent with the historically documented territory of the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have also determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the 12 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact James L. (Jim) Jones Jr., Cultural Resource Director, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 1819 Bemidji Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601, telephone (218) 755-3825, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council is responsible for notifying the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY. The human remains were removed from a village at Waacht, on the Makah Indian Reservation, Clallam County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and New York University College of Dentistry professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington.
In January 1921, human remains representing one individual were removed from an unoccupied house at Waacht, on the Makah Indian Reservation, Neah Bay, Clallam County, WA, by T.T. Waterman. That same year, Waterman donated the human remains to the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. In 1956, the Museum of the American Indian transferred the human remains to Dr. Theodore Kazamiroff, New York University College of Dentistry. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Waterman's notes indicate that the human remains were removed from a deserted house at the west end of Waacht. Based on Waterman's description of the house, it has been determined that the human remains were removed from tribal lands. In this house, Waterman found the cranial remains of two individuals in a wooden case. One of the individuals, an adult,
Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and New York University College of Dentistry have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and New York University College of Dentistry also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Louis Terracio, New York University College of Dentistry, 345 East 24th St., New York, NY 10010, telephone (212) 998-9917, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains to the Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
New York University College of Dentistry and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are responsible for notifying the Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object in the control of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside, CA. The human remains were removed from Santa Barbara County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Riverside Metropolitan Museum professional staff in consultation with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the site for the Potter Hotel, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, CA, during the excavation for the construction of the hotel. Cornelius E. Rumsey donated the human remains to the Riverside Metropolitan Museum in 1925. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object is a stone pestle.
Historic records identify the Chumash Indians as the inhabitants of the Santa Barbara area.
In 1949, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an unknown burial on San Miguel Island, Channel Islands, Santa Barbara County, CA. Oscar Perrine donated the human remains to the Riverside Metropolitan Museum in 1962. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
San Miguel Island is one of the Channel Islands, which are historically associated with the Island Chumash people. Archeologists have suggested that there is considerable cultural continuity in this area. The establishment of Spanish missions resulted in the dispersal of the Island Chumash. The 109 Chumash Indians, who settled on the small plot of land near the Santa Ynez Mission given to them in 1855, support a historical connection between the present-day Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the Island Chumash people.
Based on collections research, geographic location, and historic documentation, the human remains are of Chumash origin. Descendants of the Chumash are members of the Federally-recognized Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the one object described above is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary object should contact Ennette Morton, Museum Director, Riverside Metropolitan Museum, 3580 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, telephone (951) 826-5273, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Riverside Metropolitan Museum is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside, CA. The human remains were removed from Greybull, Bighorn County, WY.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Riverside Metropolitan Museum professional staff in consultation with the Crow Tribe of Montana.
In 1930, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from an exposed earth bank near Greybull, Bighorn County, WY, during highway construction by Lt. Col. R. J. Pilcher. Lt. Col. Pilcher donated the human remains to the Riverside Metropolitan Museum in 1957. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
It was determined that the human remains are Native American. Through collections research, and based on the geographic location of the discovery, the human remains are reasonably believed to be of Crow origin. Descendants of the Crow are members of the Crow Tribe of Montana.
Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Crow Tribe of Montana.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Ennette Morton, Museum Director, Riverside Metropolitan Museum, 3580 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, telephone (951) 826-5273, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains to the Crow Tribe of Montana may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Riverside Metropolitan Museum is responsible for notifying the Crow Tribe of Montana that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object in the possession of the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Lucas County, OH.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ohio Historical Society's professional staff in consultation with Dr. G. Michael Pratt of Heidelberg University and the Lucas County Coroner's Office. The Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; and Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, were notified and sent the inventory records.
On May 23, 2007, human remains representing a minimum of three individuals were removed from along the eastern end of Indian Island in the Maumee River, Lucas County, OH, by a staff member of the Lucas County Coroner's Office, and Dr. G. Michael Pratt. Prior to removal, the Ohio Highway Patrol had received a report that human remains had been discovered. Indian Island is owned by the State of Ohio. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a knife.
Dr. Pratt identified the human remains as Native American based on the presence of the cranial vault configuration, the presence of Wormian bones in the lambdoid cranial suture, and the attrition present on the teeth. The associated funerary object and other artifacts found in the vicinity indicate that these human remains probably were buried during the period from A.D. 1760 to 1833.
Archeological and historical information indicate that Ottawa bands began to settle in the lower Maumee valley beginning in A.D. 1740 to 1750. Ottawa occupation of this region continued until August 1794 when the principal villages were burned by Anthony Wayne's expedition in the days following the Battle of Fallen Timbers. In the following summer of 1795, the Ottawa Tribe was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Greenville under the terms of which they ceded their claim to much of the land in this region. More land was ceded in treaties signed between 1807 and 1817, but four small reservations were retained for the Ottawa in the lower Maumee valley. Indian Island was part of the Roche de Boeuf reservation established in the Treaty of Detroit in 1807. In 1831 to 1833, the four reservations were ceded to the United States in return for lands in present-day Franklin County, KS. In 1867, the Kansas reservation organization was dissolved and the Ottawa sold their individual allotments and moved to Oklahoma, and are represented by the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma.
Officials of the Ohio Historical Society have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of at least three individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Ohio Historical
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary object should contact James Strider, Acting Executive Director, Ohio Historical Society, 1982 Velma Ave., Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (614) 297-2350, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object to the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Ohio Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; and Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI. The human remains were removed from Puget Sound, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Port Gamble Indian Tribe of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington; Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington; Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington; Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington. A claim for the human remains described in this notice has been received by the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium from the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington. In July 2008, a letter was sent notifying the above-mentioned tribes of the claim by the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington, and statements of support or non-support were also solicited.
In 1913 or earlier, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the Puget Sound region, WA. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
A letter dated December 30, 1913, from the museum's curator acknowledges receipt of the human remains from the “Puget Sound region” as a loan from Sydney R. Turner of East Providence, RI (Accn.# RIR035; Cat. # E 4166). The letter also acknowledges receipt of “beads and other small articles found in the grave with it.” However, these objects were not located in the museum collections during the inventory. Therefore, no associated funerary objects are currently present with these human remains. There is no information regarding how the human remains (and the articles that once accompanied them) came into Mr. Turner's possession.
In the 1913 letter the curator remarks to Mr. Turner, “It is understood that you have loaned these specimens to the museum and we shall keep them safely until you may order their removal.” This statement must stand as the sole justification for why the Puget Sound remains were retained in the collection. It would appear that Mr. Turner failed to recall them. In 2008, museum staff reviewed 1913 city directories for East Providence, RI. It was learned that Mr. Sydney R. Turner owned and operated a grocery store with his brother Frederick until 1915-16. After that time, he initiated a career as a traveling salesman until his death in 1932, which may explain his failure to retrieve the remains. The museum tried to contact any possible heirs of Mr. Turner, but was unsuccessful.
No specific information is available about the collection of the human remains. The human remains were found to be consistent with Native American morphology by a physical anthropologist (1983 Self Study funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities). Due to the generalized “Puget Sound region” provenience, the human remains were originally reported by the Museum of Natural History as being culturally unidentifiable under NAGPRA, although the 1983 study suggested a possible Nootka (Nuu-chah-nulth) affiliation for the human remains. During consultation with the Puyallup Tribe, the museum was notified that tribes inhabiting the Puget Sound area are culturally identifiable as Salish and not Nootka, as the Nootka are further north. The human remains show skull flattening in the manner consistent with the cultural history of Puyallup and other Salish tribes. Therefore, officials of the Museum of Natural History hereby determine the human remains to be those of a Salish Indian. Descendants of the Salish of the Puget Sound region are members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Port Gamble Indian Tribe of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington; Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington; Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington; Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip
In consultation with the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington, the museum has learned that there were many Puyallup villages along Puget Sound prior to treaty times. Additionally, the territory of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington (within Pierce County) extends to the Islands and waterways of Puget Sound, up to present day Steilacoom, out to present day Gig Harbor, embracing the cities of Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup, Edgewood, Sumner, and up to the top of Mount Rainier (and King County.) The Puyallup also occupied seasonal encampments in the Puget Sound area.
Based on lack of information about the removal from Puget Sound, Mr. Turner's and his heirs' failure to remove the human remains from the museum, and the fact that the Museum of Natural History has had stewardship of them since 1913, the museum considers the human remains abandoned and has decided to proceed as the responsible entity under NAGPRA.
Officials of the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Port Gamble Indian Tribe of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington; Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington; Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington; Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Marilyn Massaro, Curator of Collections, Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI 02907, telephone (401)785-9457, ext. 248, before November 12, 2009. Repatriation of the human remains to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Port Gamble Indian Tribe of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington; Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington; Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington; Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Museum of Natural History and Planetarium, Roger Williams Park is responsible for notifying the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Port Gamble Indian Tribe of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington; Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington; Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington; Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington; and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington that this notice has been published.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of inquiry and request for comments.
The United States Copyright Office (Copyright Office) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seek comment on possible solutions to enhance the accessibility of copyrighted works for the benefit of the blind or other persons with disabilities,
Initial comments on the Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments are due on or before November 13, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before December 4, 2009.
Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments: The Copyright Office and USPTO strongly prefer that comments be submitted electronically. A comment page containing a comment form will be posted on the Copyright Office web site at www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/comments and will be activated approximately two weeks prior to the comment deadline. The web site interface will allow commenters to enter required information into specified fields and upload comments as an attachment. In order to be accessible to visually impaired persons, all comments must be uploaded in a single file in either the Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format that contains searchable, accessible text (not an image); Microsoft Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a scanned document). The maximum file size is 6 megabytes (MB). The uploaded comment must include the name of the commenter. A browse button will facilitate submission of the completed form to the Copyright Office. All comments from this proceeding will be posted publicly on the Copyright Office web site. The name and organization of the commenter from the comment form
Maria Pallante, Associate Register, Policy and International Affairs, or Michele Woods, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202-707-1027 or by electronic mail at mpall@loc.gov or mwoo@loc.gov.
The treaty proposal would require the implementation of prescribed copyright exceptions and limitations, among other provisions. The stated purpose of the proposal is to “provide the necessary minimum flexibilities in copyright laws that are needed to ensure.formats that are accessible for persons who are blind, have low vision, or have other disabilities in reading text, in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others, and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of society.”
Most notably, the proposal would permit the cross-border import, export and qualified distribution of copyrighted works in accessible formats without the permission of the rights holders, including to countries that presently lack, in their national laws, a specific copyright exception or other legal framework for serving the visually impaired. The proposal would also permit the circumvention of technological protection measures for the purpose of making works accessible.
The United States has long been a leader in the area of providing popular books, textbooks, magazines, newspapers and other materials to the blind, through the services of several trusted organizations, including the Library of Congress (National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Disabled), American Printing House for the Blind, Recording for the Blind Dyslexic, and Bookshare.
In a floor statement at the eighteenth session of the SCCR (May 2009), the delegation of the United States affirmed its commitment to working jointly with stakeholders to find “timely, effective and practical solutions” to further enhance the accessibility of protected works, taking into account the complex and interrelated issues of copyright law, business models, technology and human and financial resources.
To date, the U.S. consultations have demonstrated that although there are willing buyers and sellers of accessible works, concerns over rights clearances, downstream infringement, and high costs prevent the marketplace of accessible works from growing to its full potential. Additionally, the United States has learned that improved implementation of existing legal and regulatory provisions may be needed in order to maximize the accessibility of works to the blind and other persons with disabilities. But there are many challenges that do not pose questions of law. For example, better coordination between trusted organizations, educational institutions, and publishers could reduce duplication of efforts and lead to a better variety of titles in accessible formats. Respect for technical standards would improve the
At the international level, the WIPO Secretariat has endeavored to address practical obstacles to accessibility by creating an exploratory partnership between publishers and visually impaired persons, known as the WIPO Stakeholders' Platform. The Stakeholders' Platform is exploring the “concrete needs, concerns, and suggested approaches” of facilitating access. For example, one subcommittee has been working on a series of private sector guidelines and pilot projects related to trusted intermediaries and cross-border access for registered, qualified users. More information may be found at http://www.visionip.org/stakeholders/en/trusted_intermediary_guidelines.html.
At the next (nineteenth) session of the SCCR (December 14-18, 2009), the United States is committed to discussing the treaty proposal, as well as other relevant solutions.
Documents from SCCR meetings, including documents regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for the blind and other persons with disabilities, can be found by starting at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=62 and following the link to information for each specific meeting. A study on copyright limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired can be found at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/ doc_details.jsp?doc_id=75696. The treaty proposal is available at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=122732.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held on October 30, 2009 in Room M-09 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. (ending time is approximate), will be open to the public on a space available basis. After opening remarks and announcements, the meeting will include Government Affairs and budget updates. This will be followed by presentations on the legacy of Merce Cunningham. Presenters will include Suzanne Carbonneau (critic and director of the
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, submitted with grant applications, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from the Office of Communications, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by November 12, 2009. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of consideration of a request from Western Nuclear Inc., for consent to indirect transfer of control over materials license SUA-56 and the opportunity to request a hearing.
A request for a hearing must be filed by November 2, 2009.
Richard Chang, Project Manager, Special Projects Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-7188; fax number: (301) 415-5369; e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application from Western Nuclear Inc., (WNI or licensee), submitted on July 22, 2009, requesting approval of an indirect change of control with respect to its 10 CFR part 40 source materials license SUA-56. WNI's parent company, Phelps Dodge Corporation (PDC) (currently named Freeport-McMoRan Corporation), was previously acquired in a reverse triangular merger by Freeport-McMoRan Copper Gold, Inc. (Freeport).
On March 19, 2007, Freeport acquired the entire interest in PDC, and Freeport now owns one hundred percent (100%) of PDC. This transaction resulted in the indirect transfer of control of WNI and license SUA-56 from PDC to Freeport. WNI is requesting that the NRC consent to this indirect change of control.
WNI's application states that, as a result of the 2007 transaction, there has been no change to the licensee's operations, and that its key operating personnel and licensed activities have remained the same. WNI has, and will continue to be, the holder of license SUA-56 after the approval of the indirect change of control. WNI will remain technically and financially qualified as the licensee and will continue to fulfill all responsibilities as the licensee.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 40.46, no source material license shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission, after securing full information, finds that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and gives its consent in writing. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will not be performed for this proposed action because it falls within a class of actions categorically excluded from the requirement to perform an EA pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21).
The NRC staff plans to approve the July 22, 2009, application by issuing the necessary order, along with a supporting safety evaluation report.
Any person whose interest may be affected if the July 22, 2009, application is approved, and who desires to participate as a party in an NRC adjudicatory hearing, must file a request for a hearing. The hearing request must include a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, and must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139, (August 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve 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 must 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 a motion, 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 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). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the due date.
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 2, 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 requestor;
2. The nature of the requestor's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
3. The nature and extent of the requestor'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 requestor's interest; and
5. 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 petitions 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
5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestor's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requestor/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 that the requestor/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requestor/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 requestor'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. Contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer.
Requestors/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 requestors/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requestor/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requestor/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 requestor/petitioner.
As indicated below, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.310(g), any hearing would be subject to the procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, subpart M