Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Public Debt Bureau
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Interim final rule.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is implementing the new Conservation Loan (CL) Program authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill). This interim rule adds the CL Program provisions to the existing direct and guaranteed loan regulations. These provisions will provide CL Program eligibility and servicing options for the direct and guaranteed loans made through the CL Program.
We invite you to submit written comments on this interim rule and on the information collection. In your comment, include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
•
•
•
Comments may be inspected in the Office of the Director, LMD, FSA, at 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 240, Washington, DC, Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., except holidays.
Connie Holman, Senior Loan Officer, LMD, FSA; telephone: (202) 690-0756; fax: (202) 720-6797; e-mail:
Currently, FSA's Farm Loan Programs (FLP) regulations do not specifically address financing needs for approved conservation practices. Section 5002 of the 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-246) amends section 304 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1924) to authorize the Secretary to make or guarantee qualified conservation loans to eligible borrowers to cover the cost of carrying out a qualified conservation project. FSA is inserting CL Program provisions in the existing direct and guaranteed loan regulations and is therefore amending 7 CFR parts 761, 762, 764, 765, and 766 to include the CL program. This rule provides definitions, eligibility requirements, and program uses that will be specific only to the CL Program. The CL Program will also contain several specific exceptions that differ from many of FSA's more stringent traditional loan program requirements such as family farm requirements, test for credit, and graduation based on section 304 of the CONACT. In addition, in many cases FSA will partner with cost share programs provided by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA, to provide funding for the implementation of qualified conservation practices as outlined in an approved conservation plan developed by NRCS.
The FLP General Program Administration regulations in 7 CFR part 761 include regulations addressing general provisions, supervised bank accounts, supervised credit, allocation of FLP funds to State offices. The regulations in 7 CFR part 761 provide the general and administrative regulations for both guaranteed and direct loans and will, therefore, apply to the CL Program.
Abbreviations and definitions used throughout FSA FLP are in 7 CFR 761.2. This rule adds abbreviations and definitions to that part that will be used for both the direct and guaranteed loans made through the CL Program.
FSA will add abbreviations for “Conservation Loan” and “Natural Resources and Conservation Service.” These abbreviations will be used frequently and will allow for consistency throughout regulations and between the direct and guaranteed loan programs.
(1) “Qualified conservation loan” means “a loan, the proceeds of which are used to cover the costs to the borrower of carrying out a qualified conservation project.”
(2) “Qualified conservation project” means “conservation measures that address provisions of a conservation plan of the eligible borrower.”
(3) “Conservation plan” means
(A) The installation of conservation structures to address soil, water, and related resources;
(B) The establishment of forest cover for sustained yield timber management, erosion control, or shelter belt purposes;
(C) The installation of water conservation measures;
(D) The installation of waste management systems;
(E) The establishment or improvement of permanent pasture;
(F) Compliance with section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 1985; and
(G) Other purposes consistent with the plan, including the adoption of any other
FSA is adding definitions of “qualified conservation loan” and “qualified conservation project” into the regulations in § 761.2(b) with minor, nonsubstantive wording changes for consistency with the regulation. The defined terms will become “conservation loan” and “conservation project”.
FSA, in coordination with NRCS, is also adopting a more technically adequate definition of “conservation plan” to mean:
This definition of conservation plan provides consistency between FSA and NRCS procedures. FSA considers consistency especially important due to the statutory role that conservation plans play in eligibility for the CL Program.
FSA is revising the current definition for “graduation.” The change to the “graduation” definition of adding the words “except for Conservation Loans” is necessary because the CL Program does not include graduation provisions. Section 304 of the CONACT specifically states that section 333(1) and (3) graduation requirements do not apply.
FSA is revising the definitions for “beginning farmer” and “program loan” to add “CL” in the loan types listed in the definitions.
FSA is adding the definition for “streamlined conservation loan.” The definition is necessary because FSA will reduce paperwork requirements for applicants meeting certain criteria as discussed below.
FSA is amending 7 CFR 761.8 to specify that the existing loan limits will apply to both the direct and guaranteed loans made through the CL Program. Direct and guaranteed CL limits will count toward both the individual and combined real estate (Subtitle A of the CONACT) loan program limits previously established and specified in the regulation based on section 305 of the CONACT. That section limits direct CLs under section 304 to the smaller of the value of the security or $300,000. Guaranteed CLs also are subject to the existing combined guaranteed loan limit of $700,000 (adjusted by inflation) under section 305.
Periodically FSA FLP assesses each direct borrower's farming operation to determine financial condition, organizational structure, management strengths, credit counseling and training needs, and the appropriate level of oversight. This assessment is completed with the borrower to develop a plan to enhance the borrower's ability to progress in management skills financially to the point that the borrower is able to graduate from FSA and secure commercial credit. Section 761.103 specifies key factors that must be evaluated, at a minimum, for each operation. FSA is amending § 761.103 to provide that, for the applicants who have demonstrated the ability to meet certain requirements, FSA will not require historical performance and supervisor plans as part of the application process that are standard to other FLP loan applications. These applicants will be required to have a debt to asset ratio of 40 percent or less, a net worth of 3 times the loan amount, and a Fair Isaac Corporation (known as FICO) score of 700 or more. FSA believes that CL borrowers who met these requirements have demonstrated a high level of management skills and financial security. All CL Program borrowers would still be required to provide a current balance sheet annually along with income tax records, which would enable FSA to complete an abbreviated assessment. Any negative trends noted between balance sheets must be evaluated and addressed in the assessment.
FSA is requiring that if a CL borrower becomes financially distressed, delinquent, or receives any servicing options available in 7 CFR part 766, then all elements of the assessment must be included and addressed even if the loan was initially made under the reduced application exemption. This is necessary to fully assess the problem and correct any delinquency.
Since certain CL Program applicants provide reduced documentation for loan approval, FSA believes it would be inconsistent to require significant additional information for routine monitoring of the borrower's progress. Therefore, FSA is amending § 761.105 to exempt certain CL Program borrowers from a year-end analysis requirement. Borrowers that qualify for reduced documentation CLs will still be required to submit a current balance sheet annually with income tax records to facilitate FSA's loan monitoring process.
As discussed above, FSA is incorporating the CL Program into the existing FLP regulations in 7 CFR part 761. Specifically, FSA is making the following changes to accommodate the addition of the new CL Program into the regulations:
(1) In § 761.201 adding CL to the list of loans for allocation of funds;
(2) In § 761.202 adding CL to the list of loans in the timing of allocations;
(3) In § 761.204 adding CL to the list of loans in the methods of allocating funds to FSA State offices;
(4) In § 761.205 adding CL to the list of loans for computing the formula allocation; CLs will be treated like Farm Ownership (FO) loans rather than OLs for formula allocation purposes since they are real estate (Subtitle A) loans;
(5) In § 761.206 adding CL to the list of loans for pooling of unobligated funds allocated to State Offices; and
(6) In § 761.208 adding CL to the list of loan types that will receive target participation rates for socially disadvantaged groups in accordance with section 355 of the CONACT.
Section 304 of the CONACT specifies that in making or guaranteeing CLs, the following categories will be given funding priority (in addition to the target participation rates for socially disadvantaged farmers that are listed above in item 6):
(a) Beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers;
(b) Owners or tenants who use the loans to convert to sustainable or organic agricultural production systems as defined in § 761.210; and
(c) Producers who use the loans to build conservation structures or establish conservation practices to comply with the highly erodible land conservation exemptions (section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198, commonly referred to as the 1985 Farm Bill, 16 U.S.C. 3812)).
Therefore, FSA is adding 7 CFR 761.210 to establish direct and guaranteed CL funds priority. Thirty-five percent of direct and guarantee CL funds will be targeted for these priorities in the first 6 months of each fiscal year. Once targets are removed from funding allocations, if a priority and a non-priority loan are approved on the same day, the priority request would always be funded before the non-
FSA is making the following changes to accommodate the addition of the new CL Program into the guaranteed loan regulations:
(1) In § 762.101 adding CL to the list of types of guarantees available through FSA;
(2) In § 762.106 adding CL to the list of types of guarantees that can be made to qualify for Certified Lender status and to amend references that will change as a result of adding the CL Program into the regulations;
(3) In § 762.120 adding CL to the list of types of guarantees for applicant eligibility; and
(4) In § 762.128 adding CL to the list of types of guarantees that are subject to environmental requirements found in part 1940 subpart G;
To determine whether a conservation project qualifies for a loan guarantee, FSA will rely on NRCS approved conservation plans. NRCS provides national leadership in the conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources. An approved NRCS conservation plan will provide evidence to support the eligibility of the applicant's proposed conservation measure. Therefore, FSA is amending § 762.110, “Loan Application,” to require applicants to obtain an approved NRCS conservation plan. The approved conservation plan must be included in a complete CL Program application package to apply for a loan guarantee.
Unlike traditional FSA loan programs, section 304 of the CONACT explicitly excludes the inability to obtain commercial credit as an eligibility requirement for the CL Program. FSA has reviewed the implications of extending credit to farmers with strong financial positions and examined the existing application requirements for guarantees as it relates to the assessment of an applicant's financial condition and ability to repay. Unlike applicants for FOs and OLs, some CL applicants will be very strong financially, with high debt service capacities and significantly more than adequate equity in assets to secure the requested loan. For CL applicants with exceptionally strong financial positions, it is not reasonable to require a lender to perform as intensive a cash flow analysis as is necessary for applicants with marginal financial positions. FSA is amending § 762.110 also to provide that certain CL applicants will be eligible for reduced application materials if the applicant is current on all payments to all creditors including FSA, has a debt-to-asset ratio of 40 percent or less, has a net worth of at least 3 times the loan amount, and has a minimum FICO credit score of 700. For entity applicants, because entity credit reports are not assigned FICO credit scores, FSA has determined that a majority of the individual entity members must have a personal FICO score of at least 700. Please note that the requirement for a majority of members to have a personal FICO credit score of at least 700 applies only to certain CLs. For CL guarantee applicants meeting all four of the above criteria, FSA is also amending § 762.110 to waive the cash flow budget requirement for a complete application. Since minimum standards to waive the cash flow budget requirement meet or exceed those of the private lending sector, these streamlined loan applications will minimize paperwork burden for loan guarantees, while only exposing FSA to a minimal risk of loss. The reduced paperwork requirement will not preclude the lender from requesting additional financial information, when necessary, as in their current non-guaranteed application procedures. These exempted application requirements are consistent with the direct CL Program, except that guaranteed CLs do not prohibit primary loan servicing within the past 5 years since such servicing is inapplicable to guaranteed loans. Other criteria were considered such as working capital and collateral position, but the criteria are most similar to practices used in the private lending sector when evaluating loan eligibility and FSA believes that these criteria will provide a strong and reliable indication of the likelihood that the loan will be repaid.
FSA is also amending § 762.125 to provide an exception to the requirement that the operation must project a feasible plan to be added for CL Program streamlined guarantees.
Since section 304 of the CONACT exempts CL applicants from the traditional test for credit eligibility relating to no credit elsewhere and graduation requirements, FSA is amending 7 CFR 762.110 to specify that the market placement program will not be applicable to the CL Program. The market placement program requires that when FSA determines that a direct applicant or borrower may qualify for guaranteed credit, the FSA may submit the applicant's financial information to one or more guaranteed lenders for their review and if the lender indicates interest in providing financing to the applicant or borrower through the guaranteed loan program, FSA would assist in completing the application for a guarantee.
Section 304 of the CONACT also explicitly exempts guaranteed CL applicants from the program eligibility requirement pertaining to the operation of a “family farm.” Family farms are farms where the majority of the labor and management decisions are provided by the farm family as specified in 7 CFR 761.2. Therefore, FSA is amending 7 CFR 762.120, “Applicant Eligibility,” to exempt CL applicants from both the test for credit and family farm eligibility requirements. This will facilitate timely implementation of conservation practices that would otherwise be postponed due to lack of monetary resources.
FSA is amending 7 CFR 762.121 to address the use of funds disbursed under the guaranteed CL Program. The list of conservation activities that may be included in a conservation plan is not intended to be all-inclusive, but is given as guidance to implement the CL Program. Uses are consistent for both the guaranteed and direct loan programs, except that refinancing is only allowed using guaranteed CL funds and only if the lender and the applicant can demonstrate the need to refinance. FSA will place no additional conservation project approval burden on applicants and will accept NRCS approval of projects in conservation plans as sufficient to ensure that the project meets the criteria and intent of the CL Program. CL guarantees may be used for any conservation project included in the NRCS approved conservation plan for an applicant determined eligible under guaranteed CL regulations.
FSA is amending § 762.124 to specify terms for CL guarantees. Terms will be limited to the life of the security pledged for the loan, but will not exceed 20 years from the date of the note. This is consistent with loan programs administered by FSA in the past that funded conservation practices and limited the loan term to 20 years. FSA believes this term will provide applicants adequate time to repay CLs.
CLs are exempted from the provision in § 762.125(a)(9) that prohibits loan funds from being used to support a non-eligible enterprise. Non-eligible enterprises are defined in § 761.2 as a business that produces exotic animals,
FSA will guarantee 75 percent of an approved CL. Other FSA guarantees cover up to 95 percent, but section 304 of the CONACT specifically limits the CL guarantee to 75 percent. While the CONACT limits guarantee of the principal amount of CL, FSA also will apply the 75 percent limit to loan losses from interest, advances, and recapture debt consistent with its treatment of other FLP guaranteed loan maximum losses. FSA is making amendments to §§ 762.129 and 762.130 to specify the 75 percent guarantee accordingly.
FSA will use existing guaranteed loan servicing procedures for CLs. Existing servicing procedures provide lenders with servicing tools beyond what is available on their non-guaranteed loans. The existing servicing tools have proven to be effective in allowing lenders to assist their customers and in the overall success of the guaranteed loan portfolio.
FSA is amending § 762.145 to:
(1) Require that when the lender requests restructuring options, the lender must certify that the CL borrower is in compliance with the conservation plan. Conservation plans are directly tied to eligibility for the CL Program, therefore, eligibility for servicing options should be directly tied to continuing compliance with the conservation plan.
(2) Specify that terms for restructuring guaranteed CLs cannot exceed 20 years from the date of the original note.
FSA is also amending §§ 762.147 and 762.148 to update existing citations.
FSA is changing the following to accommodate the addition of the new CL Program into the direct loan regulations:
(1) In § 764.1, adding CL to the list of types of direct loans available through FSA; and
(2) In §§ 764.102 and 764.103, amending references that change as a result of adding the CL Program into the regulations.
As with the CL guarantee, to determine whether a conservation project qualifies for a CL direct loan, FSA will rely on the expertise of NRCS as related to conservation practices, and ultimately, conservation plans. An approved NRCS conservation plan will provide ample evidence to support the eligibility of the applicant's proposed conservation measure. Therefore, FSA is amending § 764.51, “Loan Application,” to require CL applicants to obtain an NRCS-approved conservation plan. The approved conservation plan must be included in a complete CL application package.
As explained above, section 304 of the CONACT explicitly excluded the inability to obtain commercial credit as an eligibility requirement for the CL program. FSA has reviewed the implications of extending credit to farmers with strong financial positions and examined the existing application requirements for FSA's other direct loan programs as it relates to the assessment of an applicant's financial condition and ability to repay. FSA is amending § 764.51 to provide that CL applicants do not have to submit documentation of the inability to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere at reasonable rates and terms. Unlike applicants for FSA other traditional direct loan programs, some CL applicants will be very strong financially, with high debt service capacities and significantly more than adequate equity in assets to secure the loan requested. For CL applicants with exceptionally strong financial positions, FSA will significantly reduce the paperwork required of these applicants. FSA is amending § 764.51 to provide that certain CL applicants will be eligible for reduced application requirements if the applicant is current on all payments to all creditors including FSA, has not received primary loan servicing on any FLP debt within the past 5 years, has a debt-to-asset ratio of 40 percent or less, has a net worth of at least 3 times the loan amount, and has a minimum FICO credit score of 700. For entity applicants, because entity credit reports are not assigned FICO credit scores, FSA has determined that a majority of the individual entity members must have a personal FICO score of at least 700. Please note that the requirement for a majority of members to have a personal FICO credit score of at least 700 applies only to loans granted to those who would be exempt from certain application requirements common to other loans. Other criteria were considered such as working capital and collateral position, but these criteria, which indicate a solid past history of debt repayment and the debt to asset ratio, net worth requirement, and minimum credit score, are most similar to practices used in the private lending sector when evaluating loan eligibility and will provide a strong and reliable indication of the likelihood that the loan will be repaid.
FSA is also amending 7 CFR 764.53, “Processing the Complete Application,” to specify that the market placement program requirements will not be applicable to the CL program as discussed above.
Section 304 of the CONACT explicitly exempts the CL Program direct loans from the program eligibility requirement pertaining to their inability to obtain credit from conventional sources under section 333 and did not require operation of a family farm as under section 302(a)(3). Under regulations applicable to other FSA FLP, loan assistance is limited to owner-operators or tenant-operators of family farms who temporarily lack the financial resources to obtain conventional credit at reasonable rate and terms. The exemption for CLs allows operators outside the scope of a family farm operation with financial strength to obtain credit from other lenders, an additional way to fund conservation projects. These changes benefit the environment and support existing and new sustainable and organic food production systems within the United States. Therefore, FSA is amending 7 CFR 764.101, “General Eligibility Requirements,” to exempt CL applicants from those requirements. FSA is also adding § 764.232 to limit CL eligibility to applicants meeting the eligibility requirements as specified in 7 CFR 764.101 with the same exceptions.
For FLP, as specified in 7 CFR 764. 103(e), FSA generally requires a lien on all assets, valued at more than $5,000, that are not essential to the farming operation and not being converted to cash to reduce the loan amount. Currently, downpayment loans and youth loans are exempt from the lien requirement. CL Program direct loan applicants will also be exempt from the lien requirement because of their expected stronger financial condition as compared to other FLP borrowers. Therefore, FSA is amending 7 CFR 764.103(e) to specify that the lien requirement and requirement to convert assets to cash do not apply to applicants for CL Program direct loans.
FSA is adding new subpart F, “Conservation Loan Program,” which
FSA is adding § 764.233, “Limitations,” to require applicants to comply with all limitations specified for direct program loans in § 764.102 except the prohibition that limits the use of loan funds to establish or support a non-eligible enterprise. As stated above for guaranteed loans, this exception is in keeping with the intent of the CL Program.
Section 764.233, also requires that any duplicative financial assistance provided for the same purpose from another source will be applied to the borrower's CL in accordance with § 765.152. This will provide a mechanism for FSA to provide funds “up front” for the construction of conservation projects and be able to collect any funds provided from other sources after construction or implementation is completed.
FSA is adding § 764.234 to specify rates and terms for direct CLs. The interest rate will be the same as FSA's direct FO rate in accordance with section 307 of the CONACT. Loan rates are available at all FSA offices and on the FSA Web site. The interest rate will be at the lower of the rate in effect at the time of loan approval or at loan closing.
Direct CL terms will be limited to the life of the security pledged for the loan, but will not exceed 7 years for chattel only loans and 20 years from the date of the note for other CLs. This is consistent with loan programs administered by FSA in the past that funded conservation practices and were limited the loan term to 20 years. FSA believes this term provides applicants adequate time to repay CLs.
Section 764.235 is added to provide that direct CLs will be secured in accordance with the requirements specified in §§ 764.103-764.106, which is consistent with direct FO loans. FSA is adding security requirements and order of priority regulations to allow flexibility in securing direct CLs when NRCS-approved conservation practices are planned on real estate that is not owned by the applicant, or when the real estate is owned by the applicant, but taking a lien might impact the producer's normal course of business. First priority will be to take a lien on any real estate, if available. FSA is not requiring a lien be taken on the real estate on which the project is being completed, but will accept a lien on any real estate that is adequate to fulfill security requirements specified in §§ 764.103-764.106. In cases where no real estate security is available, chattels may be used to secure direct CLs, provided that the chattels are determined adequate and acceptable to FSA. To assure that such loans are adequately secured until paid, loans secured by chattel property may not exceed a 7 year term.
There is no graduation requirement for CL in the direct loan servicing because the 2008 Farm Bill exempts the CL Program from the test for credit requirement and graduation requirements. Graduation, as defined in 7 CFR 761.2, means payment in full of all direct FLP loans made for operating, real estate, or both purposes by refinancing with other credit sources either with or without a FSA guarantee. Therefore, FSA is amending §§ 765.101, 765.205, 765.206, 765.207, 765.253, and 765.351 to provide that CLs are not subject to graduation requirements.
FSA is amending § 766.107 to add CL to the list of FSA loans that can be rescheduled and to provide that the maximum term for servicing actions will be 20 years from the date of the original date instrument because the maximum term of any CL is 20 years.
FSA is amending § 766.108 to add CL to the list of FSA loans that can be reamortized and to provide that the maximum term for servicing actions will be 20 years from the date of the original debt instrument because the maximum term of any CL is 20 years.
In general, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
Conservation of natural resources, including soil, air and water, is a high priority for this Administration. There is strong interest and participation from farmers in programs that support and encourage conservation practices. Conservation activities help to maintain or restore the productive capacity of working agricultural lands, preserve or restore habitat for threatened and endangered species, preserve or restore habitat for game birds and sports fish, increase the availability and accessibility of outdoor recreational activities, increase carbon sequestration reducing the impacts of global warming, and reduce the agricultural run-off that threatens the health of the Nation's lakes, bays, and waterways; including the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi Gulf, and Great Lakes. New conservation initiatives, including Presidential initiatives such as “A 21st Century Strategy for America's Great Outdoors,” are being developed, placing greater emphasis on conservation measures; and highlighting that such measures are clearly in the public interest.
Many farmers who need and want to implement conservation measures on their land, do not have the “up front” funds available to implement these practices. This is particularly true for farmers in the livestock sector who are experiencing low profitability, but may have the most critical need to implement conservation practices due to increasing pressure to minimize or eliminate: (1) Surface water quality deterioration from spills and manure runoff; (2) surface water quantity being depleted by larger operations; and (3) odor nuisance from large barns and manure storage.
Many USDA conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), provide only cost-share assistance, which is generally 50 to 90 percent of the cost to implement the conservation practice. Farmers and ranchers are required to complete the practice and provide receipts prior to receiving the cost-share reimbursement. While these conservation projects are environmentally valuable, they may contribute very little to the economic productivity of the farming operation providing little incentive for private sector institutions to provide financing. This often means that implementation of environmentally vital conservation measures must be postponed because “up front” capital is not available to the farmer.
Accordingly, FSA finds that good cause exists to publish this rule as an interim rule, effective immediately.
This Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, OMB reviewed this rule. A cost benefit assessment of this rule is summarized below and is available from the contact listed above.
The CL Program provides eligibility and servicing options to participants in certain conservation activities through FSA direct and guaranteed loan programs. More specifically, a direct or guaranteed FSA loan can be used to help fund any approved NRCS conservation plan, even if the project involves a non-eligible enterprise as defined by 7 CFR 761.2. This approach encourages the adoption of conservation practices that provide the maximum benefit to society, as discussed below. Because it is voluntary, the program will not impose any unnecessary burden on producers.
The CL Program is expected to generate $14.5 million in annual direct loan obligations and $11.9 million in annual guaranteed obligations, much of which will be used to fund the producer's share of NRCS cost-share projects. Lower interest rates and easier loan terms will result in greater demand for NRCS cost-share projects. With greater demand, it is expected that NRCS will be able to allocate limited funds among projects that would have greater environmental benefits to society. If the CL Program results in a 5 percent increase in benefits, total annual benefits to society would increase by $1.41 million.
Demand for CL funds is not expected to be limited to just NRCS cost-share projects. For example, a producer may use the CL Program without cost-share in circumstances where delays in implementation of conservation practices would risk loss of USDA benefits or constrain farm production. The CL Program is expected to encourage the implementation of conservation practices beyond what can be funded using available NRCS cost-share funds.
The requirements found in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, must be met for the CL program consistent with the existing direct and guaranteed loan regulations.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule preempts State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule. Before any judicial action may be brought concerning the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.
The policies in this rule would not have any substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
The policies contained in this rule would not have tribal implications that preempt tribal law.
USDA will undertake, within 6 months after this rule becomes effective, a series of regulation Tribal consultation sessions to gain input by Tribal officials concerning the impact of this rule on Tribal governments, communities, and individuals. These sessions will establish a baseline of consultation for future actions, should any become necessary, regarding this rule. Reports from these sessions for consultation will be made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. USDA will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this rule and will provide additional venues, such as webinars and teleconferences, to periodically host collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve this rule in Indian country.
This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
The title and number of the Federal assistance programs in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule would apply are:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as specified in 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), all the following information collection requests have been submitted for emergency approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FSA obtained a 6-month OMB approval in order to require persons to complete the information collection activities for the CL Program.
FSA still plans to obtain the 3-year approval to continue the information collection so FSA is requesting comments from interested individuals and organizations on the CL Program information collection activities and changes in the information collection activities related to the regulatory changes in this rule. In all of these new information collection requests, FSA is inserting the CL provisions into the existing regulations to provide loans to the borrowers who are eligible to cover the costs of carrying out the qualified conservation project.
The approved information collection request will be incorporated into the existing approved information collection requests (of the same titles) that will be up for a renewal this year. Due to the differences in expected applications for direct loans versus guaranteed loans, and the differences in the number of individuals required to submit the information (applicant versus both lender and applicant), even though the information collections are to implement the CL Program, the number of respondents varies for each of the information collection requests described below.
Once this information collection is approved, it will be incorporated into existing collection package 0560-0238.
Once this information collection is approved, it will be incorporated into existing collection package 0560-0155.
Once this information collection is approved, it will be incorporated into existing collection package 0560-0237.
Once this information collection is approved, it will be incorporated into existing collection package 0560-0236.
Once this information collection is approved, it will be incorporated into existing collections package 0560-0233.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Accounting, Loan programs agriculture, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Credit, Loan programs—agriculture.
Agriculture, Disaster assistance, Loan programs—agriculture.
Agriculture, Agricultural commodities, Credit, Livestock, Loan programs—agriculture.
Agriculture, Agricultural commodities, Credit, Livestock, Loan programs—agriculture.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Farm Ownership, Downpayment loans, Conservation loans, and Soil and Water loans:
(iii) Any combination of a direct Farm Ownership loan, direct Conservation loan, direct Soil and Water loan, guaranteed Farm Ownership loan, guaranteed Conservation loan, and guaranteed Soil and Water loan-$700,000 (for fiscal year 2000 and increased each fiscal year in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section);
(3) Any combination of guaranteed Farm Ownership loan, guaranteed Conservation loan, guaranteed Soil and Water loan, and guaranteed Operating loan-$700,000 (for fiscal year 2000 and increased each fiscal year in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section);
(4) Any combination of direct Farm Ownership loan, direct Conservation loan, direct Soil and Water loan, direct Operating loan, guaranteed Farm Ownership loan, guaranteed Conservation loan, guaranteed Soil and Water loan, and guaranteed Operating loan-the amount in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section plus $300,000;
(6) Any combination of direct Farm Ownership loan, direct Conservation loan, direct Soil and Water loan, direct Operating loan, guaranteed Farm Ownership, guaranteed Conservation loan, guaranteed Soil and Water loan, guaranteed Operating loan, and Emergency loan-the amount in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section plus $800,000.
(d) The Agency reviews the assessment to determine a borrower's progress at least annually. The review will be in the form of an office visit, field visit, letter, phone conversation, or year-end analysis, as determined by the Agency. For streamlined CLs, the borrower must provide a current balance sheet and income tax records. Any negative trends noted between the previous years' and the current years'
(e) If a CL borrower becomes financially distressed, delinquent, or receives any servicing options available under part 766 of this chapter, all elements of the assessment in paragraph (b) of this section must be addressed.
(a) The following applicants and conservation projects will receive priority for CL funding:
(1) Beginning farmer or socially disadvantaged farmer,
(2) An applicant who will use the loan funds to convert to a sustainable or organic agriculture production system as evidenced by one of the following:
(i) A conservation plan that states the applicant is moving toward a sustainable or organic production system, or
(ii) An organic plan, approved by a certified agent and the State organic certification program, or
(iii) A grant awarded by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
(3) An applicant who will use the loan funds to build conservation structures or establish conservation practices to comply with 16 U.S.C. 3812 (section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 1985) for highly erodible land.
(b) [Reserved]
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
(a) * * * This subpart contains regulations governing Operating loans, Farm Ownership loans, and Conservation loans guaranteed by the Agency. * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Cash flow budget, unless waived when conditions in paragraph (d) of this section are met;
(vi) A plan for servicing the loan;
(vii) For CL guarantees, a copy of the conservation plan;
(viii) To request consideration for priority funding for CL guarantees, plans to transition to organic or sustainable agriculture when the funds requested will be used to facilitate the transition.
(b)
(c) * * *
(2) A loan narrative;
(3) For CL guarantees, a copy of the conservation plan;
(4) To request consideration for priority funding for CL guarantees, plans to transition to organic or sustainable agriculture when the funds requested will be used to facilitate the transition.
(d)
(1) Be current on all payments to all creditors including the Agency (if currently an Agency borrower),
(2) Debt to asset ratio is 40 percent or less,
(3) Balance sheet indicates a net worth of 3 times the requested loan amount or greater, and
(4) FICO credit score is at least 700. For entity applicants, the FICO credit score of the majority of the individual members of the entity must be at least 700.
Unless otherwise provided, applicants must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a guaranteed OL, FO, or CL.
(h)
(l)
(1) The majority interest holders of the entity must meet the requirements of paragraph (d), (f), and (g) of this section;
(2) The entity must be controlled by farmers engaged primarily and directly in farming or ranching in the United States after the loan is made;
(3) The entity members are not themselves entities; and
(4) The entity must be authorized to operate a farm in the State or States in which the farm is located.
(m)
(c)
(1) The installation of conservation structures to address soil, water, and related resources;
(2) The establishment of forest cover for sustained yield timber management, erosion control, or shelter belt purposes;
(3) The installation of water conservation measures;
(4) The installation of waste management systems;
(5) The establishment or improvement of permanent pasture;
(6) Other purposes including the adoption of any other emerging or existing conservation practices, techniques, or technologies; and
(7) Refinancing indebtedness incurred for any authorized CL purpose, when refinancing will result in additional conservation benefits.
(d)
(a) * * * Except for streamlined CL guarantees, the following requirements must be met and applications processed as specified in § 762.110(d):
(b) * * * Except for streamlined CL guarantees, the following requirements must be met and applications processed as specified in § 762.110(d):
(a) * * * For CLs, the percent of guarantee will be 75 percent.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For PLP lenders, if the 14 day time frame is not met, the proposed guaranteed loan will automatically be approved, subject to funding, and receive an 80 or 95 percent guarantee for FO or OL loans, and 75 percent guarantee for CL, as appropriate.
(b) * * *
(10) For CL, the lender must certify that the borrower remains in compliance with the approved conservation plan.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) CL will be amortized over the remaining term or rescheduled with an uneven payment schedule. The maturity date cannot exceed 20 years from the date of the original note.
(e) * * *
(5) The loan will be restructured with regular payments at terms no shorter than 5 years for a line of credit and OL term note; and no shorter than 20 years for FO and CL, unless required to be shorter by paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
(b) * * *
(2) OL, including Youth loans;
(3) EM; and
(4) CL.
(b) * * *
(6) Except for CL, documentation that the applicant and each member of an entity applicant cannot obtain sufficient credit elsewhere on reasonable rates and terms, including a loan guarantee to the Agency;
(14) For EM loans, a statement of loss or damage on the appropriate Agency form;
(15) For CL only, a conservation plan as defined in § 761.2 of this chapter; and
(16) For CL only, and if the applicant wishes to request consideration for priority funding, plans to transition to organic or sustainable agriculture when the funds requested will be used to facilitate the transition.
(d) For a CL Program streamlined application, the applicant must meet all of the following:
(1) Be current on all payments to all creditors including the Agency (if currently an Agency borrower).
(2) Have not received primary loan servicing on any FLP debt within the past 5 years.
(3) Have a debt to asset ratio that is 40 percent or less.
(4) Have a balance sheet that indicates a net worth of 3 times the requested loan amount or greater.
(5) Have a FICO credit score from the Agency obtained credit report of at least 700. For entity applicants, the FICO credit score of the majority of the individual members of the entity must be at least 700.
(6) Submit the following items:
(i) Items specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(7), (b)(11), (b)(15), and (b)(16) of this section,
(ii) A current financial statement less than 90 days old, and
(iii) Upon Agency request, other information specified in paragraph (b) of this section necessary to make a determination on the loan application.
(d) Except for CL requests, if based on the Agency's review of the application, it appears the applicant's credit needs could be met through the guaranteed loan program, the Agency will assist the applicant in securing guaranteed loan assistance under the market placement program as specified in § 762.110(h) of this chapter.
(a) CL funds may be used for any conservation activities included in a conservation plan including, but not limited to:
(1) The installation of conservation structures to address soil, water, and related resources;
(2) The establishment of forest cover for sustained yield timber management, erosion control, or shelter belt purposes;
(3) The installation of water conservation measures;
(4) The installation of waste management systems;
(5) The establishment or improvement of permanent pasture; and
(6) Other purposes including the adoption of any other emerging or existing conservation practices, techniques, or technologies.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The applicant:
(1) Must comply with general eligibility requirements specified in § 764.101 except paragraphs (e) and (k) of that section;
(2) And anyone who will sign the promissory note, must not have received debt forgiveness from the Agency on any direct or guaranteed loan; and
(3) Must be the owner-operator or tenant-operator of a farm and be engaged in agricultural production after the time of loan is closed. In the case of an entity:
(i) The entity is controlled by farmers engaged primarily and directly in farming in the United States;
(ii) The entity must be authorized to operate a farm in the State in which the farm is located.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The applicant must comply with the general limitations specified in
(b) The applicant must agree to repay any duplicative financial benefits or assistance to CL.
(a)
(1) Will be the Agency's Direct Farm Ownership rate, available in each Agency office.
(2) Charged will be the lower rate in effect either at the time of loan approval or loan closing.
(b)
(1) The Agency schedules repayment of a CL based on the useful life of the security.
(2) The maximum term for loans secured by chattels only will not exceed 7 years from the date of the note.
(3) In no event will the term of the loan exceed 20 years from the date of the note.
(a) The loan must be secured:
(1) In accordance with requirements established in §§ 764.103 through 764.106; and
(2) In the order of priority as follows:
(i) By real estate, if available, and then
(ii) By chattels, if determined acceptable by the Agency.
(b) [Reserved]
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
(g) CLs are not subject to graduation requirements under this part.
(b) * * *
(6) Refunds of duplicate program benefits or assistance to be applied on CL or EM loans; or
5 U.S.C. 301 and 7 U.S.C. 1981(d) and 1989.
(c) * * *
(2) Except for CL and RL loans, the repayment period cannot exceed 15 years from the date of the consolidation and rescheduling.
(3) The repayment schedule for RL loans may not exceed 7 years from the date of rescheduling.
(4) The repayment schedule for CLs may not exceed 20 years from the date of the original note or assumption agreement.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) CLs may not exceed 20 years from the date of the original note or assumption agreement.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from Alpharma, Inc., to Alpharma LLC. The sponsor's mailing address will also be changed.
This rule is effective September 3, 2010.
David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8307, email:
Alpharma, Inc., 440 Rte. 22, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 has informed FDA that it has changed its name and address to Alpharma LLC, 400 Crossing Blvd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect this change.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for two new animal drug applications (NADAs) from G. C. Hanford Manufacturing Co. to Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd.
This rule is effective September 3, 2010.
David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8307,e-mail:
G. C. Hanford Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1017, Syracuse, NY 13201, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 65-493 for Penicillin G Procaine Aqueous Suspension and NADA 65-500 for Penicillin G Benzathine and Penicillin G Procaine Suspension, to Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., Station Works, Newry BT35 6JP, Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 522.1696a and 522.1696b to reflect the transfer of ownership.
In addition, FDA has noticed that “G. C. Hanford” and “GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc.” are not spelled correctly in the listing of sponsors of approved NADAs. At this time, the table in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) is amended. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b) * * *
(1) Nos. 000856, 049185, 055529, and 061623 for use as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Nos. 055529, 059130, and 061623 for use as in paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii)(A), and (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Treatment of bacterial pneumonia (
(iii)
(b) * * *
(1) Nos. 053501, 055529, and 059130 for use as in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) No. 061623 for use as in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For Nos. 053501, 055529, 059130, and 061623: Continue treatment at least 48 hours after symptoms disappear.
(iii) * * *
(B) For Nos. 055529 and 059130: Continue treatment at least 1 day after symptoms disappear (usually 2 or 3 days).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Bayer HealthCare LLC. The supplement provides for two new sizes of praziquantel and pyrantel pamoate tablets used in cats and kittens for the removal of various internal parasites and for a revised kitten age and weight restriction.
This rule is effective September 3, 2010.
Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8337, email:
Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, filed a supplement to NADA 141-008 for DRONTAL (praziquantel and pyrantel pamoate) Tablets used in cats and kittens for the removal of various internal parasites. The supplement provides for two new tablet sizes and for a revised kitten age and weight restriction. The supplemental NADA is approved as of June 15, 2010, and 21 CFR 520.1871 is amended to reflect the approval.
FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a) * * *
(1) Each tablet contains 13.6 milligrams (mg) praziquantel and 54.3 mg pyrantel base (as pyrantel pamoate), 18.2 mg praziquantel and 72.6 mg pyrantel base (as pyrantel pamoate), or 27.2 mg praziquantel and 108.6 mg pyrantel base (as pyrantel pamoate).
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(iii)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) filed by Intervet, Inc. The supplemental NADA adds
This rule is effective September 3, 2010.
Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8341, e-mail:
Intervet, Inc., 56 Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068, filed a supplement to NADA 141-299 that provides for use of RESFLOR GOLD (florfenicol and flunixin meglumine), a combination drug injectable solution. The supplement adds
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning on the date of approval.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(d) * * *
(2)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of two supplemental new animal drug applications (NADAs) filed by Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co. The supplemental NADAs provide for administering a Type C medicated feed containing ractopamine hydrochloride as a top dress on Type C medicated feeds containing monensin, USP, or monensin, USP, and tylosin phosphate to cattle fed in confinement for slaughter.
This rule is effective September 3, 2010.
Suzanne J. Sechen, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8105, e-mail:
Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 141-225 that provides for use of OPTAFLEXX (ractopamine hydrochloride) and RUMENSIN (monensin, USP) Type A medicated articles to formulate two-way combination drug Type C medicated feeds for cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. Elanco Animal Health also filed a supplement to NADA 141-224 that provides for use of OPTAFLEXX (ractopamine hydrochloride), RUMENSIN (monensin, USP), and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) Type A medicated articles to formulate three-way combination drug Type C medicated feeds for cattle fed in confinement for slaughter.
The supplemental NADAs provide for administering ractopamine hydrochloride Type C medicated feeds as a top dress on Type C medicated feeds containing monensin, USP, or monensin, USP, and tylosin phosphate to cattle fed in confinement for slaughter as the means by which the two-way or three-way combinations will be created. Supplemental NADA 141-224 is approved as of June 7, 2010; supplemental NADA 141-225 is approved as of June 17, 2010; and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.500 are amended to reflect the approvals.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summaries of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of these applications may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that these actions are of a type that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
On July 15, 2010, HUD issued a notice seeking comment on three initiatives that HUD proposed would contribute to the restoration of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) capital reserve account. This document is limited to implementation of HUD's proposal to introduce a minimum credit score threshold and reduce the maximum LTV. At the end of the public comment period on August 16, 2010, HUD received 902 comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments focused on HUD's proposal to cap seller concessions. HUD is continuing to review and consider the issues raised by commenters on capping seller concessions as well as those pertaining to HUD's proposal to tighten manual underwriting guidelines. HUD's final decision on these two proposals will be addressed separately.
Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On July 15, 2010, at 75 FR 41217, HUD issued a proposed rule seeking comment on three initiatives that HUD proposed would contribute to the restoration of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) capital reserve account. The proposed changes were developed to preserve both the historical role of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in providing a home financing vehicle during periods of economic volatility and HUD's social mission of helping underserved borrowers. In the July 15, 2010, notice, HUD proposed the following: To reduce the amount of closing costs a seller may pay on behalf of a homebuyer purchasing a home with FHA-insured mortgage financing for the purposes of calculating the maximum mortgage amount; to introduce a credit score threshold as well as reduce the maximum loan-to-value (LTV) for borrowers with lower credit scores who represent a higher risk of default and mortgage insurance claim; and to tighten underwriting standards for mortgage loan transactions that are manually underwritten.
A recently issued independent actuarial study shows that the MMIF capital ratio has fallen below its statutorily mandated threshold.
Over the past two years, the volume of FHA insurance has increased rapidly as private sources of mortgage finance retreated from the market. FHA's share of the single-family mortgage market today is approximately 30 percent—up from 3 percent in 2007, and the dollar volume of insurance written has jumped from the $56 billion issued in that year to more than $300 billion in 2009. The growth in the MMIF portfolio over such a short period of time coincided with worsening economic conditions that have seen high levels of defaults and foreclosures, and consequently unacceptable risks of loss to the MMIF. Given these conditions and concerns, FHA, in managing the MMIF, must be especially vigilant in monitoring the performance of the portfolio, enhancing risk controls, and tightening standards to address portions of the business that expose homeowners to excessive financial risks. FHA's authorizing statute, the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701
The July 15, 2010, notice represents another step in HUD's effort to preserve the MMIF and preserve FHA as a source of available credit for affordable home mortgages. Interested readers are referred to the July 15, 2010 notice for details regarding the proposed changes to FHA requirements.
As noted in the preceding section, this document is limited to implementation of the revised credit score and LTV requirements, and takes into consideration the public comments received on HUD's proposal to establish a minimum decision credit score and reduce LTV, as set forth in the July 15, 2010 notice. The majority of the public comments that HUD received in response to the July 15, 2010, focused on the other two proposals (the reduction in seller concessions and revised manual underwriting requirements). HUD is continuing to review and consider the issues raised by the comments on these two proposals, as well as alternative proposals raised by commenters. HUD's final decision on these two proposals will be addressed separately. Section III of this document discusses the significant issues raised by the public comments regarding the new credit score and LTV requirements, as well as HUD's responses to these issues. The separate document to address capping seller concessions and tightening underwriting guidelines will address the public comments on these proposals.
The July 15, 2010 notice more fully addresses the reasons for the establishment of a minimum decision credit score and reduction in LTV for FHA mortgage insurance, and readers are referred to the notice for the more in-depth discussion of this proposal (see 75 FR 41220-41222). As discussed in the July 15, 2010, notice, FHA serves very few borrowers with credit scores below 500; however, the performance of these borrowers is very poor. FHA data indicate that insured mortgages with decision credit scores below 580 have significantly worse default and claim experience than do loans at or above 580. The revised credit score and LTV requirements increase the likelihood that borrowers who are offered FHA-insured mortgages are capable of repaying these mortgages. Under this document, effectively, a borrower with a decision credit score between 500 and 579 will be required to make a greater downpayment [at minimum, 10 percent] than a borrower with a higher score, for the purchase of a home with the same sales price.
At the close of the public comment period on August 16, 2010, HUD received 902 public comments on the issue of establishing a minimum decision credit score and new LTV requirements. This section discusses the most significant issues raised by the commenters on these proposals, and HUD's responses to these issues.
1.
The decision credit score used by FHA is based on methodologies developed by the FICO Corporation. FICO scores, which range from a low of 300 to a high of 850, are calculated with input by each of the three National Credit Bureaus and are based upon credit-related information reported by creditors, specific to each applicant. Lower credit scores indicate greater risk of default on any new credit extended to the applicant. The decision credit score is based on the middle of three National Credit Bureau scores or the lower of two scores when all three are not available, for the lowest scoring applicant.
2.
3.
This temporary exemption recognizes that, given current economic conditions, the decision credit scores announced in this notice may be counterproductive in helping existing homeowners refinance to obtain more affordable mortgages and save their homes. FHA recognizes that even homeowners who have been able to make their monthly payments may have had their credit scores negatively impacted by the downturn in the economy which has so seriously affected the housing market.
This exemption is applicable only to borrowers with credit scores between 500 to 579. Further, the exemption is applicable only to refinance transactions originated pursuant to Mortgagee Letter 2010-23 and closed on or before December 31, 2012.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this document under Executive Order 12866 (entitled
FHA is implementing one change to replenish the MMIF capital reserve account. FHA is establishing a two-part credit-score threshold, with one lower bound for loans with loan-to-value ratios of 90 percent or less, and a higher threshold for those with loan-to-value ratios up to the statutory maximums. This is the first time that FHA has ever instituted an absolute lower-bound for borrower credit scores. Borrowers with low credit scores present higher risk of default and mortgage insurance claim. Such transactions that lack the additional credit enhancements announced in this document result in higher mortgage insurance claim rates and present an unacceptable risk of loss. The benefit of the revised credit score and LTV requirements will be to reduce the net losses due to high rates of insurance claims on affected loans, while the cost will be the value of the homeownership opportunity denied to the excluded borrowers. HUD prepared an economic analysis assessing costs and benefits in conjunction with development of the July 15, 2010,
The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Onslow Beach Swing Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 240.7, at Camp Lejeune, NC. The deviation is necessary to facilitate urgent replacement of the main hydraulic system. This deviation allows the bridge to be in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 1 a.m. on September 8, 2010 to 11:59 p.m. on September 14, 2010.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0800 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone 757-398-6422, e-mail
The Onslow Beach Swing Bridge at Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 240.7, at Camp Lejeune NC, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of approximately 12 feet, above mean high water.
The U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune NC, who owns and operates this swing-type drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(1) to facilitate urgent replacement of the main hydraulic system.
Under this temporary deviation, the Onslow Beach Swing Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 1 a.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2010.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at anytime. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the drawbridge will be unable to open in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard has coordinated the restrictions with the local users of the waterway, the Steamship Trade Committee, the Virginia Maritime Association, and marinas and will inform unexpected users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure period for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Amtrak Bridge across Shaw Cove, mile 0.0, at New London, Connecticut. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position two separate days in October and November to facilitate scheduled maintenance.
This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on October 21, 2010 through6 a.m. on November 16, 2010.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0795 and are available online at
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 668-7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
The Amtrak Bridge, across Shaw Cove at mile 0.0, at New London, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 3 feet at mean high water and 6 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.223.
The owner of the bridge, the National Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, gear box repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak Bridge may remain in the closed position from 6 p.m. on October 21, 2010 through 6 a.m. on October 22, 2010 to remove the old gear box. The bridge may remain in the closed position from 6 p.m. on November 12, 2010 through 6 a.m. on November 13, 2010, to install the rebuilt gear box.
In the event of inclement weather the bridge may remain in the closed position to reinstall the gear box from 6 p.m. on November 14, 2010 to 6 a.m. on November 15, 2010 or from 6 p.m. on November 15, 2010 to 6 a.m. on November 16, 2010.
A crane barge will be located in the south navigation channel during the removal and installation of the gear box. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do at any time through the north Channel.
Waterway users were advised of the requested bridge and channel closure and offered no objection.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the US70 (Alfred C. Cunningham) Bridge across Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC, to accommodate a bike race and parade. This deviation allows the drawbridge to be maintained in the closed position to vessels at specific dates and times.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on September 11, 2010 to 12:30 p.m. on September 18, 2010.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0815 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone 757-398-6557, e-mail
The US70 (Alfred C. Cunningham) Bridge a bascule lift bridge across Trent River, at mile 0.0, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of approximately 14 feet above mean high water.
On behalf of the National Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society and the City of New Bern NC, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations of the bridge set out in 33 CFR 117.843 (a) to accommodate both the annual Bike MS/Historic New Bern Ride and the City of New Bern Heritage Parade.
Under this deviation, the drawbridge would be allowed to remain in the closed position to vessels on two separate occasions on the following dates and times: For the annual Bike MS/Historic New Bern Ride from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Saturday, September 11, 2010 and Sunday, September 12, 2010, respectively; and for the City of New Bern Heritage Parade from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, September 18, 2010. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Trent River and the drawbridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviations.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time periods. This deviation from the operating regulation is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Rule; information collection approval.
In a final rule published May 26, 2010, the Coast Guard amended Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) requirements for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) facilities. The amendment triggered information collection requirements affecting these facilities. The Coast Guard now announces that the collection of information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1625-0049.
The collection of information requirement associated with 33 CFR 127.007 will be enforced beginning September 3, 2010.
If you have questions about this document, contact Commander Patrick Clark, CG-5222, U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-372-1410 or by e-mail at
On May 26, 2010, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled “Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront Facility General Requirements” (75 FR 29420) amending the LOI and Letter of Recommendation (LOR) regulations for LNG and LHG facilities. The rule became effective on June 25, 2010.
The revised 33 CFR 127.007 describes LOI and WSA requirements for LNG and LHG facilities. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the preamble of the final rule stated that the Coast Guard would not enforce the collection of information requirements associated with 33 CFR 127.007 until the collection of information request was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and indicated the Coast Guard would publish a notice in the
The Coast Guard submitted the information collection request to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On August 20, 2010, OMB approved the collection of information, which is assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0049. The approval of this collection expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the OMB notice of action is available in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Rule; information collection approval.
On August 31, 2009, the Coast Guard amended its requirements for oil-spill removal equipment associated with vessel response plans and marine transportation-related facility response plans. The amendment triggered information collection requirements affecting vessel response planholders required to establish evidence that they have properly planned to mitigate oil outflow and to provide that information to the Coast Guard for its use in emergency response. This notice announces that the collection of information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and may now be enforced. The OMB Control Number is 1625-0066.
The collection of information requirements under 33 CFR 154.1065 and 155.1070 will be enforced beginning September 3, 2010.
If you have questions on this document, contact Lieutenant Commander Ryan Allain at 202-372-1226 or
On August 31, 2009, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled “Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements and Alternative Technology Revisions” (74 FR 45004). This final rule amended its requirements for oil-spill removal equipment associated with vessel response plans and marine transportation-related facility response plans. Those updates were based on a review of those requirements conducted by the Coast Guard pursuant to its regulations. The changes added requirements for new response technologies and revised methods and procedures for responding to oil spills upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone. Those revisions triggered information collection requirements under 33 CFR 154.1065 and 155.1070. This provision requires that planholders show evidence that they have properly planned to mitigate oil outflow and to provide that information to the Coast Guard for its use in emergency response. This evidence includes name and contact information for oil spill responders for each vessel or facility with appropriate equipment and resources located in each zone of operation; specific lists of equipment that the resource providers will make available in case of an incident in each zone; and certification that the responders are qualified and have given permission to be included in the plan. Oil Spill Removal Organizations (ORSOs) will also need to update contracts and their own records to add dispersant capabilities when appropriate. The Coast Guard will use this information to determine whether a vessel or facility meets the salvage and marine firefighting requirements.
With the exception of this collection of information, the Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements and Alternative Technology Revisions final rule became effective on September 30, 2009. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the preamble to the final rule stated that the Coast Guard would not enforce the collection of information requirements occurring under 33 CFR
The Coast Guard submitted the information collection request to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On August 20, 2010, OMB approved the collection of information and assigned the collection OMB Control Number 1625-0066 entitled “Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound, Alaska”. The approval for this collection of information expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the OMB notice of action is available in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Rule; information collection approval.
On December 31, 2008, the Coast Guard amended the vessel response plan salvage and marine firefighting requirements for tank vessels carrying oil. The amendment triggered information collection requirements affecting vessel response planholders required to establish evidence that they have properly planned to mitigate oil outflow and to provide that information to the Coast Guard for its use in emergency response. This notice announces that the collection of information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and may now be enforced. The OMB Control Number is 1625-0066.
The collection of information requirements under 33 CFR 155, subpart I will be enforced beginning September 3, 2010.
If you have questions on this document, contact Lieutenant Commander Ryan Allain at 202-372-1226 or
On December 31, 2008, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled “Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response Plans for Oil” (73 FR 80618). This final rule amended the vessel response plan salvage and marine firefighting requirements for tank vessels carrying oil. Those revisions clarified the salvage and marine firefighting services that must be identified in vessel response plans and set new response time requirements for each of the required salvage and marine firefighting services. The changes ensured that the appropriate salvage and marine firefighting resources were identified and available for responding to incidents up to and including the worst-case discharge scenario. Those revisions triggered information collection requirements under 33 CFR 155, subpart I (see 155.4020). This provision requires that planholders show evidence that they have properly planned to mitigate oil outflow and to provide that information to the Coast Guard for its use in emergency response. This evidence includes name and contact information for resource providers for each vessel with appropriate equipment and resources located in each zone of operation, marine firefighting pre-fire plans, and certification that the responders are qualified and have given permission to be included in the vessel response plan. The Coast Guard will use this information to determine whether a vessel meets the salvage and marine firefighting requirements.
With the exception of this collection of information, the Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response Plans for Oil final rule became effective on January 30, 2009. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the preamble to the final rule stated that the Coast Guard would not enforce the collection of information requirements occurring under 33 CFR 155, subpart I until the collection of information request was approved by OMB, and also stated that the Coast Guard would publish a notice in the
The Coast Guard submitted the information collection request to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On August 20, 2010, OMB approved the collection of information and assigned the collection OMB Control Number 1625-0066 entitled “Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound, Alaska.” The approval for this collection of information expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the OMB notice of action is available in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in an area of the Delaware River, Camden, NJ, described as North of the Wiggins park Marina and South of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from a portion of the Delaware River during the Red Bull Flugtag event. The safety zone is necessary to protect event participants, life, and property.
This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on September 4, 2010.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0728 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or e-mail LT Corrina Ott, Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4902, e-mail
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM and holding a comment period would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters during this scheduled event as immediate action is needed to protect participants of the event from vessels and vessels from any debris in the water as a result from the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Red Bull has contracted to conduct a Flugtag event along the Camden Riverfront. During this event participants will enter the Delaware River from an elevated platform, utilizing makeshift flying apparatuses with the intent to maintain a controlled descent into the Delaware River. This safety zone will help protect both life and property on the navigable waterways of the Delaware River in respect to event participants and commercial and recreational vessel traffic.
The Coast Guard establishes a temporary safety zone on the Delaware River in Camden, NJ from 10 a.m. to5 p.m. on September 4, 2010. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on the Delaware River in the immediate area of the Red Bull Flugtag event taking place inside a boundary described as originating from the shoreline then west to 39°56′54″ N, 075°07′59″ W then north to 39°56′56″ N, 075°07′58″ W then north to 39°56′58″ N, 075°07′58″ W then east to 39°56′58″ N, 075°07′56″ W then east to the shoreline. The safety zone will protect event participants, life, and property while preventing vessel traffic from navigating on the Delaware River in an area described as north of the Wiggins Park Marina and south of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The COTP will notify the public of specific enforcement times by marine Radio Safety Broadcast.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Due to the location of the safety zone being outside of and East of Anchorage Area #13, as well as being located in an area not subject to regular flow of vessel traffic, the regulatory impact is expected to be minimal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities: the owners or operator so vessel intending to transit East of Anchorage Area #13 in the Delaware River South of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on September 4, 2010.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for seven hours on September 4, 2010. Additionally, the safety zone is located in an area where vessel traffic does not regularly transit, approximately 375 yards to the East of the main ship channel located in the Delaware River. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) 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 cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction and neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule involves a limited-in-duration safety zone intended to protect life and property on the navigable waterways of the Delaware River. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be made available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations to make the language of several provisions conform to changes in law made by the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001; the Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003; and the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008.
Roscoe Butler, Deputy Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (163), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-1586. (This is not a toll free number.)
This document amends sections of 38 CFR part 17 to conform with changes made
Section 801 of the 2008 Act eliminated a sunset provision that had applied to the inclusion of noninstitutional extended care in the statutory definition of medical services. In light of the removal of this sunset provision, we have included “noninstitutional extended care” in the regulations that define medical services and the medical benefits package, at §§ 17.30(a)(1) and 17.38(a)(1)(xi)(B) respectively. We note that § 17.38(a)(1)(xi)(B) already lists several specific types of noninstitutional extended care, but including this term in the regulatory definition of the medical benefits package will eliminate any confusion as to whether other types of noninstitutional extended care are included.
Section 301(a) of the 2008 Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1701(5)(B) and 1782(a) by inserting “marriage and family counseling” after “professional counseling.” We have made corresponding changes to 38 CFR 17.30(a)(2) and 17.38(a)(1)(vii).
Section 301(a)(1)(B) of the 2008 Act further amended 38 U.S.C. 1701(5)(B) by striking “as may be essential to” and inserting “as the Secretary considers appropriate for,” authorizing VA to exercise discretion to provide certain mental health services, counseling, and training for members of a hospitalized veteran's household or family. Section 301(a)(2)(B) amended 38 U.S.C. 1782(b) by removing limitations in section 1782(b)(1) and (2) on providing counseling for family members of non-service-connected veterans. We are revising 38 CFR 17.30(a)(2) and 17.38(a)(1)(vii) to reflect these changes in law. These revisions include removing paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of § 17.30 because they codified statutory provisions that been repealed. To the extent that § 17.30(a)(2)(ii) references § 17.84(c), it is inaccurate because this provision has been deleted and the reference is outdated. Instead, these provisions will be more properly addressed in future regulations regarding the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides health benefits for dependents and survivors of veterans who are service connected, permanently and totally disabled, or died of a service-connected condition. In the meantime, VA will continue to implement its authority as written in the last sentence of 38 U.S.C. 1781(b).
Section 409 of the 2008 Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1710 so that hospice care is not subject to copayment requirements for inpatient hospital care or outpatient medical care. We are amending § 17.108(e) accordingly.
Section 101(b) of the 2003 Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a)(3) to exempt former prisoners of war from the pharmacy copayment requirement. We are amending 38 CFR 17.110(c) accordingly, by adding medication for this class as an exception to the copayment requirement.
Section 101(a) of the 2003 Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1)(F) to remove the prerequisite of a detainment or internment period of at least 90 days to establish eligibility for outpatient dental care for a former prisoner of war. As a result, there is no longer a need to distinguish between class II(b) and class II(c) in VA's regulations. To implement this change, we are removing the phrase “for 90 days or more” in § 17.161(e), which will now authorize dental treatment for all prisoners of war as subclass II(c).
Section 3 of the 2001 Act declared it “to be a national goal to end chronic homelessness among veterans within a decade.” Section 2062 of the 2001 Act provides authority for the Homeless Veterans Dental Care Program, a one-time course of dental care for certain homeless veterans and other enrolled veterans. This rulemaking assigns subclass II(b) to veterans eligible for outpatient dental care through the program because it is useful for data management purposes and to clarify the dental services available to this group of veterans.
We also note, for the benefit of the public, that several sections of the 2008 Act that require rulemaking have already been proposed or will be proposed in separate rulemakings. Section 401, concerning VA's beneficiary travel program, and section 402, concerning emergency treatment, require VA to make certain policy decisions, which will be reflected in rulemakings that will require public notice and comment. Section 408 liberalized VA's authority to provide care to certain children of veterans who are born with spina bifida. Rules implementing this section were proposed in “Herbicide Exposure and Veterans with Covered Service in Korea,” RIN 2900-AN27.
The changes made by this final rule are interpretive rules, nonsubstantive changes to rules, or restatements of statutory requirements. These changes are exempt from the notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a regulatory action as a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, if it is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal
The final rule does not contain any collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601- 612. This final rule would not cause a significant economic impact on health care providers, suppliers, or entities since only a small portion of the business of such entities concerns VA beneficiaries. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The program that this rule affects has the following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles: 64.009 Veterans Medical Care Benefits, 64.010 Veterans Nursing Home Care and 64.011 Veterans Dental Care.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 30, 2010 for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Government programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing home care, Veterans.
38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as noted in specific sections.
(a) * * *
(2) Consultation, professional counseling, marriage and family counseling, training, and mental health services for the members of the immediate family or legal guardian of the veteran or the individual in whose household the veteran certifies an intention to live, as necessary in connection with the veteran's treatment.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Consultation, professional counseling, marriage and family counseling, training, and mental health services for the members of the immediate family or legal guardian of the veteran or the individual in whose household the veteran certifies an intention to live, as necessary and appropriate, in connection with the veteran's treatment.
(e) * * *
(15) Hospice care.
(c) * * *
(8) Medication for a veteran who is a former prisoner of war.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving the State of California's request to redesignate the Coso Junction planning area (CJPA) to attainment for the particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-10) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also approving the PM-10 emissions inventory and the maintenance plan for the CJPA, including control measures for Owens Lake, the primary cause of PM-10 nonattainment in the CJPA. Finally, EPA is finding the contribution of motor vehicles to the area's PM-10 problem insignificant; consequently, the State will not have to complete a regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any future transportation conformity determination for the CJPA.
You may inspect the supporting information for this action, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal,
2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36023), based on EPA's review of the “2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area,” (the 2010 Plan) submitted by California, air quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA proposed to approve the State of California's request to redesignate the CJPA to attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The background for today's actions is discussed in detail in EPA's June 24 proposed rulemaking, and in EPA's determination that the CJPA has attained the PM-10 NAAQS. 75 FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010).
EPA proposed to approve the State's redesignation request, based on EPA's determination that the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period 2007-2009 showed that the CJPA had attained the PM-10 NAAQS, and on EPA's finding that the area meets all other CAA redesignation requirements under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175.
EPA proposed to approve the State's maintenance plan, which includes control measures for Owens Lake implemented through the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) Board Order #080128-01 (Appendix C of the 2010 Plan). EPA's proposal discussed the historical relationship between PM-10 emissions from Owens Lake and violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, the application of control measures on Owens Lake that have resulted in attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, and the continued controls that are expected to provide for maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS into the future. We also proposed to approve the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3).
Finally, EPA proposed to find that motor vehicle-related PM-10 emissions are insignificant contributors to the area's PM-10 problem. As a result of this finding, the state would not have to complete a regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any future transportation conformity determination for the CJPA.
EPA's June 24, 2010 proposal was based on a “parallel processing”
In EPA's proposed rule, we noted that the GBUAPCD had determined that the Coso Junction monitoring site had been violating siting criteria since January 2010. 75 FR 36023, 36025. As discussed in the proposed rule, during a site visit on May 27, 2010, the GBUAPCD learned that the monitoring site had not been watered for several years resulting in a lack of vegetation surrounding the site thus exposing friable soils that could impact monitor readings. In addition, the GBUAPCD learned that beginning in January 2010 a contractor for the property owner, the Coso Operating Company, was driving over the unpaved access road adjacent to the monitor on a regular basis, thus causing the deterioration in the condition of the unpaved access road which had previously been covered by gravel. This combination of events near the monitor led the District to conclude that the data collected from January 2010 through May 27, 2010 must be considered invalid for regulatory purposes, and EPA agreed with the District's assessment. Following the site visit, the District and the Coso Operating Company promptly started to work on resolving the problems in order to be able to again collect valid data as soon as possible. The Coso Operating Company thereafter restricted traffic on the unpaved access road to the monitor and moved the contractor's trailer to a location away from the monitor site. The District and the Coso Operating Company also planned to develop a mitigation plan to apply water to the
Since our proposed rule, the GBUAPCD has reported that the new location of the contractor's trailer does not require the contractors to drive past the monitor site, the drive area around the monitor site is now covered with gravel to reduce dust and the turning area pavement was enlarged to prevent kicking up dust at the edges. See July 20, 2010 e-mail from Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Assessment Office, to Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Office, Re: Summary of monitoring issues that should be addressed by the Great Basin District. The GBUAPCD has also reported that the Coso Operating Company has begun watering of the area around the Coso Junction monitor site and that a crust is beginning to form which will allow the District to begin collecting valid data on August 1, 2010. See July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD, to Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Office, with attachments. The Coso Operating Company has submitted to the GBUAPCD a dust control plan (or, as referred to in the proposed rule, a mitigation plan) for the Coso Junction monitor area which includes commitments for application and monitoring of gravel, application of water to form a visual crust, monitoring of the visual crust and reapplication of water as necessary, re-vegetation in the fall season in areas that had previously been vegetated, limiting road access to authorized personnel and providing monthly status reports to GBUAPCD through June 2011. See attachment to July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, “Coso PM10 Containment Area Fugitive Dust Plan.” Moreover, the Coso Operating Company is required by conditions in a permit to operate issued by GBUAPCD to maintain the Coso Junction monitor site and to collect PM-10 samples using EPA-approved reference or equivalent method samplers. See attachment to July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, Permit to Operate, Permit Number 234, conditions 27 and 36. Finally, the GBUAPCD plans to install a Web camera to help monitor activities near the monitor site in the future. See July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade to Doris Lo. EPA will continue to work with the GBUACPD to ensure that the Coso Junction monitor site issues are fully resolved and that the site is maintained in order for the District to meet its commitment to continue daily PM-10 monitoring at the Coso Junction monitoring site in order to verify continued attainment of the PM-10 standard in the CJPA. See 75 FR 36023, 36030.
EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period on our proposed action. This comment period ended on July 26, 2010. We received no comments.
Based on our review of the 2010 Plan submitted by the State, air quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA believes the State has satisfied all requirements for redesignation of the CJPA to attainment, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. Consequently, EPA is approving the State's request and is redesignating the CJPA to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan for the CJPA, which includes as a SIP revision GBUAPCD Board Order #080128-01. EPA is also approving the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). Finally, EPA finds that motor vehicle-related PM-10 emissions are insignificant contributors to the area's PM-10 problem; consequently, a regional emissions analysis will not be required for PM-10 in any future transportation conformity determination for the CJPA, as of the effective date of this final rule.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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 these reasons, these actions:
• Are not “significant regulatory actions” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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 final action does not 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2010. 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(380) The following plan was submitted on July 14, 2010, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
(
(
(
(B) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
(
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of thiabendazole, and its metabolites, benzimidazole (free and conjugated), [2-(4-thiazolyl) benzimidazole], in or on corn. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 3, 2010. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 2, 2010, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0910. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Janet Whitehurst, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6129; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA’s tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0910 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 2, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0910, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for thiabendazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with thiabendazole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children
.The target organs for thiabendazole toxicity are the liver and thyroid. Effects to these organs were observed in multiple studies and across species. Thiabendazole causes thyroid tumors in male rats through an established non-linear mode of action involving perturbation of thyroid hormone synthesis. Accordingly, thiabendazole is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the existing database,
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by thiabendazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide’s toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD), and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiabendazole used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1.
The overall composite uncertainty factor for assessing thiabendazole risk is 300X. That is based on a 10X for intraspecies variability among humans, 3X for interspecies pharmacokinetic differences between humans and rats, and 10X for FQPA safety factor for database uncertainty. The 3X interspecies factor was chosen because the endpoint used for the Point of Departure is a thyroid effect and adult rats are known to be more sensitive pharmacodynamically to thyroid toxicants than humans. Focusing on the thyroid effects will produce the most protective PAD despite the fact that a reduced interspecies factor is appropriate as to this effect.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The following PCT were used in the assessment:
• Apple 30%.
• Orange 20%.
• Pear 45%.
• Potato 1%.
• Soybeans 1%.
• Strawberry 6.3% imported.
• Sweet potato 1%.
• Wheat 1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National Agricultural
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed above have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which thiabendazole may be applied in a particular area.
iv.
2.
A Tier 2 drinking water assessment was conducted for thiabendazole in surface water and Tier 1 in ground water for the proposed new seed treatment product on corn. The annual mean concentration of 0.0000048 ppm was used in the chronic dietary exposure analysis. Drinking water concentrations from ground water sources were estimated, but were lower than that estimated concentration from surface water, so the estimated concentration from surface water sources was used in the dietary exposure analysis.
3.
Thiabendazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: paint and sponges. These residential uses have been assessed and aggregated with the food and water exposures. EPA assumed that 5% of the thiabendazole on sponges is transferred to the surface being wiped (such as counters, tables, floors) each day. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found thiabendazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and thiabendazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that thiabendazole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The database for thiabendazole is complete except for a developmental thyroid study and data needed for the new data requirements including an immunotoxicity study and the neurotoxicity screening battery. Pending the outcome of the developmental thyroid toxicity study, there is uncertainty with respect to the effect of thiabendazole in developing offspring. There is evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures to rats characterized as histopathological changes in the thyroid in multiple studies in rats. Disruption of thyroid homeostasis is the initial, critical effect that may lead to adverse effects on the developing nervous system. Thus, the absence of the developmental thyroid study raises concern whether infants and children are sufficiently protected from developmental effects. The developmental thyroid toxicity study will better address this concern than a developmental neurotoxicity study. The absence of neurotoxicity studies (acute, subchronic, and developmental) raise relatively low concern because: (1) Thiabendazole has shown no indication of neurotoxicity in relevant studies, and; (2) to the extent that thiabendazole's thyroid effects may have neurological effects on the young, the nature of the thyroid effects (and the potential for any resulting neurological effects on the young) will be addressed by the developmental thyroid study. The
ii. There is no evidence that thiabendazole results in increased susceptibility in
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on PCT and anticipated residues primarily from Pesticide Data Program (PDP) data and some tolerance-level residues. These data are reliable and will not underestimate the exposure and risk. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to thiabendazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiabendazole.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1
2.
3.
No risks of concern were seen for adult painters. A potential risk of concern would be the use of thiabendazole treated sponges, if the Agency assumes that 100% of the thiabendazole on a treated sponge is transferred to surfaces each day. It is very unlikely that a sponge would release all of the thiabendazole used to treat it in a single day, and the user would use a new sponge every day. Since this is a very unrealistic assumption, a second aggregate assessment was conducted assuming that 100% of the thiabendazole on a treated sponge is transferred to surfaces over 20 days and that each 20 days the user would use a new sponge. This assumption is still conservative because: (1) Sponges will generally be used much longer than 20 days; (2) it is very unlikely that 100% of the thiabendazole would be released from the sponge in such a short period given that environmental fate data show thiabendazole to have low water solubility indicating that thiabendazole will bind strongly to the sponge; and (3) it is very unlikely that 100% of any released thiabendazole would be transferred to countertops because this assumption does not account for any thiabendazole that is washed down the sink or that normally degrades. With this assumption, none of the aggregate exposures represent risks of concern, as all MOEs are greater than the target MOE of 300.
A summary of the short-term and intermediate-term aggregate risk for thiabendazole used in the human risk assessment is shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this unit.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (spectrophotofluorometric, Methods I, A, B and C) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. In all of the methods, residues are extracted with ethyl acetate, and the extracts are purified by washing with dilute NaOH and/or HCl.
An high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method with fluorescence detection (FLD) is available for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of free and conjugated benzimidazole. This method is listed in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical Methods under thiabendazole as Study No. 93020 (MRID 43328302).
In addition, the analytical method used in this petition may be used for enforcement. This sample is extracted and hydrolized and analyzed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The method limit of quantation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm, and the limit of detection (LOD) is 0.004 ppm. The method was adequately validated using samples of field corn forage, grain, and stover, and sweet corn forage and K+CWHR fortified with each analyte at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 ppm. Acceptable concurrent recovery data for the method were also submitted and achieved.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established any MRLs for thiabendazole.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of thiabendazole, and its metabolites, benzimidazole (free and conjugated), [2-(4-thiazolyl) benzimidazole], in or on corn grain and other corn commodities at 0.01 ppm.
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; extension of waiver.
In this document, the Commission extends for an additional year current waivers of certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) mandatory minimum standards for Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Relay (IP Relay). The waived TRS mandatory minimum standards are: One-line voice carry over (VCO); VCO-to-teletypewriter (TTY); VCO-to-VCO; one-line hearing carry over (HCO); HCO-to-TTY; HCO-to-HCO; call release; speech-to-speech (STS); pay-per-call (900) calls; types of calls; and equal access to interexchange carriers requirements. The Commission also extends for one year a requirement for default Internet-based TRS providers that are unable to meet such standards for newly-registered Internet-based TRS users who port their customer premises equipment (CPE) from a former default provider. The Commission extends the waivers for one year because the record demonstrates that it is technologically infeasible for VRS and IP Relay providers to offer these services at this time. All of these waivers are conditioned on the filing of a report, due April 16, 2011, addressing whether it is necessary for the waivers to remain in effect.
DA 10-1235 became effective on June 30, 2010. The waivers of certain TRS mandatory minimum standards for VRS and IP Relay will expire on July 1, 2011, or until the Commission addresses pending petitions regarding CPE portability, which ever comes first.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties may submit documentation related to the waivers, identified by [CG Docket No. 03-123 and/or DA 10-1235], by mail, to Dana Wilson, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, Room 3-C418.
Gregory Hlibok, (202) 559-5158 (voice/videophone), or e-mail
This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 10-1235, adopted June 30, 2010, released June 30, 2010 extending certain waivers for TRS mandatory minimum standards to July 1, 2011. The full text of document DA 10-1235, and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter, will be available for public inspection and copies during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. DA 10-1235, and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site,
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to
The Commission extends the waivers of these requirements for one year for VRS and IP Relay because the most recent annual waiver reports reflect that the Internet cannot support the voice leg of a VCO call with the necessary call quality. These waivers are again conditioned on the filing of a report, due April 16, 2011, addressing whether it is necessary for the waivers to remain in effect, and whether a technical fix is imminent.
The Commission extends the waiver of certain mandatory minimum standards for default Internet-based TRS providers that are unable to meet such standards for newly-registered Internet-based TRS users who port their customer premises equipment (CPE) from a former default provider, in those instances where the new default provider does not have access to the technical information about such CPE that would be necessary in order to comply with these standards. Specifically, the Commission extends the waiver for operational requirements, emergency handling requirements, and point-to-point calling associated with such porting.
All of these waivers are conditioned on the filing of a report, due April 16, 2011, addressing whether it is necessary for the waivers to remain in effect.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule amends regulations concerning Insurer Reporting Requirements. The regulations specify the requirements for annual insurer reports and lists in appendices those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices must file three copies of its report for the 2007 calendar year before October 25, 2010. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25.
This final rule becomes effective on October 4, 2010. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports on or before October 25, 2010. If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by October 18, 2010.
Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W41-307, Washington, DC 20590.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W43-439, Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112,
(1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
(2) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state and;
(3) Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.
Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis.The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.
In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (49 CFR Part 544; 52 FR 59, January 2, 1987), NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler, since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M. Best
In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers,
(1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer;
(2) The insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.
In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do notsignificantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from
Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, 2010, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.
On June 21, 2010, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update the list of insurers in Appendices A, B, and C required to file reports (75 FR 34966). Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on January 12, 2010 (75 FR 1548). Based on the 2007 calendar year market share data from A.M. Best, NHTSA proposed to make no change to Appendix A.
Appendix B lists insurers required to report because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in a particular State. Based on the 2007 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we proposed to add Balboa Insurance Group of South Dakota to Appendix B.
Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Subsequent to publishing the January 12, 2010 final rule (see 75 FR 1548), the agency was informed by Enterprise Rent-A-Car company (Enterprise), that
The agency received no comments in response to the NPRM. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed changes to Appendices B and C. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that each of the 19 insurers listed in Appendix A, each of the nine insurers listed in Appendix B and each of five companies listed in Appendix C are required to submit an insurer report on its experience for calendar year 2007 no later than October 25, 2010, and set forth the information required by part 544. As long as these insurers and companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
Passenger motor vehicle insurers listed in the appendices can forward their theft loss reports to the agency in several ways:
a.
b.
c.
Theft loss reports may also be submitted to the docket electronically [identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0017] by:
d.
This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This final rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.
NHTSA does not believe that this rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. The cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation should be adjusted for inflation, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2007 (
Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Technical Reference Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building (Ground Floor), Room E12-100, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-2588.
The information collection requirements in this final rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this final rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect, and it does not preempt any State law, 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909, and section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
☐ Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
☐ Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
☐ Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
☐ Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
☐ Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
☐ Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
☐ What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:
a.
b.
Crime insurance, Insurance, Insurance companies, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
(a) * * * This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes eligibility requirements and procedures for reviewing and approving community development plans for western Pacific fisheries. The intent of this final rule is to promote the participation of island communities in fisheries that they have traditionally depended upon, but in which they may not have the capabilities to support continued and substantial participation.
This rule is effective October 4, 2010, except for § 665.20(c), which contains information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). When OMB approval is received, the control number and the effective date for that information collection will be published in the
The background and details of the community development plan process are described in Amendment 1 to the fishery ecosystem plans for American Samoa, Hawaii, the Mariana Archipelago, and western Pacific pelagic fisheries (the amendment is identical for each plan), which is available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS, attention Michael D. Tosatto, 1601 Kapiolani
Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), Sustainable Fisheries, tel 808-944-2108.
This document is also accessible at
Section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Council and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), through NMFS, to establish a western Pacific community development program for any fishery under the authority of the Council and NMFS. The intent of the program is to provide western Pacific communities access to fisheries that they have traditionally depended upon, but may not have the capabilities to support continued and substantial participation in, possibly due to economic, regulatory, or other barriers.
In 2002, NMFS published the eligibility criteria for participating in the western Pacific community development program (67 FR 18512; April 16, 2002), but did not establish a mechanism to solicit and review development plans under the program. To address this, the Council prepared, and the Secretary approved, Amendment 1 to the American Samoa, Hawaii, Marianas, and western Pacific pelagic fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) to establish this process.
This final rule codifies the eligibility criteria for participating in the program, and the required content of each community development plan. The Council will review each plan to ensure that it meets the intent of Section 305(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that it contains all required information. If the requirements are met, the Council will forward the plan to the NMFS Regional Administrator for review. NMFS will then publish a notice in the
Additional background information on this final rule may be found in the preamble to the proposed rule published on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34088), and is not repeated here.
The public comment period for the proposed rule (75 FR 34088, June 16, 2010) ended on July 20, 2010. NMFS received one comment and responds as follows:
In § 665.20(e)(1), (2), and (4), regarding the review and approval process, the regulatory language is clarified for internal consistency.
The Regional Administrator, PIR, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of western Pacific fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. These requirements have not yet been approved by OMB, but such approval is expected in the near future. NMFS will publish a notice when these requirements are cleared by OMB and are, therefore, effective (see
The public reporting burden for developing and submitting a development plan is estimated to average six hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Because approved plans may be subject to additional conditions, this final rule also contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA that have been previously approved by OMB. NMFS estimates that it may receive and process up to five (5) community development plan proposals each year. Therefore, the additional estimated burden on western Pacific community development plan respondents would not exceed the currently-approved burden estimates for the existing PRA collections listed below:
(1) Approved under 0648-0214, 0648-0577, 0648-0584, 0648-0586, and 0649-0589. (a) PIR logbook family of forms estimated at 5 minutes (min) per reporting action; (b) pre-trip and post-landing notifications estimated at 5 min per reporting action; (c) experimental fishing reports estimated at 4 hours (hr) per reporting action; (d) sales and transshipment reports estimated at 5
(2) Approved under 0648-0360, 0648-0361, 0648-0584, 0648-0586, and 0648-0589. PIR gear marking and vessel identification (a) estimated at 45 min to 1 hr 15 min per vessel for vessel identification, and (b) estimated at 2 min for each gear marking. (§§ 665.16, 665.128, 665.228, 665.246, 665.428, 665.628, and 665.804.)
(3) Approved under 0648-0441, 0648-0519, and 0648-0584. PIR vessel monitoring system (a) installation, estimated at 4 hr per reporting action; (b) repair and maintenance, estimated at 2 hr per reporting action; and (c) hourly automated position reports, estimated at 24 sec per day. (§ 665.19.)
(4) Approved under 0648-0456. PIR seabird interaction reporting (a) at-sea notification, estimated at 1 hr per reporting action; (b) reporting on recovery data form, estimated at 1 hr per reporting action; and (c) specimen tagging, estimated at 30 min per reporting action. (§ 665.815.)
(5) Approved under 0648-0462. PIR coral reef logbook reporting (a) at-sea notification, estimated at 3 min per reporting action; (b) logbook reporting, estimated at 30 min per reporting action; and (c) transshipment reports, estimated at 15 min per reporting action. (§§ 665.14, 665.126, 665.226, and 665.426.)
(6) Approved under 0648-0463. PIR coral reef special permit (a) application, estimated at 2 hr per application; and (b) special permit appeals, estimated at 3 hr per appeal. (§§ 665.124, 665.224, 665.424, and 665.624.)
(7) Approved under 0648-0490, 0648-0577, 0648-0584, 0648-0586, and 0649-0589: (a) PIR permit family of forms estimated at 30 min per permit action; (b) experimental fishing permits, estimated at 2 hr per application; and (c) appeals from permit actions estimated at 2 hr per permit appeal. (§§ 665.13, 665.17, 665.142, 665.162, 665.203, 665.242, 665.262, 665.404, 665.442, 665.462, 665.603, 665.642, 665.662, 665.801, and 665.807.)
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Community development, Fisheries, Fishing, Western and central Pacific.
l. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(b)
(1) Be located in American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands (collectively, the western Pacific);
(2) Consist of community residents descended from aboriginal people indigenous to the western Pacific who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing practices in the waters of the western Pacific;
(3) Consist of individuals who reside in their ancestral homeland;
(4) Have knowledge of customary practices relevant to fisheries of the western Pacific;
(5) Have a traditional dependence on fisheries of the western Pacific;
(6) Are currently experiencing economic or other constraints that have prevented full participation in the western Pacific fisheries and, in recent years, have not had harvesting, processing or marketing capability sufficient to support substantial participation in fisheries in the area; and
(7) Develop and submit a community development plan to the Council and the NMFS that meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(1) A statement of the purposes and goals of the plan.
(2) A description and justification for the specific fishing activity being proposed, including:
(i) Location of the proposed fishing activity.
(ii) Management unit species to be harvested, and any potential bycatch.
(iii) Gear type(s) to be used.
(iv) Frequency and duration of the proposed fishing activity.
(3) A statement describing the degree of involvement by the indigenous community members, including the name, address, telephone and other contact information of each individual conducting the proposed fishing activity.
(4) A description of how the community and or its members meet each of the eligibility criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) If a vessel is to be used by the community to conduct fishing activities, for each vessel:
(i) Vessel name and official number (USCG documentation, state, territory, or other registration number).
(ii) Vessel length overall, displacement, and fish holding capacity.
(iii) Any valid federal fishing permit number(s).
(iv) Name, address, and telephone number of the vessel owner(s) and operator(s).
(d)
(e)
(2) If the Regional Administrator determines that a plan contains the required information and is consistent with paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, and other applicable laws, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(i) A description of the fishing activity to be conducted.
(ii) The current utilization of domestic annual harvesting and processing capacity (including existing experimental harvesting, if any) of the target, incidental, and bycatch species.
(iii) A summary of any regulations that would otherwise prohibit the proposed fishing activity.
(iv) Biological and environmental information relevant to the plan, including appropriate statements of environmental impacts on target and non-target stocks, marine mammals, and threatened or endangered species.
(3) Within 90 days from the end of the comment period on the plan, the Regional Administrator will notify the applicant in writing of the decision to approve or disapprove the plan.
(4) If disapproved, the Regional Administrator will provide the reasons for the plan's disapproval and provide the community with the opportunity to modify the plan and resubmit it for review. Reasons for disapproval may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) The applicant failed to disclose material information or made false statements related to the plan.
(ii) The harvest would contribute to overfishing or would hinder the recovery of an overfished stock, according to the best scientific information available.
(iii) The activity would be inconsistent with an applicable law.
(iv) The activity would create a significant enforcement, monitoring, or administrative problem, as determined by the Regional Administrator.
(5) If approved, the Regional Administrator will publish a notice of the authorization in the
(i) The maximum amount of each management unit species and potential bycatch species that may be harvested and landed during the term of the authorization.
(ii) The number, sizes, names, identification numbers, and federal permit numbers of the vessels authorized to conduct fishing activities.
(iii) Type, size, and amount of gear used by each vessel, including trip limits.
(iv) The times and places where fishing may or may not be conducted.
(v) Notification, observer, vessel monitoring, and reporting requirements.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information and request for comments.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating the rulemaking and data collection process to develop a test procedure for televisions. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data, identifying several issues associated with the currently available test procedures on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern televisions in active mode (they do not, for example, include issues related to low power modes). DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this rulemaking (including topics not raised in this request for information).
DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this notice, but no later than October 4, 2010.
Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2010-BT-TP-0026 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-AC29, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. E-mail:
For information on how to submit or review public comments and on how to participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-2945. E-mail:
DOE adopted a test procedure for televisions (TVs) on June 29, 1979, as described in 44 FR 37938. The test procedure, previously 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix H, was repealed on October 20, 2009, due to petitions from the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) in light of the June 13, 2009 transition from analog to digital broadcast transmissions to televisions (74 FR 53640). As of June 12, 2009, the “Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005” required that all broadcasting stations must transmit in digital to free up analog frequencies for public safety communications. (
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA) provides DOE the authority to consider and prescribe new energy conservation test procedures for TVs. Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291
Section 323 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293) sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. It states, for example, that “[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Manufacturers of covered products must use test procedures prescribed under EPCA as the basis for establishing and certifying to DOE that their products comply with energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
While developing a test procedure for TVs, DOE looked to industry for existing test procedures. Among the most widely accepted are IEC Standard 62087-2008.
Although some display technologies' power consumption does not change markedly with changes in screen luminance, there is a strong correlation between these factors for most modern display technologies. This is evident, for example, in plasma, cathode ray tube (CRT), and locally dimmed LED-backlit LCD designs. As a result, it can be useful to measure the luminance of televisions during the process of determining their performance and power consumption. Among preset modes, most TVs have a retail picture mode for use in showrooms, in which their screens operate at relatively high luminance levels. TVs also typically have a home or default picture mode which is significantly dimmer and more suited for home viewing conditions.
ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 states that luminance should be tested at either a preset retail picture mode or the brightest selectable preset picture mode, therefore indicating that retail picture mode is analogous to the brightest selectable preset picture mode or a mode designed to be utilized while the TV is in a retail setting. ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 set guidelines specifying the picture mode in which TVs are to be set for testing by requiring that TVs either have 1) a forced menu where consumers can chose the picture mode in which their TV will operate (assuming most consumers will chose home or default picture mode), or 2) be tested as shipped.
Allowing for qualification in a home or default picture mode may encourage manufacturers to ship their TVs with a default picture mode dimmer than desired by most consumers, in order to earn a lower measured power value. Once purchased, consumers would likely switch the TV out of the dim picture mode to achieve a better picture, making the test procedure non-representative of actual energy use. To discourage this circumvention, and to ensure that TVs' home or default picture modes are not too dim for satisfactory consumer viewing, ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 requires that home or default picture mode luminance be at least 65 percent of retail picture mode luminance.
DOE acknowledges that the test procedure should ensure that screens are tested at levels sufficiently bright in home or default picture mode for satisfactory consumer utility; however, measuring luminance in a repeatable, representative manner has proven to be difficult, as discussed below. Therefore, DOE would like feedback from interested parties on alternative methods to help ensure that the screen brightness in home or default picture mode is not overly dim. Specifically, DOE is considering the following broad options individually or in combination:
• Measuring the power consumption of televisions at prescribed luminance levels;
• Eliminating the luminance measurement and comparing the ratio between the power consumed in home or default and retail picture modes while displaying a dynamic video signal; and/or
• Measuring the power consumption in various relevant picture modes.
DOE would like to receive interested party feedback on alternative methods of ensuring that screen brightness is adequate and representative, appropriate luminance levels, and proper percentages associated with the duration televisions spend at particular luminance levels.
When testing luminance, ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 requires that a single measurement be taken while the TV displays the 3-bar test pattern. The single measurement is taken, perpendicular to the center of the screen while displaying three bars of white (100 percent) over a black (0 percent) background, defined in IEC Standard 60107-1:1997, section 3.2.1.3. Although this test method is also employed by other regulating bodies, it may not be the most appropriate. According to a study done by Ecos Consulting, the3-bar test pattern has an average picture level (APL) that is not typical of consumer use. This may disadvantage Plasma TVs, and has proven to be unpredictable with LED models. Furthermore, the single test point measurement is not appropriate for TVs with local dimming.
Alternative test patterns and test measurement methods may be more appropriate for the DOE test procedure. An alternative test pattern with an APL more similar to both the IEC broadcast video content and typical consumer use could be developed as an alternative testing pattern. The test pattern should also be technology neutral to prevent discrimination against particular TV technologies. However, DOE is aware that the IEC 3-bar test pattern has been adopted by multiple rulemaking bodies and trade associations such as EPA, CEA, CEC, and Australia. Therefore, DOE welcomes feedback from interested parties on using the IEC 3 bar test pattern. DOE also welcomes feedback on any alternative test patterns, such as a technology-neutral test pattern, that could be used in its test procedure.
Additionally, DOE is also considering a 9-point measurement over a single point measurement, since many televisions exhibit significant variations in luminance levels between the center and edges of the screen. China's test procedure takes the average of
Measurement angles and distances are important when taking luminance readings. Therefore the ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 test procedure requires that the luminance measurement be taken “perpendicular to the center of the display screen.” ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 further specifies that for Light Measuring Devices (LMDs) “that are not to be operated in close proximity to the screen, a 500 millimeter distance is recommended.”
However, consumers watch TVs from various distances and angles. The test procedure may account for this by requiring that luminance measurements be taken at various angles and distances to most accurately account for consumer viewing conditions. Testing at various angles and distances might affect varying technologies differently depending on the particular test pattern. Alternatively, a contact measurement could be used, where the measurement device is placed directly on the screen to measure luminance.
DOE would like to receive feedback regarding the appropriateness of measuring luminance at the screen or at other distances and angles. Further, what distances and angles are optimal for taking these measurements?
As mentioned in section 1 above, ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 and IEC Standard 62087 require that TVs be tested in home or default picture mode. Many TVs are now equipped with remotes enabling consumers to switch easily between picture modes, allowing consumers to, either accidentally or intentionally, switch between modes. Easy switching between modes may put TVs into a higher power consumption state more easily. Currently, neither the ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 nor the IEC Standard 62087 test procedures account for energy consumption in non-retail or non-home modes. If consumers are more likely to switch out of home or default picture modes, the energy consumption associated with these other modes may require additional testing. Since current test procedures only require testing in home or default picture mode, DOE would like to receive feedback from interested parties on whether other preset viewing modes need to be tested and how to account for preset viewing modes.
Automatic brightness control (ABC) is a power savings function that enables TVs to adjust screen luminance automatically according to the room illuminance. IEC Standard 62087 measures power savings related to ABC by requiring that the test be performed in a room with the illuminance at a level of 300 lux or greater. ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 requires the identical measurement at a level of 300 lux or greater along with an additional measurement at 0 lux.
Both IEC Standard 62087 and ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 require that a measurement be taken “at 300 lux or greater” which is ambiguous, as it requires testing at any illuminance greater than 300 lux rather than at a discrete point, and may not promote consistent testing across all products. Further, the ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 requirement may encourage manufacturers to drastically dim TVs at 0 lux (because power consumption is tested at 0 lux) and increase screen luminance sharply at values slightly over 0 lux to provide a bright picture setting, and then flatten out, or be non-responsive to illuminance changes until values of 300 lux or greater are achieved (since power consumption is tested at levels of 300 lux or greater). As a result, it is difficult to predict how much energy ABC will save when televisions are operated across a range of representative illuminance conditions.
A more repeatable and representative method of measuring ABC could result from requiring testing at specific illuminance conditions, rather than 0 lux and 300 lux or greater, that are more typical of consumer viewing conditions. DOE would like to receive comments from interested parties on testing at multiple illuminance levels as well as which levels would be most appropriate. Possible illuminance levels could include 0, 10, 100, and 200 lux.
When measuring ABC, both ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 and IEC Standard 62087 require that the measurement of room illuminance be taken at the location of the light presence sensor. However, there is no indication given regarding the orientation of illuminance meter, which can have a significant effect on the measured value. Likewise, no guidance is provided on the type of light source to be used, and how directional that source is, which could affect a light sensor's response.
DOE is aware that there are alternative locations to measure ambient light conditions. For example, rather than measuring illuminance at the light presence sensor, the measurement can be taken at the center of the screen. This approach may be preferred since the consumer views the TV at the center of the screen, ensuring that the test procedure is representative of consumer use. DOE welcomes interested party feedback on the positioning of illuminance measurements.
Finally, the lighting conditions used when measuring ABC should be created in a similar fashion, to promote consistent testing across products. DOE welcomes comments on the appropriate method to create desired illuminance to measure energy savings associated with ABC.
A number of different devices such as a Blu-ray player, DVD player, computer, or signal generator can serve as the signal source, which can be transmitted via high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI), digital component, or video graphics array (VGA) cables.
The IEC Standard 62087 test procedure requires an RF input signal or baseband input signal if RF is not available. The ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 requires that the input signals must be within ±2% of reference black and white levels. If the device has HDMI, this shall be used. Although both methods are sound, in order to obtain the most accurate and consistent power and luminance measurements, a standard method should be used.
DOE is considering which signal source is most robust to ensure repeatable and reproducible test procedure results. In a study done by Ecos, the use of a standard input generator with a HDMI input was found to produce the least varied results. Ecos concluded that if a signal generator was not used, a DVD or Blu-ray player would also be sufficient for conducting luminance ratio measurements; however, a personal computer did not provide a sufficiently consistent signal. Ecos also determined that when HDMI is not available, a component connection should be utilized. DOE would like interested parties to comment on the best possible signal sources and connections for use in its test procedure.
TVs should reach steady state prior to the technician measuring both power and luminance. The warm-up periods
For conducting luminance measurements, the ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 test procedure requires the luminance test pattern to run for 10 minutes before recording a measurement, noting that if the TV stabilizes prior to 10 minutes, a measurement can be taken earlier. DOE believes that the 10 minute warm-up period may not provide sufficient time to allow all TV technologies to stabilize. However, a longer warm-up period will increase the overall time needed to conduct a full test. DOE would like to receive comments from interested parties on the time required for TV luminance to stabilize.
Both the IEC and ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 test procedures only account for testing of two dimensional (2D) images. However, three dimensional (3D) technology in TVs is becoming increasingly popular and DOE is unaware of any existing test methods for accurately measuring energy use for 3D technology using 3D images. Although 3D TVs can switch to 2D viewing and be tested using existing 2D test procedures, the 2D test patterns and testing methods might not account for the potential increase in energy use associated with 3D picture settings. DOE requests feedback from interested parties on testing 3D TVs.
The ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 test procedure defines download acquisition mode as:
“
While IEC Standard 62087 does account for energy consumed in download acquisition mode, the ENERGY STAR v. 4.1 test procedure requires that download acquisition mode be tested according to the test procedure developed by ROVI Corporation (
TVs are increasingly designed to include the ability to connect to the internet. This technology allows users to stream information directly from the internet for display onto their TV, potentially causing TVs to consume more energy. IEC Standard 62087 measures internet usage by requiring that a power measurement be taken while the television is displaying an internet content video signal. Although internet and television images may differ, DOE would like to receive comment on the energy required to connect to and display images from the internet.
Presence sensors use a technology that enables a TV to sense the presence of viewers through movement and body heat. The TV will power down if it senses a lack of a viewer in the room, in order to save energy. IEC Standard 62087 measures savings related to other power saving functions but does not specify a detailed test method for testing presence sensor technology.
To ensure that all power saving technologies are accounted for correctly in the test procedure, DOE is considering whether or not to develop a more detailed test procedure to test savings associated with the presence sensor technology. DOE would like to receive comment on this issue.
DOE is aware that many power saving technologies exist for TVs. For example, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Display Power Management System (DPMS), which manages the power supply of computer displays, and HDMI Consumer Electronics Control (CEC), which allows users to manage their entertainment system to reduce energy use. IEC Standard 62087 accounts for other power saving functions by simply requiring that the user “test other power saving functions,” but does not specify particular testing methods for these technologies.
In order to ensure the most repeatable and reproducible testing method, DOE would like to receive comment on possible methods to test these as well as other viable power saving technologies.
Traditionally, computer monitors and televisions have been tested separately since each requires different technologies and were utilized differently by consumers. Recently, however, televisions have begun to integrate the internet and other computer-like features. Similarly, some computer monitors now feature television viewing capabilities. Both the technologies and markets for computer monitors and television have begun to merge, with some identical products being marketed separately as televisions and monitors. For instance, LCD panels are often identical in similar-sized monitors and TVs; new TVs often come equipped to receive VGA input; and monitors often come equipped with HDMI inputs. DOE would like feedback on whether to include computer monitors in the scope of the television test procedure to account for the current amalgamation of the traditionally different products.
ENERGY STAR v. 4.1's scope includes televisions with computer capability but distinguishes between televisions and computer monitors only based on how they are marketed and sold to consumers. DOE would like to receive comment on whether computer monitor and television technology require separate testing methods or could be tested using the same methods.
DOE seeks responses from interested parties and requests submission of comments, relevant data, and information related to the issues described above.
DOE is also interested in comments on other relevant issues that participants believe would affect test procedures applicable to this product. DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by October 4, 2010, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new test procedures for TVs.
After the close of the comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the analyses, and reviewing
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via e-mail at
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (Council or FFIEC), on behalf of its members, is proposing to update its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations. The Council last made changes to its FOIA regulations in 1988. Since that time information relating to the Council has changed and there have been several amendments to the FOIA, which need to be reflected in the regulations. The proposed rules revise the procedures to be used by members of the public in requesting records maintained by the Council, the time limits in which the Council must make a determination on disclosure in response to a request for records, the time period in which a requester has the right to administratively appeal any adverse determination made on a request for records, and provides procedures to be used to request expedited processing of FOIA requests. The revisions in the proposed rules are designed to improve access to records maintained by the Council and to provide clearer guidance to requesters on how to obtain records under the FOIA.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 4, 2010.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and received by the Council is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal, if possible. Please use the title “FOIA Comments” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this notice of proposed rulemaking electronically by following these instructions: Go to
Paul Sanford, Executive Secretary, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, via telephone: (703) 516-5590, or via e-mail:
The Council proposes a number of substantive and technical changes to its regulations implementing the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended) that fall within two general categories. First, the Council proposes modifying its existing regulations to reflect the amendments to the FOIA contained in the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048, and the OPEN Government Act, Public Law 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments increased the FOIA's basic time limit for agency responses to FOIA requests, and provided for expedited processing of FOIA requests under certain conditions, among other procedural revisions. The OPEN Government Act also amended various FOIA administrative procedures, such as when an agency may toll the statutory time for responding to FOIA requests, and how to indicate exemptions authorizing deletion of materials under the FOIA on a responsive record.
Second, the Council proposes to revise its regulations to further clarify its policies and procedures relating to the processing of FOIA requests and the administration of its FOIA operations.
Accordingly, the Council proposes to revise its regulations implementing the FOIA and put them out for public comment. The specific amendments that the Council proposes to each section of 12 CFR Part 1101 are discussed hereafter in regulatory sequence.
In 12 CFR 1101.3(e), the Council proposes revising the paragraph by
In 12 CFR 1101.4(a), the Council proposes revising the paragraph by providing the current address of the Council's offices and clarifying that Council policies and interpretations may be withheld from disclosure under exemptions to the FOIA.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b), the Council proposes minor revisions to the wording of the section heading.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(1), the Council proposes minor revisions in the wording of the paragraph to explain that Council records that are not published in the
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(1)(i), the Council proposes capitalizing the word “Order” when referring to an Executive Order.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(1)(v), the Council proposes adding language to protect from disclosure records of deliberations and meetings of the Council, its committees, and staff, that are not subject to the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(1)(vii), the Council proposes revising the paragraph by substituting a reference to the statutory citation for Exemption 7 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7), for the list of the specific substantive provisions of the exemption in the existing regulation. In addition, the term “state or federal” has been inserted to clarify that records of state financial regulatory agencies in the possession of the Council are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7 as are the records of federal regulatory agencies.
In 12 CFR 101.4(b)(1)(viii), the Council proposes revising the paragraph by eliminating a listing of the types of financial institutions covered by Exemption 8 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8), and inserting the term “state or federal” to clarify that records of state financial regulatory agencies in the possession of the Council are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 8.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(2), the Council proposes revising the heading to reflect current FOIA terminology concerning discretionary releases of exempt information.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(i), the Council proposes to revise the paragraph to provide the current address of the Council's offices, to allow the submission of FOIA requests by facsimile and e-mail, and to require that requests reasonably describe the records sought.
In 12 CFR 1101.4 (b)(3)(ii) the Council proposes to revise the paragraph to specify the information that a request must contain in order to be considered a “proper FOIA request” (
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(iii), the Council proposes modifying the language of the paragraph to clarify that the Council need not accept or process a defective FOIA request and to provide that such a request may be returned to the requester specifying the deficiency.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(iv), the Council proposes to add a procedure to request the expedited treatment of FOIA requests. A requester seeking to have the processing of a request expedited must show a compelling need for expedited processing.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(v), the Council proposes revising its procedures to increase the time limit in which the Council must respond to a FOIA request from 10 working days to 20 working days in accordance with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments and to clarify what information the Council's response to a FOIA request must contain.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(vi), the Council proposes to shorten the time period in which an administrative appeal of a denied request may be brought from 35 calendar days to 10 working days, to provide for the filing of administrative appeals by facsimile, and to update the mailing address of the Council.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(3)(vii), the Council proposes to clarify that the time in which the Council has to respond to an appeal runs from the actual receipt of the appeal by the Executive Secretary of the Council.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(4), the Council proposes to designate the existing paragraph as paragraph 1101.4(b)(4)(i) and to make a minor grammatical change to the language of the paragraph.
The Council proposes to add 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(4)(ii) to provide that if the responsive records are to be delivered to the requester, they will be mailed to the requester unless the Executive Secretary of the Council determines that it is appropriate to send the records by some other means.
The Council proposes to add 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(4)(iii) to indicate that the Council will provide a copy of a responsive record in the format requested by the requester if the record is “readily reproducible” in that format.
The Council proposes to add 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(4)(iv) to permit records to be provided electronically, and to provide that if the information is subject to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, it will not be sent electronically unless “reasonable security measures” can be established.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(i)(C), the Council proposes to revise the definition of the term “Duplication” to provide examples of the forms of document reproduction that may be used by the Council.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(i)(D), the Council proposes to make a minor change to the wording of the paragraph replacing the character “§ ” with the word “section”.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(i)(E), the Council proposes to add a provision to allow the Executive Secretary of the Council to consider the use to which the requester will put the records, and to seek additional information on the use if necessary in order to determine whether a particular FOIA request is a “commercial use request”.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(i)(G), the Council proposes to make a minor change to the wording of the paragraph replacing the character “§ ” with the word “section”.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(i)(H), the Council proposes revising its definition of “Representative of the news media” to reflect the definition provided in the OPEN Government Act, 5 U.S.C 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(C)(2), the Council proposes to add computer disks to the list of examples indicating the types of materials for which a requester will be charged a fee.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(F), the Council proposes revising the paragraph to provide examples of “special services” for which additional fees may be charged.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(H), the Council proposes to revise the procedures for requesting a waiver or reduction of fees. The proposed revisions include eliminating the list of factors to be considered by the Council in determining whether the public interest requirement is met, requiring a requester to state a justification for a waiver or reduction of fees, and providing a right to administratively appeal the denial of a request for a waiver or reduction of fees.
In 12 CFR 101.4(b)(5)(iii)(A), the Council proposes to make a minor grammatical change to the language of the paragraph.
In 12 CFR 101.4(b)(5)(iv), the Council proposes to make a minor change to the statutory citation contained in the paragraph.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(vii)(B), the Council proposes to make a minor change to the wording of the paragraph replacing the character “§ ” with the word “section”.
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(5)(vii)(C), the Council proposes to revise the paragraph by replacing the character “§ ” with the word “section,” and by increasing the limit stated in the parenthetical phrase to 20 working days in accordance with subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6).
In 12 CFR 1101.4(b)(6), the Council proposes revising the paragraph to provide that referral or consultation with another agency is appropriate whenever the requested record originated with or incorporates the information of another state or federal agency.
In accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603(a), the Council must publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with this proposed rulemaking or certify that the proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA analysis or certification, financial institutions with total assets of $175 million or less are considered to be “small entities.” The Council hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Council invites your comments on how to make this proposed regulation easier to understand. For example:
• Has the Council organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed regulation be more clearly stated?
• Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed regulation easier to understand?
• What else could the Council do to make the proposed regulation easier to understand?
The Council has determined that the proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
This proposed rule will be submitted to OMB for a determination as to whether or not it constitutes a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, 5 U.S.C 804(2), (3)(c), before it is issued as a final rule.
Freedom of information, FOIA exemptions, Schedule of fees, Waivers or reductions of fees.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Council proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1101 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1101 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 3307.
2. Section 1101.3 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e)
3. Section 1101.4 is amended:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising the heading for paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(i), (v), (vii), and (viii);
c. By revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4);
d. By revising paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(C), (D), (E), (G), and (H) and (b)(5)(ii)(C)(
e. By revising paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(A), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(iv)(B), (C), and (b)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(i) A record, or portion thereof, which is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and which is, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
(v) An intra-agency or interagency memorandum or letter that would not be routinely available by law to a private party in litigation, including, but not limited to, memoranda, reports, and other documents prepared by the personnel of the Council or its constituent agencies, and records of deliberations of the Council and discussions of meetings of the Council, any Council Committee, or Council staff, that are not subject to 5 U.S.C.
(vii) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7), including records relating to a proceeding by a financial institution's state or federal regulatory agency for the issuance of a cease-and-desist order, or order of suspension or removal, or assessment of a civil money penalty and the granting, withholding, or revocation of any approval, permission, or authority.
(viii) A record, or portion thereof, containing, relating to, or derived from an examination, operating, or condition report prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of any state or federal agency directly or indirectly responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(B) A statement as to whether the information is intended for commercial use, and whether the requester is an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or news media representative;
(C) A statement agreeing to pay all applicable fees, or a statement identifying any desired fee limitation, or a request for a waiver or reduction of fees that satisfies paragraph (5)(H)(ii) of this section.
(iii)
(iv)
(
(
(B) The requester's statement must be certified to be true and correct to the best of the person's knowledge and belief and explain in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.
(C) The formality of the certification required to obtain expedited treatment may be waived by the Executive Secretary as a matter of administrative discretion.
(v)
(B) In response to a request that reasonably describes the records sought and otherwise satisfies the requirements of this section, a search shall be conducted of records in existence and maintained by the Council on the date of receipt of the request, and a review made of any responsive information located. The Executive Secretary shall notify the requester of:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(vi)
(vii)
(4)
(ii) When delivery to the requester is to be made, copies of requested records shall be sent to the requester by regular U.S. mail to the address indicated in the request, unless the Executive Secretary deems it appropriate to send the documents by another means.
(iii) The Council shall provide a copy of the record in any form or format requested if the record is readily reproducible by the Council in that form or format, but the Council need not provide more than one copy of any record to a requester.
(iv) By arrangement with the requester, the Executive Secretary may elect to send the responsive records electronically if a substantial portion of the records is in electronic format. If the information requested is subject to disclosure under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, it will not be sent by electronic means unless reasonable security measures can be established.
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C)
(D)
(E)
G)
(H)
(ii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(F)
(H)
(iii)
(iv)
(B) A requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion. The Council may require the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest as provided in section 1101.4(b)(5)(iv) or demonstrate that he/she has, in fact, paid the fee, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Council begins to process a new request or a pending request from that requester.
(C) When the Council acts under section 1101.4(b)(5)(vii) (A) or (B), the administrative time limits prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA (
(6)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the Localizer/Distance Measuring Equipment (LOC/DME) for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0719; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2010-0719 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0719 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-8”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the LOC/DME SIAPs at Portland International Airport, and to further the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish additional controlled airspace at Portland International Airport, Portland, OR.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a line beginning at lat. 45°59′59″ N., long. 123°30′04″ W.; to lat. 46°00′00″ N., long. 122°13′00″ W.; thence via an 8.5-mile radius centered at lat. 45°55′07″ N., long. 122°03′02″ W. clockwise to lat. 45°46′39″ N., long. 122°04′00″ W.; thence via a line south along long. 122°04′00″ W. bounded on the south by lat. 45°09′59″ N., and on the west by long. 123°30′04″ W.; and within a 4.3-mile radius of the McMinnville Municipal Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the Newburg VORTAC 215° radial extending from lat. 45°09′59″ N., to 19.8 miles southwest of the Newburg VORTAC; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the north by lat. 46°30′29″ N., extending from 2.7 miles offshore to V-25, and on the east by V-25, on the south by V-536 to Corvallis VOR/DME; thence via lat. 44°29′59″ N., to a point 2.7 miles offshore, and on the west by a line 2.7 miles offshore to the point of beginning.
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 27, 2010.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Federal airway V-284, which extends between the Sea Isle, NJ and Cedar Lake, NJ, VHF omnidirectional range/tactical navigation (VORTAC) facilities. The FAA is proposing this action due to low demand for use of the airway.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0813 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AEA-12 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0813 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AEA-12) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0813 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AEA-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove VOR Federal airway V-284, which is only 29 nautical miles in length, and extends from the Sea Isle, NJ, VORTAC, through the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order 7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in this document would be removed subsequently from the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission proposes to further extend the temporary filing accommodation in Rule 312 of Regulation S-T that allows static pool information required to be disclosed in a prospectus of an asset-backed issuer to be provided on an Internet Web site under certain conditions. Under this rule, such information is deemed to be included in the prospectus included in the registration statement for the asset-backed securities. This rule currently applies to filings with respect to asset-backed securities filed on or before December 31, 2010. We propose to amend this rule to extend its application for an additional eighteen months. Under the proposed extension, the rule would apply to filings with respect to asset-backed securities filed on or before June 30, 2012.
Comments should be received on or before October 4, 2010.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Jay Knight, Attorney-Adviser, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3370, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3720.
We are proposing an amendment to Rule 312
In December 2004, we adopted new and amended rules and forms to address the registration, disclosure and reporting requirements for asset-backed securities (“ABS”) under the Securities Act of 1933
As described in the 2004 Adopting Release, in response to the Commission's proposal to require material static pool information in prospectuses for ABS offerings, many commentators representing both asset-backed issuers and investors requested flexibility in the presentation of such information. In particular, commentators noted that the required static pool information could include a significant amount of statistical information that would be difficult to file electronically on EDGAR as it existed at that time and difficult for investors to use in that format. Commentators accordingly requested the flexibility for asset-backed issuers to provide static pool information on an Internet Web site rather than as part of an EDGAR filing.
On October 19, 2009, we proposed to extend the temporary filing accommodation until December 31, 2010.
On December 15, 2009, we adopted the proposed one-year extension of the filing accommodation.
On April 7, 2010, we proposed significant revisions to Regulation AB and other rules regarding the offering process, disclosure and reporting for asset-backed securities (the “2010 ABS Proposals”).
We believe it is appropriate to further extend the filing accommodation provided by Rule 312, which is currently set to expire on December 31, 2010. As we stated in the 2009 Static Pool Extension Adopting Release, we believe a proposal for a long-term solution for providing static pool disclosure would be better considered together with other proposals to revise the regulations governing the offer and sale of ABS. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”).
Under our proposed extension, the temporary filing accommodation set forth in Rule 312 of Regulation S-T would apply to filings with respect to ABS filed on or before June 30, 2012. During the proposed extension, the existing requirements of Rule 312 would continue to apply. Pursuant to these requirements, the registrant must disclose its intention to provide static pool information through a Web site in the prospectus included in the registration statement at the time of effectiveness and provide the specific Internet address where the static pool information is posted in the prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424.
We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments regarding the proposed amendment described above. In particular, we solicit comment on the following questions:
• Is a further extension of the filing accommodation appropriate? What would be the consequences if the accommodation lapsed on December 31, 2010 and static pool information was required in an EDGAR filing beginning January 1, 2011?
• Should we consider proposed changes to static pool disclosure together with the other proposals outlined in the 2010 ABS Proposing Release? If not, why should we separate the static pool disclosure proposal from the rest of the ABS related proposals?
• Would the proposed eighteen-month extension present particular problems for investors? Would a shorter or more narrowly tailored extension address those concerns?
• Is an eighteen-month extension the appropriate length for an extension? Are there reasons for a shorter (12 month) or longer (24 month) extension?
Rule 312 of Regulation S-T was adopted along with other new and amended rules and forms to address the registration, disclosure and reporting requirements for ABS under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In connection with this prior rulemaking, we submitted a request for approval of the “collection of information” requirements contained in the amendments and rules to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
Item 1105 of Regulation AB
In this section, we examine the benefits and costs of our proposed amendment. We request that commentators provide views and supporting information as to the benefits and costs associated with the proposal. We seek estimates of these costs and benefits, as well as any costs and benefits not already identified.
We adopted the filing accommodation provided by Rule 312 of RegulationS-T because commentators requested flexibility in the presentation of required static pool information. Given the large amount of statistical information involved, commentators argued for a Web-based approach that would allow issuers to present the information in an efficient manner and with greater functionality and utility than might have been available if an EDGAR filing was required. We believe this greater functionality and utility has enhanced an investor's ability to access and analyze the static pool information because investors have been able to access static pool information in more user-friendly formats than was initially capable with filings on EDGAR and also removed the burden on issuers of duplicating the information in each prospectus as well as easing the burdens of updating such information.
By further extending the accommodation provided by Rule 312, these benefits to both issuers and investors would continue to apply. As noted in the 2009 Static Pool Extension Adopting Release, based on the staff's experience since Rule 312 became effective in 2006, the vast majority of residential mortgage-backed security issuers and a significant portion of ABS issuers in other asset classes have relied on the accommodation provided by the rule to disclose static pool information on an Internet Web site.
As indicated above, on April 7, 2010, we issued a release proposing to require the filing of static pool information on EDGAR at the same time we proposed other amendments addressing the disclosure, offering process and reporting of asset-backed issuers.
We do not believe an eighteen-month extension of the Rule 312 accommodation would impose any new or increased costs on issuers. In the Cost-Benefit Analysis section of the 2004 Adopting Release, we noted that asset-backed issuers electing the Web-based accommodation provided by Rule 312 would incur costs related to the maintenance and retention of static pool information posted on a Web site and might also incur start-up costs.
For investors, there may be costs associated with the static pool information not being electronically filed with the Commission. For example, when information is electronically filed with the Commission, investors and staff can access the information from a single, permanent, and centralized location, the EDGAR Web site. We think these costs are mitigated by the fact that ABS issuers relying on the Rule 312 accommodation must ensure that the prospectus for the offering contains the Internet Web site address where the static pool information is posted, the Web site must be unrestricted and free of charge, such information must remain on the Internet Web site for five years with any changes clearly indicated and the issuer must undertake to provide the information to any person free of charge, upon request, if a subsequent update or change is made. Furthermore, because the information is deemed included in the prospectus under Rule 312, it is subject to all liability provisions applicable to prospectuses and registration statements.
Investors and issuers may have incurred costs to adjust their processes in anticipation of the lapse of the Rule 312 accommodation and potential reversion to a requirement to file static pool information on EDGAR. In this case, benefits to investors or issuers of not having to change their procedures regarding static pool reporting in a short time frame would be diminished by any costs already incurred in anticipation of the change. We believe such anticipatory action and any associated costs are minimal.
We request comment on the amount of any additional costs issuers or investors may incur as a result of the proposed amendment.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, or “SBREFA,”
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment or innovation.
We request comment on the potential impact of the proposed amendment on the U.S. economy on an annual basis, any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, and any potential effect on competition, investment or innovation. Commentators are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views if possible.
Section 2(b) of the Securities Act requires us, when engaging in rulemaking where we are required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to also consider whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
As discussed in greater detail above, Rule 312 of Regulation S-T was adopted as a temporary filing accommodation so that issuers of ABS could present static pool information on an Internet Web site. The proposed amendment to Rule 312 of Regulation S-T further extends its application for eighteen months. We are not proposing changes to the conditions of Rule 312 or to the disclosure obligations to which it applies. We do not believe that an eighteen-month extension would impose a burden on competition. We also believe the extension of the filing accommodation would continue to promote efficiency and capital formation by permitting ABS issuers to disclose static pool information in a format that is more useful to investors and cost-effective and not unduly burdensome for asset-backed issuers.
We request comment on whether the proposed amendment, if adopted, would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Commentators are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their view to the extent possible.
The Commission hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed amendment contained in this release, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposal relates to the disclosure requirements for ABS in Securities Act registration statements. Securities Act Rule 157
We encourage written comments on the Certification. Commentators are asked to describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of the impact.
The amendment described is being proposed under the authority set forth in Sections 6, 7, 10, 19 and 28 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77j, 77s and 77z-3).
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend title 17, chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read, in part, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
2. Amend § 232.312 paragraph (a) introductory text by removing “December 31, 2010” and in its place adding “June 30, 2012” in the first sentence.
By the Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Announcement of technical conference.
This provides notice of the date and organization for the technical conference relating to the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) and Notice of Technical Conference issued on August 2, 2010, and published in the
The technical conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, on September 13, 2010, beginning at 9 a.m.
Take notice that on September 13, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will convene a staff-led technical conference regarding two issues pertaining to demand response compensation, as previously announced: (1) If the Commission were to adopt a net benefits test for determining when to compensate demand response providers, what, if any, requirements should apply to the methods for determining net benefits; and (2) what, if any, requirements should apply to how the costs of demand response are allocated.
The technical conference will be held on September 13, 2010, starting at 9 a.m. (EST), in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the public to attend and advance registration is not required. Members of the Commission may attend the conference.
As indicated in the Supplemental NOPR, the panelists are invited to discuss their views on the possible adoption of a net benefits test, including the methodologies for determining net benefits, and a methodology for allocating the costs of demand response.
In addition to the above-referenced issues and other matters directly relevant to this proceeding, discussions at the public technical conference may relate to matters pending in the following additional proceedings: Docket No. ER10-765-000, California Independent System Operator, Inc. (CAISO); and Docket Nos. ER09-1049-000, ER09-1049-002, and ER09-1049-003, Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc.
The agenda for this conference is attached. If any changes occur, the revised agenda will be posted on the Calendar of Events page on the Commission's Web site,
Transcripts of the conference will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). They will be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the Calendar of Events approximately one week after the conference.
A free Webcast of the technical conference in this proceeding will be available. Anyone with Internet access interested in viewing this conference can do so by navigating to
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an e-mail to
For more information about the technical conference or comment procedures, please contact:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Proposed rule.
OSHA is proposing to revise its regulations for the federally-funded On-site Consultation Program to: Clarify the ability of the Assistant Secretary to define sites which would receive inspections regardless of Safety and Health Achievement and Recognition Program (SHARP) exemption status; allow Compliance Safety and Health Officers to proceed with enforcement visits resulting from referrals at sites undergoing Consultation visits and at sites that have been awarded SHARP status; and, limit the deletion period from OSHA's programmed inspection schedule for those employers participating in the SHARP program.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2010.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
Electronic copies of this
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), through cooperative agreements with agencies in 48 states, the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories, administers and provides Federal funding for the On-site Consultation Program. In the states of Kentucky and Washington, and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on-site consultation services are provided to employers in the private sector as part of an OSHA-approved state plan funded by Federal grants under section 23(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. The On-site Consultation Program provides well-trained professional safety and health personnel, at no cost and upon request of an employer, to conduct worksite visits to identify occupational hazards and provide advice on compliance with OSHA regulations and standards. Priority in providing on-site consultation visits is accorded to smaller employers in more hazardous industries.
The On-site Consultation Program was first authorized by Congressional appropriations action in 1974. On July 16, 1998, The On-site Consultation Program was codified as a new subsection of 21(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act (CAAA), Public Law 105-197. OSHA's On-site Consultation Program is administered in accordance with regulations at § 1908. These regulations provide, among other things, rules and procedures for State consultants performing worksite visits. Following the successful completion of an on-site consultation visit, employers may seek to participate in
In this
Under current § 1908.7(b)(4)(ii), although worksites granted Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) status and those working towards achieving SHARP status (Pre-SHARP) are either deleted or deferred from the programmed inspection lists, they are still eligible for non-programmed inspections in the following categories:
A. Imminent danger.
B. Fatality/Catastrophe.
C. Formal Complaints.
At times, however, special circumstances may make it necessary to conduct an inspection or investigation at an establishment ordinarily exempt because of the employer's participation in the OSHA On-site Consultation Program. One such situation might arise in connection with workplace accidents that generate widespread public concern about a particular hazard or substance. As part of a national response to these hazards, OSHA may need to conduct programmed inspections of all sites within a specific industry. An onsite OSHA investigation might also be appropriate in the rare circumstance where a subsequent accident or other event at a particular establishment makes it advisable for OSHA to revisit the site. For this reason OSHA is proposing the addition of a fourth category, “other critical inspections as determined by the Assistant Secretary,” to the list of permissible inspections for worksites which have otherwise been deleted or deferred from programmed inspection lists as a result of SHARP or Pre-SHARP participation. Although Section 21(d) does not contain an explicit exception to allow for programmed inspections under these
In addition, current § 1908.7(b)(2) is internally inconsistent with the provisions related to pre-SHARP and SHARP in its use of the term “Complaints” as opposed to “Formal Complaints” used in current § 1908.7(b)(4)(ii) when describing the categories in which an employer with an in-progress consultation visit may be subject to termination of the visit and a subsequent enforcement inspection. While such distinctions do exist between the terms “Formal Complaints” and “Complaints,” OSHA general enforcement policy treats all types of complaints in a similar fashion. As a result, OSHA does not need to distinguish between Formal Complaints and Complaints when ascertaining the need to interrupt “in progress” or SHARP visits. Therefore, for consistency, OSHA is proposing to use the same language and descriptions for the interruptions to all consultation visits.
OSHA proposes to add a new category which will allow for termination of an in-progress onsite consultative visit, as well as enforcement inspections at worksites that are otherwise in pre-SHARP or SHARP status. Under the current provisions of part 1908, enforcement activity may be initiated under the following categories:
(i) Imminent danger investigations;
(ii) Fatality/catastrophe investigations;
(iii) Complaint investigations;
(iv) Other critical inspections as determined by the Assistant Secretary.
Current OSHA enforcement policy allows inspections to be initiated following a referral and are considered a type of non-programmed inspection, similar to a complaint. In some instances, referrals may identify hazards or suspected hazards that will necessitate termination of consultation activity to allow for a non-programmed enforcement inspection of that particular worksite. With this change, referrals will now be a basis to initiate enforcement activity at worksites subject to deferrals or deletions from programmed inspections as a result of either an in progress consultation visit, or a worksite in pre-SHARP or SHARP status. As a result of the above changes, unprogrammed inspections will be treated consistently for “in progress” interruptions and interruptions of SHARP and Pre-SHARP status, and will occur at the discretion of the Regional Administrator (RA).
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph § 1908.7(b)(4),
The proposed rule would also address the issue of inspection exemptions beyond one year. While 21(d) authorizes a one-year exemption for a consultation participant that successfully meets the listed criteria, OSHA retains wide discretion under other provisions of the OSH Act to set priorities and establish inspection schedules. Section 8(g) of the Act empowers OSHA to issue rules and regulations dealing with the inspection of work establishments.
While acknowledging OSHA's lawful discretion to establish inspection programs that provide for deletions from the programmed inspection schedule beyond the basic one-year programmed inspection deletion under 21(d), the proposed rule would place a one-year limit on such additional deletions. An employer's fulfillment of the SHARP participation requirements involve completing all the steps described in 21(d), a process that can take three years or more. Small businesses, which are the focus of the consultation program, are extremely dynamic and changeable. Small enterprises can more quickly change their operations, equipment and safety procedures without the investment of time and materials that a larger business might require.
OSHA recognizes that employer participation in voluntary programs such as SHARP contributes greatly to the statutory goal of eliminating hazards, and enables the agency to better allocate its scarce compliance resources. However, it is also important that OSHA retain authority to conduct programmed inspections, and that establishments be aware they may be the subject of such an inspection. Such awareness may itself be an incentive for vigorous compliance efforts.
Along with the changes proposed above, OSHA also wishes to clarify terminology used in Part 1908. Thus, the types of enforcement exemptions for which a worksite may be eligible after receiving a safety and health consultation visit should be defined and described in the same terminology used in the Site Specific Targeting (SST) and other OSHA enforcement guidance. OSHA is proposing, for consistency with terminology used in enforcement programs such as the SST, to use the terms “deferral” and “deletion” when describing exemptions from programmed inspections. Any deferrals and deletions are subject to the time periods specified in the proposal and not limited by inspection lists under the SST.
OSHA's On-site Consultation Program is voluntary, both for employers who seek this no-cost service and for States that provide it. The goal of the proposed revisions to existing Consultation Agreement regulations is to: (a) Clarify the ability of the Assistant Secretary to define sites which would receive inspections regardless of Safety and Health Achievement and Recognition Program (SHARP) exemption status;(b) allow Compliance Safety and Health Officers to proceed with enforcement visits resulting from referrals at sites undergoing Consultation visits and at sites that have been awarded SHARP status; (c) limit the deletion period from OSHA's programmed inspection schedule for those employers participating in the SHARP program. OSHA finds that the proposed revisions will not impose any new cost on affected employers.
The Agency has not quantified the potential cost reductions to employers or benefits to employees from the proposed revisions to the existing rule. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that no additional costs will be imposed on employers who choose to utilize State On-site Consultation project services and, therefore, no adverse economic impact on those employers is foreseen.
In terms of economic impact, the rule being proposed does not constitute an economically significant regulation within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, because it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; materially affect any single sector of the economy; interfere with the programs of other Agencies; materially affect the budgetary impact of grant or entitlement programs; nor result in other adverse effects of the kind specified in the Executive Order.
The On-site Consultation Program is designed to aid small employers, the same population identified for the protections of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well as Executive Order 12875, this proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and/or tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.
After a thorough analysis of the proposed revisions to part 1908, OSHA believes that the proposal imposes no new collection-of-information requirements (
The proposed rule clarifies the ability of the Assistant Secretary to define sites which would receive inspections, allows referrals to initiate inspections at sites that are currently undergoing a consultative visit, and asks the question as to how long a deletion period from the programmed OSHA inspection schedule for those employers working towards or participating in OSHA's recognition and exemption program should last.
On-site Consultation Program visits generally impose no paperwork requirements on employers. Specifically, all that is asked of the employer is that the employer agrees to correct all serious hazards identified during the inspection and post a list of serious hazards identified during the visit. Alternatively (as noted in the On-site Consultation Agreements' approved collection of information package 1218-0110), there is a paperwork burden on the State Consultation Projects. However, the paperwork burden on the States comes from the On-site Consultation visit process. The proposed changes to Part 1908 will not affect the consultation process, but rather only the benefits of the program to employers. As a result, since the consultation process remains exactly the same, no new or additional paperwork burden will be imposed on the States as a result of the proposed changes to the rule.
Interested parties who wish to comment on OSHA's determination that this proposal contains no additional paperwork requirements must send their written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Parties are also encouraged to submit their comments on this paperwork determination to OSHA along with any other comments on the proposed rule.
The proposed revisions to part 1908 have been reviewed under Executive Order 12612, Federalism (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), which sets forth fundamental federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and provides for consultation by Federal agencies with state or local governments when policies are being formulated
The revisions to part 1908 being proposed are generally consistent with the requirements and procedures under which OSHA and the States have administered the On-site Consultation Program for many years. OSHA has reviewed the proposed revisions and finds them to be consistent with the policymaking criteria outlined in Executive Order 12612. It should be noted that cooperative agreements pursuant to section 21(d) of the OSH Act, and State Plans submitted and approved under section 18 of the Act, are entirely voluntary Federal programs which do not involve imposition of an intergovernmental mandate [2 U.S.C. 1502, 658(5)]. Under § 1908.1(c) States and territories operating approved Plans under section 18 of the Act shall, in accordance with sections 18(b) and 18(c)(2), establish enforcement policies applicable to the safety and health issues covered by the State Plan, which are at least as effective as the enforcement policies established by this part, including: (1) A recognition and exemption program, (2) inspection deferral policies for employers working to achieve recognition and exemption status, and (3) policies for continuing inspections.
Interested persons including State Consultation agencies, employers and employees who have experience with or an interest in the On-site Consultation Program are invited to submit written data, views and arguments with respect to the proposed amendments part 1908 during a 60-day public comment period. OSHA is interested, among other things, in the experiences of State Consultation agencies and other affected parties regarding the following matters:
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2010, and two copies must be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0010, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. Comments under 10 pages long may be sent via FAX to (202) 693-2527 but must be followed by an original in a mailed submission. Written submissions must clearly identify the issue addressed and the position taken with regard to each issue. All comments submitted to the docket during this proceeding will be open for public inspection and copying at the location specified above.
Occupational safety and health, Programmed inspection schedule, Deletion program, Recognition and exemption, Inspections.
This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under sections 7(c), 8, 18, 21(d) and 23(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656, 657, 667, 670 672) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), January 2, 1997; No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).
Part 1908 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby proposed to be amended as follows:
1. Revise the authority citation for part 1908 to read as follows:
Sections 7(c), 8, 18, 21(d) and 23(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656, 657, 667, 670 672) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111); No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).
2. In § 1908.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) States operating approved Plans under section 18 of the Act shall, in accord with section 18(b), establish enforcement policies applicable to the safety and health issues covered by the State Plan which are at least as effective as the enforcement policies established by this part, including:
(1) A recognition and exemption program (§ 1908.7(b)(4)(i)(B));
(2) Inspection deferral policies for employers working to achieve recognition and exemption status (§ 1908.7(b)(4)(i)(A)); and
(3) Policies for continuing inspections at worksites that have received exemption status (§ 1908.7(b)(4)(ii)).
3. In § 1908.7, revise paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4)(i), and (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) The Consultant shall terminate an onsite consultative visit already in progress where one of the following kinds of OSHA compliance inspections is about to take place:
(i) Imminent danger inspections;
(ii) Fatality/catastrophe inspections;
(iii) Complaint inspections;
(iv) Referral inspections as determined necessary by the RA;
(iv) Other critical inspections as determined by the Assistant Secretary.
(4) * * *
(i)
(B) Employers who meet all the requirements for recognition and exemption will have the names of their establishments removed from OSHA's Programmed Inspection Schedule for a period of one year. The exemption period will extend from the date of issuance by the Regional Office of the certificate of recognition. OSHA may in its discretion establish inspection programs that provide for an additional deletion period, but such additional deletion period shall not exceed one year.
(ii)
(A) Imminent danger inspections;
(B) Fatality/catastrophe inspections;
(C) Complaint inspections;
(D) Referral inspections as determined necessary by the RA;
(E) Other critical inspections as determined by the Assistant Secretary.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the operation of the Pennington Avenue Bridge, at mile 0.9, across Curtis Creek at Baltimore, MD. The requested change would have allowed the bridge to operate from a remote location at the City of Baltimore Transportation Management Center. The proposed rule is being withdrawn because of the many concerned comments sent from the primary waterway users that transit the bridge.
The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on September 3, 2010.
The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is 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 about this notice, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 398-6629, e-mail
On June 2, 2010, we published an NPRM entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD” in the
The City of Baltimore, the owner of the Pennington Avenue Bridge, had requested a change in the operating procedures to allow the bridge to be opened from a remote location at the City of Baltimore Transportation Management Center.
The Coast Guard received several comments opposing the proposed rule change. We conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation that included a site visit of the bridge and the Baltimore City Transportation Management Center. We also conducted a meeting at the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, MD with the primary waterway users that transit the bridge, staff from the City of Baltimore's Transportation division, and their contracted consulting company.
Our investigation along with the majority of the comments revealed that the rulemaking could impose critical service delays to the various industries that rely on a timely bridge opening. This withdrawal is based on the reason that this change would not improve the bridge usage for roadway and waterway users.
This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes to establish regulations for the payment of a monthly assistance allowance to military veterans training to make the United States Paralympics team, as authorized by section 703 of the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. The proposed rule would facilitate the payment of a monthly assistance allowance to a veteran with a service-connected or nonservice-connected disability if the veteran is competing for a slot on or selected for the United States Paralympics team or is residing at a United States Paralympics training center. The proposed rule would require submission of an application to establish eligibility for the allowance and certification by the United States Paralympics.
Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2010.
Written comments may be submitted through
Matt Bristol, Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events (002C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461-7447. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In 2008, Congress amended title 38, United States Code, to add a new section 322 regarding establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events. Public Law 110-389, sec. 703. Subject to the availability of appropriations, Congress authorized VA to provide certain disabled veterans, who participate in programs or events sanctioned by the United States Paralympics (USP) or who reside at a USP training center, a monthly assistance allowance. 38 U.S.C. 322. VA proposes to amend its regulations to implement the allowance.
Under section 322, VA may provide an allowance to a veteran with a disability who is: (1) Invited by the USP to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the USP Team, for any month or part of any month in which the veteran is training or competing in any event sponsored by the USP or the International Paralympic Committee (IPC); or (2) residing at a USP training center in connection with any paralympic training or competition. The USP estimates that up to 70 veterans may qualify for this allowance annually.
We propose to implement the allowance in new 38 CFR part 76. Although section 322(d) authorizes VA to pay the allowance to a veteran with a disability invited by the “United States Paralympics, Inc.,” to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the Paralympic Team, that entity is now designated as the “United States Paralympics,” and is a division of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). Accordingly, we propose to refer to the USP, rather than the United States Paralympics, Inc.
The proposed rule would include certain terms that must be defined for the purposes of part 76. In proposed § 76.1(a), we would define the term “disability” to mean “a service-connected or nonservice-connected disability, which meets the criteria prescribed by the IPC's Classification Code and International Standards, November 2007 edition, available at
As stated previously, section 322(d) authorizes VA to “provide a monthly assistance allowance to a veteran with a disability invited by the [USP] to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the Paralympic Team for any month in which the veteran is training or competing in any event sanctioned by the [USP], or who is residing at a [USP] training center.” In selecting individuals for international competition, USP must ensure competitors' compliance with the IPC Code and Standards because most individuals selected to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the Paralympic Team, which is associated with the USP, will ultimately compete internationally. Therefore, we propose to pay the allowance to those veterans with disabilities that meet IPC criteria.
We propose to define the term “Paralympic Training Center” as referring to the following locations: the United States Olympic Training Center at Chula Vista, California; the United States Olympic Training Center at Colorado Springs, Colorado; the United States Olympic Training Center at Lake Placid, New York; the Lakeshore Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama; and the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Oklahoma.
As stated previously, section 322(d)(3) requires VA to give priority in payment of the allowance to veterans with service-connected disabilities. We propose to periodically assess funding levels to determine if funding for payment of the allowance will be sufficient to cover all applicants. Based on the estimated 70 veterans that may qualify for the allowance annually and the appropriated $2,000,000 in funding, VA believes it will be able to pay all applicants. If a periodic assessment reveals that funding for the allowance will be insufficient to pay all applicants, we propose to make payments in full first to veterans with service-connected disabilities.
Section 322(d) authorizes funding for the allowance beginning in fiscal year 2010, or beginning October 1, 2009. Because funding has been available from October 1, 2009, we propose to allow retroactive payment for paralympic training, competition, or residence that occurred on or after October 1, 2009, if an application and appropriate certification are submitted to VA within 1 year of the effective date of this regulation. Based on the number of applications received from individuals with both service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities within the first year, we will determine if funding for payment of the allowance for fiscal year 2010 is sufficient to pay fully all eligible applicants. If funding is insufficient to pay all eligible applicants, we propose to first pay those eligible applicants with service-connected disabilities. To the extent funds remain to pay eligible applicants with nonservice-connected disabilities, we will make payments in the order of receipt of applications. We believe this is the most equitable method for making retroactive payments to nonservice-connected veterans in case of limited funds.
To allow for effective administration of payments of the allowance, and to ensure that veterans who are entitled to the allowance are accurately and timely paid, we propose to require qualifying veterans to submit an application with information pertinent to payment, including information pertaining to dependents, who may justify a higher rate of allowance. We also propose to require certification from the USP of participation in training or competition sponsored by the USP or the IPC, or residence at a USP Training Center. Such certification shall specify the dates of training, competition, or residence for which payment is requested so that VA has verification that payment is due.
Section 322(d)(2) requires the amount of the allowance to be equal to the monthly amount of subsistence allowance that would be payable to a veteran under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 of this title if the veteran were eligible for and entitled to rehabilitation under
We propose to allow an individual to be paid for each day of qualified training, competition, or residence at 1/30 of the monthly rate, or on a monthly basis for a continuous month of qualified training, competition, or residence. This recognizes the likely temporal irregularities that will occur with respect to periods of training, competition, or residence, and is consistent with long-standing calculation methods employed by VA to address certain payments and entitlement-charge determinations for partial months under its education and vocational rehabilitation programs. Frequency of payment of the allowance will depend on the timing of the filing of a claim for a given period of time. Because our statutory authority requires that we base the amount of the allowance on the monthly amount of subsistence allowance that would be payable to a veteran under chapter 31, and, under chapter 31, an additional amount is payable to veterans with dependents, we propose to pay an additional amount of allowance to veterans with dependents based on the rate paid as a subsistence allowance for a full-time institutional program under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code to veterans with dependents.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, we propose to incorporate by reference
Although under the rulemaking guidelines in Executive Order 12866, VA ordinarily provides a 60-day comment period, the Secretary has determined that there is good cause to limit the public comment period on this proposed rule to 30 days. VA does not expect to receive a large number of comments on this proposed rule because this regulation places minimal burden on affected parties and implements a new benefit. Furthermore, most of the proposed rule's requirements are mandated by 38 U.S.C. 322. Lastly, VA believes that implementation of this regulation is urgent to assist veterans training for the United States Paralympics team. Accordingly, VA has provided that comments must be received within 30 days of publication in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector.
This document contains two provisions (§ 76.3(a) and § 76.3(b)) constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) The Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events is developing two new forms for this allowance—an application and a certification of training. ONVSPSE will submit these forms to OMB, along with justification paperwork, as part of the proposed regulation.
OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments on the collections of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or through
• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of the collections 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,
The proposed addition of 38 CFR Part 76 contains collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act for which we are requesting approval by OMB. These collections of information are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would primarily affect only individuals and would impose only a minor certification requirement upon the United States Paralympics. Therefore, this proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
This proposed rule would not affect VA programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, approved this document on July 23, 2010, for publication.
Certification, Day care, Disabled, Eligibility, Individuals with disabilities, Monthly assistance allowance, Overpayment, Oversight, Physically challenged athletes, Service-connected disabilities, Sport event, Travel and transportation expenses, U.S. Paralympics training center, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR chapter I to add a new part 76 to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 322(d), and as stated in specific sections.
For purposes of part 76, the following definitions apply:
(a) VA will pay an allowance to a veteran with a disability who is:
(1) Invited by the United States Paralympics (USP) to compete for a slot on, or selected for, the USP Team for any month or part of any month in which the veteran is training or competing in any event sponsored by the USP or the IPC; or
(2) Residing at a USP training center in connection with any paralympic training or competition for the period certified under § 76.3.
(b) In providing this allowance, VA will periodically assess funding for the allowance. If a periodic assessment reveals that funding is insufficient to pay all applicants, VA will first pay in full veterans with service-connected disabilities, and then pay others in full in the order in which their completed applications are received.
To receive an allowance—
(a) A veteran must submit a complete application identifying any dependents upon which a higher payable rate of allowance may be based; and
(b) USP must provide certification of the veteran's participation in training or competition sponsored by the USP or the IPC, or residence at a USP training center, for the period for which payment is requested. The certification must specify whether the payment is due for training, competition, or residence, and the dates of the training, competition, or residence for which payment is due.
The following rules govern the amount of allowance payable to veterans under this section.
(a) Payment will be made at the rate paid for a full-time institutional program under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code (Chapter 31) that is in effect for a period of certified participation, as prescribed by paragraph (b) of this section. (
(b) Payment may be made for each day at 1/30 of the monthly rate to veterans who train or compete in USP or IPC sponsored events for each day of training or competition, or to veterans who reside at a USP training center, for each day of residence, or on a monthly basis at the monthly rate to veterans who train or compete continuously for a full month, or to veterans who reside at a USP training center for a full month.
(c) VA will pay the allowance at a rate paid to a veteran with dependents for a full-time Chapter 31 institutional program upon receipt of appropriate documentation that a veteran who qualifies for the allowance has dependents. (
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
In this rule, we are proposing to withdraw two provisions from the “Medicaid Program; Prescription Drugs” final rule (referred to hereafter as “AMP final rule”) published in the July 17, 2007
The provisions of the AMP final rule and the definition of multiple source drug that we are proposing to withdraw were challenged in a lawsuit that was filed in November 2007. The challenged regulations have been superseded in significant part by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, and the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. This document would withdraw the regulatory provisions challenged in the aforementioned litigation.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 4, 2010.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2238-P2. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Wendy Tuttle, (410) 786-8690.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
On July 17, 2007, we published a final rule, titled “Medicaid Program; Prescription Drugs” in the
On November 7, 2007, a complaint was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) and the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) (collectively, the Plaintiffs), which alleged that the AMP final rule unlawfully changes the methodology by which pharmacies are reimbursed for dispensing prescription drugs to Medicaid patients. The Complaint sought to enjoin the Department of Health and Human Services and CMS (the Defendants) from implementing the AMP final rule for purposes of reimbursing pharmacies and posting on a public Web site the data calculated pursuant to the AMP final rule. In addition, it sought declaratory relief that the AMP final rule fails to comply with the Act.
On December 19, 2007, the Court issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act and acted contrary to law and/or arbitrarily and capriciously in creating” the AMP final rule because “the AMP Rule does not comply with either the statutory definition of `average manufacturer price' or the statutory definition of `multiple source drug' as stated by the Court.” Accordingly, the preliminary injunction prohibits CMS from “[u]ndertaking any and all action to implement the AMP Rule to the extent such action affects Medicaid reimbursement rates for retail pharmacies under the Medicaid program,” and, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits CMS from “[p]osting any AMP data on a public Web site or otherwise disclosing any AMP data to any individual or entities.” The preliminary injunction, however, does not enjoin implementation of the AMP final rule as it relates to the calculation of rebates for the Medicaid rebate program, or the disclosure of AMP data to States as necessary for the administration of that program.
On March 14, 2008, in response to this litigation, CMS published an interim final rule with comment period to revise the definition of multiple source drug to better conform to the statutory definition of “multiple source drug” found in section 1927(k)(7) of the Act, and to inform the public of the procedures and practices the Agency would follow to ensure compliance with those statutory provisions. The subsequent final rule was published on October 7, 2008. The Plaintiffs, however, amended their filing with the Court contending that the revised multiple source drug definition and implementation procedures remained inconsistent with the statute.
On July 15, 2008, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-275) (MIPPA) was enacted. Section 203 of MIPPA prohibited HHS from imposing FULs prior to October 1, 2009, for multiple source drugs under § 447.514(b) as published in the July 17, 2007, AMP final rule. In accordance with the law, CMS resumed publishing FULs for multiple source drugs, using the methodology in § 447.332 as in effect on December 31, 2006. The methodology in § 447.332 applied through September 30, 2009. Since the preliminary injunction was issued, CMS has been unable to implement certain provisions of the DRA (as implemented in the July 17, 2007 AMP final rule). As a result of the lawsuit, and subsequent preliminary injunction, CMS has been enjoined from implementing the AMP-based FULs that the DRA had required. However, manufacturers were not affected by the injunction and continue to calculate and report AMP for the purpose of Medicaid rebates, in accordance with the Determination of AMP as specified in the AMP final rule.
Section 2503(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, enacted on March 23, 2010), amended section 1927(e) of the Act by revising the Federal upper reimbursement limit to be no less than 175 percent of the weighted average (determined on the basis of utilization) of the most recently reported monthly AMPs for pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent multiple source drug products that are available for purchase by retail community pharmacies on a nationwide basis. It also amends section 1927(k) of the Act by revising the definitions of AMP, multiple source drug, and wholesaler. In addition, it adds to section 1927(k) of the Act the definition of the term “retail community pharmacy,” and eliminates the term “retail pharmacy class of trade.” The amendments made by section 2503(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by section 1101(c) of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111-152, enacted on March 30, 2010)
In light of the lawsuit and preliminary injunction imposed by the Court and, in light of the changes in the relevant statutory language, CMS proposes the following revisions to the AMP final rule published on July 17, 2007:
• Section 447.504, “Determination of AMP,” should be withdrawn in its entirety;
• Section 447.514, “Upper limits for multiple source drugs,” should be withdrawn in its entirety; and
• The definition of “multiple source drug” in § 447.502, “Definitions” (as it was amended by the Multiple Source Drug Rule published on October 7, 2008), should be withdrawn.
The terms “average manufacturer price” and “multiple source drug” would be defined by section 1927 of the Act, including changes made by section 2503 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, and the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. In particular, drug manufacturers would be advised to base their AMP calculations on the definitions set forth in section 1927 of the Act, instead of on the AMP and AMP-related definitions provided in existing regulations and guidance.
CMS expects to develop regulations that will implement the provisions of section 2503 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, there are three sections within the AMP final rule that make reference to the sections being proposed for withdrawal. Section 447.510 “Requirements for manufacturers”, makes reference to § 447.504 “Determination of AMP”, and § 447.512 “Drugs: Aggregate upper limits for payment”, and § 447.518 “State plan requirements”, make reference to § 447.514 “Upper limits for multiple source drugs. We are proposing conforming regulatory amendments to those sections.
This document does not impose any new information collection and recordkeeping requirements. The burden associated with the reporting requirements contained in § 447.510(a) are currently approved under OMB #0938-0578 with an expiration date of October 31, 2010.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993) the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This regulatory action withdraws those regulatory provisions that have been superseded by the Affordable Care Act. We do not expect that this proposed rule will have any economic effects. Therefore, this proposed rule is not considered an economically significant rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $7.0 million to $34.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2010, that threshold is approximately $135 million. This rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 447 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
2. Section 447.502 is amended by removing the definition of “multiple source drug.”
3. Section 447.504 is removed and reserved.
4. Section 447.510 is amended by—
A. Republishing paragraph (a) introductory text.
B. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(2)(i), and (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) AMP, calculated in accordance with section 1927 (k)(1) of the Social Security Act.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) A manufacturer's recalculation of the base date AMP must only reflect the revisions to AMP as provided for in section 1927(k)(1) of the Social Security Act.
(d) * * *
(2)
5. Section 447.512 is amended by—
A. Removing and reserving paragraph (a).
B. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b).
C. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) [Reserved]
(b)
(c)
(1) The upper limit for payment for multiple source drugs for which specific limit has been established does not apply if a physician certifies in his or her own handwriting (or by an electronic alternative means approved by the Secretary) that a specific brand is medically necessary for a particular recipient.
(2) The agency must decide what certification form and procedure are used.
(3) A check-off box on a form is not acceptable but a notation like “brand necessary” is allowable.
(4) The agency may allow providers to keep the certification forms if the forms will be available for inspection by the agency or HHS.
5. Section 447.514 is removed and reserved.
6. Section 447.518 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i).
B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the citations “§§ 447.512 and § 447.514” and adding citation “§ 447.512” in its place.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) In the aggregate, its Medicaid expenditures for multiple source drugs are in accordance with the established upper limits.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing a technical correction to the FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Standard Flood Insurance Policy regulations. In this proposed rule, FEMA intends to increase the clarity of one of the provisions of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy by adding in two unintentionally omitted words.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0021, by one of the following methods:
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. All comments received will be posted without change to
Edward L. Connor, Acting Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3010. Phone: (202) 646-3429. Facsimile: (202) 646-7970. E-mail:
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in developing this rule will refer to a specific provision of the NPRM, explain the reason for any comments, and include other information or authority that supports such comments. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may want to review the Federal Docket Management System system of records notice published in the
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rule. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address specified in the
FEMA does not plan to hold a public meeting on this NPRM, but you may submit a request for one at the address specified in the
Under the authority of sections 1304 and 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, 82 Stat. 574, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4011, 4081), FEMA provides insurance protection against flood damage to homeowners, businesses, and others by means of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The sale of flood insurance is largely implemented by private insurance companies that participate in the NFIP Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program. Through the WYO Program, insurance companies enter into agreements with FEMA to sell and service flood insurance policies and adjust claims after flood losses.
The policy sold is the FEMA Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP), which is published in 44 CFR part 61, Appendix A. The SFIP has six parts, the Dwelling Form (App A(1)), General Property Form (App A(2)), Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (App A(3)), Endorsement to Dwelling Form (App A(4)), Endorsement to General Property Form (App A(5)), and the Endorsement to Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (App A(6)). The language in the Dwelling Form and the General Property Form are similar with respect to their discussion of the property covered. For example, the paragraph at 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(1) III.B.3 contains the same substance as the paragraph at 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(2) III.B.4.
However, 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(2) III.B.4 reads:
Items of property in a building enclosure below the lowest elevated floor of an elevated post-FIRM building located in zones A1-A30, AE, AH, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/AH, AR/A1-A30, V1-V30, or VE, or in a basement, regardless of the zone, is limited to the following items, if installed in their functioning locations and, if necessary for operation, connected to a power source: * * *
While 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(1) III.B.3 reads:
Coverage for items of property in a building enclosure below the lowest elevated floor of an elevated post-FIRM building located in zones A1-A30, AE, AH, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/AH, AR/A1-A30, V1-V30, or VE, or in a basement, regardless of the zone, is limited to the following items, if installed in their functioning locations and, if necessary for operation, connected to a power source: * * *
On May 31, 2000, FEMA published an NPRM at 65 FR 34823 that proposed to revise the SFIP so that it would conform to “plain language” standards. The rule also proposed changes that would bring the three forms of the SFIP more in line with the format of the insurance industry's homeowners policy. FEMA also proposed changes in the coverage.
On October 12, 2000, FEMA published a final rule at 65 FR 60757. The final rule changed the SFIP so that it was in “plain language” and restructured the format to resemble the homeowners policy. FEMA also made changes in the policy's coverage and addressed the comments received after the publication of the NPRM.
The SFIP General Property Form is missing “Coverage for” at the beginning of 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(2) III.B.4. This omission started in the NPRM. However, the omission did not affect 44 CFR until the final rule's effective date of December 31, 2000. The words “Coverage for” do not substantively change the effect of the paragraph in question, as FEMA has always interpreted the substance of the paragraph as discussing those items which are or are not covered by the policy. However, to clarify and ensure consistency with the other paragraphs in Appendix A, FEMA is proposing to correct the paragraph by adding the words “Coverage for” at the beginning of 44 CFR part 61 Appendix A(2) III.B.4. With this proposed change, it would be clear on its face that the paragraph discusses the limitations of coverage for these certain types of items.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), accordingly FEMA has not submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule is solely adding two unintentionally omitted words to the SFIP and will not affect the way that FEMA interprets or applies the policy. FEMA expects that this change would have no economic impact.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that special consideration be given to the effects of proposed regulations on small entities. This rule will not have an economic impact on the regulated public. Therefore, FEMA certifies that this will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Although this proposed regulatory change will not result in a new collection of information affected by the PRA, the collection of information for the National Flood Insurance Program Policy Forms is approved under OMB
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FEMA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (Mar. 22, 1995) (2 U.S.C. 1501
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” (53 FR 8859, Mar. 18, 1988).
Under Executive Order 12898, as amended “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), FEMA incorporates environmental justice into its policies and programs. Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefit of, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin or income level.
No action that FEMA can anticipate under this proposed rule will have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on any segment of the population. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply to this proposed rule.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This proposed rule will not create environmental health risks or safety risks for children under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997).
Rulemaking is a major Federal action subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FEMA proposes to amend44 CFR chapter I as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. Amend Appendix A(2) to part 61, by removing “Items” and adding “Coverage for items” in its place in paragraph III.B.4.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS is proposing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (Act), as amended, to increase the vessel capacity limit for the U.S. purse seine fishery operating in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) and make U.S. regulations more consistent with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Resolution on the Capacity of the Tuna Fleet Operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. These revisions would ensure that the United States is satisfying its obligations under the Tuna Conventions Act while dismantling regulatory constraints preventing economic development of the U.S. industry.
Comments must be submitted in writing by October 4, 2010. A public hearing will be held at 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. PDT, September 9, 2010, Long Beach, CA.
You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY75, by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Fax: 562-980-4047, Attn: Heidi Hermsmeyer
• Mail: Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, NMFS Southwest Regional Office (SWR), 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “0648-AY75” in the comments.
• Public hearing: The public is welcome to attend a public hearing and offer comments on this rule on September 9, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. The public may also participate in the public hearing via conference line: 800-621-8495; participant passcode: 26548.
Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS SWR and by e-mail to
Heidi Hermsmeyer, NMFS SWR, 562-980-4036.
The Convention entered into force in May 1949. The full text of the Convention is available at:
The IATTC, established under the Convention, is comprised of the Members, including High Contracting Parties to the Convention and fishing entities that have agreed to be bound by the regime established by the Convention. Other entities that participate in the IATTC include Cooperating Non-Parties, Cooperating Fishing Entities, and Regional Economic Integration Organizations. Cooperating Fishing Entities participate with the authorization of the High Contracting Parties with responsibility for the conduct of their foreign affairs. Cooperating Non-Parties are identified by the IATTC on a yearly basis. In accepting Cooperating Non-Party status, such States agree to implement the decisions of the IATTC in the same manner as Members.
The current Members of the IATTC are Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Spain, United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The current Cooperating Non-Parties, Cooperating Fishing Entities and Regional Economic Integration Organizations are Belize, Canada, China, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Chinese Taipei, and the European Union.
As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement the decisions of the IATTC. The Act (16 U.S.C. 951
At its sixty-ninth annual meeting in June 2002, the IATTC adopted the Resolution on the Capacity of the Tuna Fleet Operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Resolution C-02-03) to address the problem of excess capacity in the tuna purse-seine fleet operating in the EPO by limiting the capacity to a level which would ensure that tuna fisheries in the region are sustainable. The resolution, available with other decisions of the IATTC at
When Resolution C-02-03 was adopted, the United States was authorized to have a total of 39,228 cubic meters of capacity in the purse seine fishery, as well as a provision that allowed up to 32 U.S. purse seine vessels that regularly operate in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) to make one trip per year in the EPO without being included on the IATTC Vessel Register. However, for diplomatic reasons the United States
The proposed rule would revise the vessel capacity limit for the U.S. purse seine fishery operating in the EPO so that it is consistent with the amount authorized by the IATTC, which currently is 31,775 cubic meters, or about 27,146 metric tons. In addition, the regulations pertaining to the purse seine fishery operating in the EPO would be revised so that capacity measurements would be in cubic meter measurements, rather than in metric tons. This would be consistent with the measurements used by the IATTC and a less subjective measurement because it is based on actual well volume rather than the estimated weight of fish that would fit in the well. The exemption for small purse seine vessels to be on the Vessel Register at 50 CFR 300.22 (b)(1)(ii) would also be removed, so that all U.S. purse seine vessels would need to be listed on the Vessel Register and categorized as active under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of the same section in order to use purse seine gear to fish for tuna in the IATTC Convention Area. However, these vessels (class size 5 and under purse seine vessels that primarily fish for coastal pelagic species off the U.S. west coast) would be exempt from the frivolous request provisions for active status at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(4)(ii). The frivolous request provisions essentially penalize vessels that apply to be on the vessel register and do not fish for tuna in the EPO by putting them at the bottom of the hierarchy when applying to be on the vessel register the following year. These provisions are meant to prevent vessel owners who do not have any intent to fish in the Convention Area from applying to be on the vessel register and occupying assigned capacity. The smaller vessels would be exempt from these provisions because it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the vessel owners to anticipate whether unassociated schools of tuna would come within their range off the U.S. west coast during the summer months in a given year. These revisions would ensure that the United States is satisfying its obligations under the Tuna Conventions Act and not exceeding its allotted capacity in purse seine fishery, while dismantling regulatory constraints preventing capacity building by the U.S. industry.
Since 1971, the number of large U.S. purse seine vessels fishing for tuna in the EPO has been reduced from over 155 to an average of two over the past seven years. Most of the U.S. vessels that historically fished in the EPO have either re-flagged or are now active in the WCPO, where a treaty between the United States and certain Pacific Island States (i.e., the South Pacific Tuna Treaty) provides the fleet with access to fishing grounds. The number of vessels in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery gradually decreased from the late 1990s until 2006, and has fluctuated since. Since 2003, there has been an annual average of two large purse seine vessels and four small purse seine vessels that have landed tuna on the U.S. west coast. The small purse seine vessels primarily target coastal pelagic species (CPS) and target tunas opportunistically when they become available in the U.S. west coast Exclusive Economic Zone during the summer months.
Since the end of 2008, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet has included 37 vessels. These 37 vessels amount to roughly 55,000 cubic meters of carrying capacity. In general, WCPO tuna fishermen catch more and larger tuna per set compared to EPO tuna fishermen and thus make fewer and shorter trips. Unless there is a change in the economics of the fisheries, such that fishing in the EPO would be more advantageous for the U.S. fleet, it is unlikely that U.S. vessels will significantly expand their activity in the EPO. In addition, NMFS does not expect any other large vessels to be configured for purse seine fishing and enter into the fishery because of the high start-up costs associated with purchasing a large vessel and retrofitting it and purchasing the necessary gear to enter the fishery.
NMFS also does not expect a significant influx of smaller vessels into the EPO tuna purse seine fishery. The purse seine fisheries targeting CPS are limited entry fisheries. Any additional small purse seine vessels that could potentially enter the EPO tuna fishery would either be a new purse seine vessel that would primarily target tuna, or one of the limited entry CPS vessels. It is unlikely that there would be a significant influx of new vessels in the fishery due to the high start-up costs associated with entering the fishery, and it is unlikely that there would be a significant increase in the number of small CPS purse seine vessels that opportunistically target tunas in the summer months as shown by recent fishing practices.
As of July 2010, there were only two large U.S. purse seine vessels listed on the Vessel Register and authorized to fish in the IATTC Convention Area in the 2010 fishing year. The total U.S. vessel carrying capacity at this time is 1,194 mt, which does not include small vessels, currently exempt from the requirement to be listed on the Vessel Register under domestic regulations. In 2009, there were eight small purse seine vessels that were exempt from being listed on the IATTC Vessel Register and made landings of tuna in the EPO; these vessels amount to an estimated 1,000 mt of capacity. Thus, it is estimated that the current U.S. vessel capacity, including small vessels, is about 2,200 mt. If the proposed rule were adopted, it is possible, although highly unlikely, that the effort in the purse seine fishery operating in the EPO could increase threefold as the carrying capacity limit being proposed is about three times larger than the one currently in place. This would allow for about half of the large purse seine vessels that are currently registered to fish in the WCPO to be on the IATTC Vessel Register and be eligible to fish in the EPO. However, the current capacity limit of 8,969 mt has never been fully utilized since it was established in 2005, and when excess U.S. capacity has been available in the past, there has not been a surge to use this capacity. Thus, it is apparent that there has not been a high demand
In 2008, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) adopted a conservation and management measure (CMM-2008-01) that established a three-month closure in the WCPO to fishing on fish aggregating devices with purse seine gear. This closure could have resulted in an increase in the number of WCPO vessels interested in operating in the IATTC Convention Area. This did not occur during the 2008 or 2009 closures; however, NMFS staff has been advised that some vessel managers are considering shifting effort to the IATTC Convention Area in the future. The IATTC resolution on vessel capacity and U.S. regulations do allow for WCPO vessels to make a single trip in the EPO during a calendar year without having to be listed on the IATTC Vessel Register, so if the vessels wanted to make only one trip they would not need to be on the Vessel Register or be counted against the U.S. carrying capacity. However, if a WCPO vessel wanted to make more than one trip, it would have to request to be on the Vessel Register and would only be allowed to do so if there was adequate capacity available.
In addition to the capacity limits, there are other IATTC measures in place to limit effort in the purse seine fishery. Of particular relevance is IATTC Resolution C-09-01, which went into effect in July 2009 and established, among other things, time/area closures and tuna catch retention requirements in the purse seine fishery. These measures were put in place primarily to limit the fishing mortality of bigeye and yellowfin tuna. The United States implemented these measures domestically in November 2009 (74 FR 61046, November 23, 2009).
NMFS initially considered including a provision that would rank purse seine fishermen applying to be on the Vessel Register according to their historical participation in the purse seine fishery, so those who have participated longer in the fishery would have precedence when applying to be on the Vessel Register. NMFS has preliminarily determined that this provision is not necessary at this time because there has been such limited participation in the fishery in the recent past. NMFS also initially considered including additional restraints on the small purse seine vessels that would be exempt from the frivolous request provisions in order to avoid numerous small purse seiners that do not have intentions to fish for tuna later in the year from applying to be on the Vessel Register. However, NMFS determined that this is also not necessary at this time due to the limited participation in the fishery. NMFS encourages public comment on both of these issues.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The complete analysis is included in this proposed rule.
The purpose of the proposed action is to amend regulations to ensure that the United States is satisfying its obligations as a member of the IATTC and U.S. regulations are as consistent as practicable with active IATTC Resolutions, while dismantling regulatory constraints that may prevent capacity building by the U.S. industry.
The total number of affected purse seine vessels is approximated by the current number of U.S. purse seine vessels authorized to fish in the IATTC Convention Area and the number of vessels that have the potential to enter the fishery if the proposed rule were adopted and capacity was increased in the purse seine fishery. As of July 2010, there were two U.S purse seine vessels listed on the IATTC Vessel Register and authorized to fish in the Convention Area totaling 1,194 mt carrying capacity; this does not include small vessels which are exempt from the requirement to be listed on the Vessel Register. One of the large vessels is class size 6 (greater than 363 mt carrying capacity) and one is class size 5 (273-363 metric tons carrying capacity). In 2009, there were eight small purse seine vessels that were exempt from being listed on the IATTC Vessel Register and made landings of tuna in the EPO; these vessels amount to an estimated 1,000 mt of carrying capacity are class size 1-2 vessels. Thus, it is estimated that the current U.S. vessel capacity, including small vessels, is about 2,200 mt. If the proposed rule were adopted, it is possible, although unlikely, that effort in the purse seine fishery operating in the EPO could increase substantially.
If the capacity were increased to 31,775 cubic meters (or about 27,147 mt), the carrying capacity limit would be about three times larger than the carrying capacity limit currently in place. This would allow for about 20 or fewer large vessels, depending on the size of the individual vessels and the number of small vessels participating in the fishery, to be on the Vessel Register and participate in the fishery (this estimate is based on the average carrying capacity of U.S. vessels operating in the WCPO, or 1,487 cubic meters). It is estimated that at most, 10-15 small vessels would opt to be on the Vessel Register. It is estimated that the majority of the vessels entering the fishery from the WCPO would be class size 6 vessels based on current and historical participation in the EPO and WCPO purse seine fisheries.
Class size 6 purse seine vessels usually fish outside U.S. waters and deliver their catch to U.S. (e.g., American Samoa) or foreign (e.g., Ecuador, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica) ports. Class size 6 vessels are required to have 100 percent observer coverage. They are categorized as large business entities (revenues in excess of $4 million per year) and typically generate about 4,000 to 5,000 mt of tuna valued at about $4 to $5 million per year. Class size 5 vessels are not required to carry an observer. Purse seine vessels class size 5 or smaller would be considered small business entities (revenues equal to or less than $4 million per year) and it is estimated that from 2004-2008, the majority, if not all, of these smaller vessels had revenues of less than $0.5 million per year.
The proposed action, if adopted, would not disproportionately affect small business entities relative to large business entities. The proposed action has the potential to affect more large business entities than small business entities. The proposed rule would increase the opportunity for all purse seine vessels, regardless of size, to register to be on the IATTC Vessel Register and participate in the fishery targeting tunas in the EPO because the total carrying capacity limit would be increased. The proposed rule would also remove the current exemption that allows smaller vessels (class sizes 1-5) to opportunistically fish for tuna species in the EPO without being listed on the IATTC Vessel Register. These vessels would have to apply to be on the Vessel Register every year if they anticipate fishing for tunas; however, there would be no associated cost for registering to
NMFS compared the effects of the proposed rule to three alternatives, including a no action alternative. Alternative 1 would be the same as the preferred alternative (the proposed action); however, the Vessel Register list exemption for small purse seine vessels at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(1)(ii) would not be removed, and the frivolous request regulations would not be amended. Thus, Alternative 1 would increase the U.S. vessel carrying capacity limit for the purse seine fishery operating in the EPO to 31,775 cubic meters, the capacity measurements would be changed to cubic meter measurements, and small purse seine vessels for which landings of tuna caught in the Convention Area comprise 50 percent or less of the vessel's total landings, by weight, for a given calendar year, would continue to be exempt from the requirement to be on the Vessel Register. The effects of this alternative on small business entities would be similar to those described for the proposed action, except small purse seine vessels would continue to be exempt from the requirement to be on the Vessel Register. If Alternative 1 were adopted, the United States would maintain U.S. regulations that would be less consistent with IATTC Resolution C-00-06 because not all vessels operating in the Convention Area would be on the IATTC Vessel Register.
Alternative 2 would revise the current regulations to give NMFS the discretion to revise the current 8,969 mt (10,498 cubic meters) vessel capacity limit in the future up to the amount authorized under resolutions adopted by the IATTC (currently 31,775 cubic meters) based on specific criteria. However, the vessel capacity limit would not be increased at this time because currently there appears to be limited demand for additional vessel capacity. The capacity measurements would be amended so that they are in cubic meter measurements, and small purse seine vessels for which landings of tuna caught in the Convention Area comprise 50 percent or less of the vessel's total landings, by weight, for a given calendar year, would continue to be exempt from the requirement to be on the Vessel Register. The impacts to small business entities would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 with respect to not removing the exemption for small vessels. Alternative 2 does not necessarily increase the current carrying capacity in the purse seine fishery, so this could be disadvantageous to large and some small business entities that are not exempt from being listed on the Vessel Register if the current vessel capacity were reached in a given year and they were not able to participate in the fishery due to a lack of available capacity.
Alternative 3 is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the current regulations for the purse seine fishery which targets tuna species in the EPO. The purse seine vessel capacity limit would remain at 8,969 mt, the capacity measurements would remain in metric tons, and small purse seine vessels for which landings of tuna caught in the Convention Area comprise 50 percent or less of the vessel's total landings, by weight, for a given calendar year, would continue to be exempt from the requirement to be on the Vessel Register. Under this alternative, the United States would maintain U.S. regulations that are less consistent with IATTC Resolution C-00-06 because small vessels that occasionally fish for tunas would not be included on the Vessel Register. In addition, U.S. regulations would constrain the carrying capacity limit beyond what is authorized by the IATTC and would therefore be limiting the opportunity for U.S. businesses to participate in the fishery.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by NOAA's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0387. Public reporting burden for Vessel Register annual notification is estimated to average 35 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on these proposed regulations. A copy of the draft EA is available from NMFS (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300, subpart C as follows:
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 951-961
2. Revise the heading for 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, to read as follows:
3. In § 300.21, remove the definition of “Commission's Yellowfin Regulatory Area (CYRA)”.
4. In § 300.22, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i)(A), and (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(3)
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The cumulative carrying capacity of all purse seine vessels categorized as active on the Vessel Register may not exceed 31,775 cubic meters in a given year;
(ii)
(A) Except as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, requests for active status under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section will be considered frivolous if, for a vessel categorized as active in a given calendar year:
(
(
(B)
(
(
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of an environmental assessment for public review.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and RUS's Environmental and Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794) in relation to possible financial assistance for a proposed project by Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO), with headquarters in Hughesville, Maryland. The proposal consists of the construction of a 30-mile 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line (which includes a river crossing), a new 230/69 kV switching station, and a 230/69 kV switching station expansion in Calvert and St. Mary's Counties, Maryland. SMECO is requesting that RUS provide financial assistance for the proposal. RUS is considering funding this proposal, thereby making it an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 USC 470(f), and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800).
Written comments on this Notice must be received on or before October 4, 2010.
To obtain copies of the EA or for further information, contact: Ms. Lauren McGee, Environmental Scientist, USDA/RUS, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2244-S, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone: (202) 720-1482, fax: (202) 690-0649, or e-mail:
SMECO proposes to construct a 230 kV transmission line between the existing Holland Cliff Switching Station in Calvert County to the existing Hewitt Road Switching Station in St. Mary's County, Maryland. The proposal has five segments and includes: (1) The installation of approximately 18 miles of new 230 kV single pole, double-circuit transmission line from the Holland Cliff switching station to a new switching station located in Southern Calvert; (2) the installation of the new Sollers Wharf 230/69 kV switching station; (3) the installation of approximately 10 miles of new 230 kV single pole, double-circuit transmission line from the new Southern Calvert switching station to the existing Hewitt Road switching station; (4) the installation of approximately 2 miles of 230 kV underground transmission cable circuit across the lower Patuxent River; and (5) the expansion of the existing 230 kV ring bus at Hewitt Road switching station to accommodate the new 230 kV transmission line from Southern Calvert. Throughout the right-of-way, the existing 69 kV poles would be removed, and new 230 kV poles would be installed. The existing 69 kV and new 230 kV lines would be installed on the new poles. This configuration would allow the use of the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way and preclude the need for additional easement acquisition. The preferred site of the new Sollers Wharf switching station is located near the intersection of Sollers Wharf Road and Pardoe Road, west of Maryland Highway
A Notice of Intent to prepare an EA and hold a scoping meeting was published in the
As part of its environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposal on historic properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments from the public submitted in response to scoping will inform RUS decision making in its Section 106 review of the proposal. RUS has made the determination that the proposal would have no adverse effects to historic properties listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Because the proposal may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this Notice also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action. The EA includes a floodplain/wetland assessment and floodplain/wetland statement of findings.
Alternatives considered by RUS and SMECO include (a) no action, (b) alternate engineering solutions (including new generation and five transmission system alternatives), and (c) alternate sites. An environmental report that describes the proposal in detail and discusses its anticipated environmental impacts has been prepared by Black and Veatch. RUS has reviewed and accepted the document as its EA of the proposal. The EA is available for public review at the addresses provided in this Notice. Questions and comments should be sent to RUS at the mailing or e-mail addresses provided in this Notice. RUS should receive comments on the EA in writing by October 4, 2010 to ensure that they are considered in its environmental impact determination.
Should RUS, based on its EA of the proposal, determine that the impacts of the construction and operation of the proposal would not have a significant
Any final action by RUS related to the proposal will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations, and completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794).
Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, USDA.
Corrected Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The draft environmental impact statement is expected in the fall of 2010 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in the spring of 2011.
Kirby Self at (719) 657-3321. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22, 36 CFR 220.5(b) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of public meetings.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) announces two public meetings of the Dairy Industry Advisory Committee (Dairy Committee) to discuss farm milk price volatility and dairy farmer profitability, review various industry proposals and analysis, and hear public comments. The Dairy Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary on policy issues impacting the dairy industry. Instructions regarding registering for and attending the meetings are provided in the
We invite you to participate in the meetings. The meetings are open to the public. The meetings on September 23 and 24 and October 12 will be held in room 104-A of the USDA Headquarters, Jamie L. Whitten Building at 12th Street, SW., and Jefferson Drive, Washington, DC 20250. The October 13 meeting will be held in room 3074 of the USDA Headquarters South Building at 12th Street and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250. Instructions for registering and attending the meetings are in the
•
• Orally at the meeting; please also provide a written copy of your comments.
Solomon Whitfield, Designated Federal Official; phone: (202) 720-9886; e-mail:
In August 2009, USDA established the Dairy Committee. The Dairy Committee reviews issues of farm milk price volatility and dairy farmer profitability. The Dairy Committee provides recommendations to the Secretary on how USDA can best address these issues to meet the dairy industry's needs.
The Secretary of Agriculture selected a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the dairy industry's needs. Equal opportunity practices were considered in all appointments to the Dairy Committee in accordance with USDA policies. The Secretary announced the members on January 6, 2010. Representatives include: Producers and producer organizations, processors and processor organizations, consumers, academia, a retailer, and a state representative.
The Dairy Committee will hold the meetings on the following dates and locations. The meetings are open to the public. The dairy industry and public are invited to provide oral comments at the meetings on September 23 and October 12, 2010, at the time designated on the agenda.
• Discuss farm milk price volatility and dairy farmer profitability;
• Review various industry proposals and analysis; and
• Allow comments from the public.
Space for attendance at the meeting is limited. Due to USDA headquarters security and space requirements, all persons wishing to attend the public meetings or provide oral comments to the Dairy Committee during the public meetings must send an e-mail to
The received comments will be distributed to Dairy Committee members for consideration at the meetings.
If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please use the contact information above.
Notice of these meetings is provided in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2010.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of J. David Binsted, Program Manager, Global Intellectual Property Academy, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone 571-272-1500; or by e-mail at
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office plans to survey participants of the Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) technical assistance programs. The survey data will be collected in order to obtain assessment data for the U.S. Government's accountability process, better known as the PART, or Program Assessment Rating Tool. Assessment of the GIPA programs will provide the USPTO information to implement best practices and program improvements, where necessary.
Participants will be limited to those individuals, both national and international, who have attended or are attending GIPA training. These surveys will be done in three parts: Pre-program, post-program, and alumnus. Program participants will be asked to complete the pre-program survey immediately prior to their program, the post-program survey immediately after the program, and the alumni survey approximately one year after the program. The surveys are expected to be conducted online using a recognized survey partner, the Federal Consulting Group.
Participants will access the online survey through links provided in e-mails or through the USPTO Web site. Participants will not need usernames, passwords, or survey ID numbers to access the online survey.
Survey responses will be kept confidential. The USPTO does not intend to collect any personal identifying data from participants taking the survey. Data collected from the survey will be linked to the participants. The USPTO intends to maintain contact information for the participants in a separate file from the quantitative data.
The USPTO expects to follow-up with participants who do not respond to the survey. Participants who do not respond will be contacted up to three times.
Electronically over the Internet or by e-mail. In-person surveys may potentially be conducted.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) is organizing an education trade mission to Indonesia and Vietnam, April 3-8, 2011. Led by a senior Department of Commerce official, the mission to these two countries is intended to include representatives from a variety of accredited U.S. education institutions. However, the emphasis will be on community colleges, intensive English language programs, and undergraduate programs. English language programs seeking to participate should be accredited by CEA (Commission on English Language Program Accreditation) or ACCET (Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training); community colleges and undergraduate programs seeking to participate should be accredited by one of the six regional institutional accreditors in the United States.
The mission will introduce participants to potential students and prospective partners. Participating in the Education Trade Mission, rather than traveling to these markets independently, will enhance the schools' ability to secure the appropriate meetings, especially in light of the high level engagement and support of U.S. education by the U.S. ambassadors in each of these countries. The mission will include education sector briefings, and a student fair at each stop with the options of matchmaking sessions with potential recruitment partners, or networking sessions with local schools. Trade mission participants will interact with CS education specialists as well as other State Department advisors and officers to discuss opportunities, challenges and marketing strategies for each market.
With a population of 86 million, a steadily increasing per capita income, a booming private sector, and the high value the Vietnamese place on education, Vietnam offers significant opportunities to U.S. providers of education services. Vietnam presently has over 20,000 students studying abroad, paying about $200 million in tuition and fees every year. Of those, 13,000 are studying in the U.S. With an increase of 46% over last year, Vietnam ranks 9th among countries sending students to the U.S. This increase is the 6th consecutive double-digit increase in Vietnamese students going to the U.S. Notably, Vietnam ranks 3rd among countries sending international students to the U.S. to study at community colleges. English as a Second Language and English immersion programs and majors such as business management, engineering, information technologies, and sciences are popular among Vietnamese students.
Education reform has not kept pace with economic development in Vietnam, and improving the education system will be crucial to sustaining long-term growth. Education has become a key feature in bilateral cooperation between Vietnam and the U.S. The U.S. Embassy in Hanoi has made the development of education in Vietnam a top priority, including dramatically increasing the number of Vietnamese students studying at U.S. institutions of higher learning and encouraging greater educational exchange between the U.S. and Vietnam.
Indonesia, as the world's fourth largest nation and one of the G-20's strongest economies, is a tremendous potential market for U.S. educational institutions. There are numerous State-owned and private national and international high schools and prospects for the higher education market are good. Most Indonesian students are keen to study abroad and the U.S. has been one of the most desired destinations.
Under President Obama's U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership, the education sector is the number one priority. The U.S. Embassy in Jakarta has a goal to double the current number of Indonesian students studying at U.S. educational institutions by 2014 to 15,000.
At present, there are over 50,000 Indonesian students overseas, including, 7,692 students in the United States. Of these, approximately 64 percent are pursuing undergraduate degrees. Indonesia ranks 16th among countries sending students to the U.S.
The short term goals of the education trade mission to Vietnam and Indonesia are to (1) introduce accredited U.S. schools to potential students in each market (2) introduce these U.S. schools to potential partners and other industry representatives, and (3) inform mission members of local cultural, political and economic factors in Indonesia and Vietnam that will affect both student recruitment strategies and the opportunities/challenges related to establishing partnerships.
In Jakarta, the trade mission participants will be presented with a briefing by the U.S. Embassy's Counselor for Commercial Affairs, the Senior Commercial Specialist for the education sector and other key U.S. Government and corporate officials. Participants will take part in an education fair. Participants will also have the option to take part in a matchmaking session with student recruitment agents or attend a roundtable presentation by local schools that wish to partner with U.S. schools.
In Ho Chi Minh City, participants will take part in education sector briefings by Consulate officers, corporate executives and local education sector experts, and exhibit at an education fair for parents and students. Participants will also have the option to take part in a matchmaking session with student recruitment agents or attend a roundtable presentation by local schools that wish to partner with U.S. schools.
In Hanoi, the U.S. mission members will be briefed by the U.S. Embassy's Counselor for Commercial Affairs, the Senior Commercial Specialist for the education sector and other key U.S. Government officials, corporate executives and education experts. Participants will exhibit at an education fair for parents and students. Participants will also have the option to take part in a matchmaking session with student recruitment agents or attend a roundtable presentation by local schools that wish to partner with U.S. schools.
At all stops, participants will have networking opportunities with various multipliers such as Education USA, education consultants, U.S. Indonesia Society, Institute of Education Exchange, school counselors, etc. U.S. participants will be counseled before and after the mission by a domestic mission coordinator. Participation in the mission will include the following:
• Pre-travel briefings/webinar on subjects ranging from opportunities in the education sectors to security;
• A student fair in Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hanoi;
• Education sector briefings in each city;
• Participants will have the option of networking meetings with student recruitment agents
• Airport transfers in Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hanoi;
• Meetings with CS education industry specialists in Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hanoi.
Mission participants will be encouraged to arrive April 2, 2011 and the mission program will proceed from April 3 through April 8, 2011.
All parties interested in participating in the Education Mission to Indonesia and Vietnam must complete and submit an application for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 40 and a maximum of 70 educational institutions will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. education institutions already providing training to Indonesian and Vietnamese students as well as U.S. educational institutions seeking to enter the market for the first time are encouraged to apply.
After an educational institution has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $2,930 to cover one representative. The fee for each additional representative is $600. Expenses for travel, lodging, most
• Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the schools accreditation, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Applicants must provide detailed information on their mission objectives, and specify their options for matchmaking with agents and/or meetings with local schools in each city.
• Each applicant must also certify that the services it seeks to export through the mission benefit a U.S. based institution.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Applicant must be appropriately accredited as per paragraph one.
• Suitability of the education institution to the mission's goals
• Applicant's potential for business in Vietnam and Indonesia, including likelihood of exports resulting from the trade mission
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the trade mission (as an example—be in the education sectors indicated in the mission description)
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than Friday, January 14, 2011. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review all applications immediately after the deadline. We will inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after January 14, 2011. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Ho Chi Minh City:
Hanoi:
Jakarta:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Patricia Tran at (202) 482-1503 or Mahnaz Khan at (202) 482-0914; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On January 29, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China, covering the period December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2009.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.
The Department requires additional time to review and analyze the sales and factors of production responses in this administrative review. The Department has also found the need to issue additional supplemental questionnaires to respondents in this review. Moreover, the Department requires additional time to analyze complex issues related to
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 15, 2010, the Department of Commerce(the “Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India for the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.
Patricia Tran, Seth Isenberg, or Austin Redington, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1503, (202) 482-0588, or (202) 482-1664, respectively.
In the
On July 16, 2010, the Department published in the
We invited parties to comment on the
Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (
The SSB subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the
On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of the order.
All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar From India” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the CRU, and is accessible on the web at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the following changes in calculating dumping margins: (1) We corrected a clerical error identified by Venus regarding its reporting of international freight expenses; (2) we adjusted the transfer price for the affiliated inputs to market price pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act; and (3) we corrected a ministerial error of adding rather than deducting selling expenses from the home market price.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for Venus and Ambica for the period February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009.
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the companies subject to this review to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the respondent for which it has reported the importer of record and the entered value of all the U.S. sales to that importer, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for all U.S. sales to an importer, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates were
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;
Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
Whereas, the Lincoln Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 59, has made application to the Board for authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the agricultural combine and hay tools manufacturing and distribution facilities of CNH America, LLC (CNH), located in Grand Island, Nebraska (FTZ Docket 11-2010, filed 2/16/2010);
Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the
Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.
Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to the manufacturing and distribution of agricultural combines and hay tools at the facilities of CNH America, LLC, located in Grand Island, Nebraska (Subzone 59B), as described in the application and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) will meet at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, September 28-29, 2010.
The meeting will be held September 28-29, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 W. 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK.
Nicole Kimball, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to review the public review draft analysis to establish a new program for observer procurement and deployment in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (i.e., restructuring). The committee will also receive a report on an electronic monitoring study in the commercial halibut fishery. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scallop Plan Team will meet September 28th, 2010 at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel.
The meeting will be held on September 28, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
Agenda: Review final Scallop Annual Catch Limit (ACL) analysis and recommend a preferred approach.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel, in September, 2010, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 9 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 32 Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 272-1191; fax: (401) 272-1416.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will review Amendment 15 DEIS alternatives and analyses, as well as input from previous public hearings and written public comments. Amendment 15 is considering measures to comply with annual catch limits, measures to address excess capacity in the limited access scallop fishery, as well as a handful of other measures to make the program more effective such as specific adjustments to the general category IFQ program, modifications to the research set-aside program, adjustments to the overfishing definition, modifications to EFH closed areas and changing the start of the fishing year. The panel will identify recommendations for the Scallop Oversight Committee to consider as preferred alternatives the following day. The Council is scheduled for final action on Amendment 15 at their September 28-30, 2010 Council meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee, in September, 2010, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 9 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 32 Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 272-1191; fax: (401) 272-1416.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review Amendment 15 DEIS alternatives and analyses as well as input from the Scallop Advisory Panel and Plan Development Team. When possible, the Committee will identify preferred alternatives for the Council to consider when it takes final action on Amendment 15 at their September 28-30, 2010 Council meeting. If time permits, other issues may be discussed.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that James T. Harvey, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA
The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.
Amy Sloan or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289.
On July 8, 2010, notice was published in the
The permit amendment (Permit No. 555-1870-02) authorizes an increase in the number of subadult harbor seals taken annually in California by capture, sedation, tagging, and sampling from 40 seals (20 males and 20 females) to 70 seals (35 males and 35 females). Also, a pilot study is authorized to bring up to six seals into temporary captivity to assess the efficacy of a modified sedation and suture protocol for implantation of subcutaneous radio tags. If effective, the modified protocols will be implemented in the field. The permit expires April 15, 2012.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Brent Stewart, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, California 92109 has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 486-1790-00.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.
Mike Payne or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289.
The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The original permit (No. 486-1790-00) was issued on January 4, 2006 and was valid through October 1, 2010. It authorizes capture of California sea lions (
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter.A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 7106, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the procedures set forth in Section 315.9 of EDA's final rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) of the University of California for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SIO to take, by Level B Harassment only, 21 species of marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 4, 2010.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (
Ben Laws or Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
NMFS received an application on May 28, 2010 from SIO for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to conducting, in collaboration with Texas A&M University and with research funding provided by the National Science Foundation, a low-energy marine seismic survey. NMFS reviewed SIO's application and identified a number of issues requiring further clarification. After addressing comments from NMFS, SIO modified its application and submitted a revised application on July 14, 2010. NMFS carefully evaluated SIO's application, including their analyses, and determined that the application is complete and provides sufficient data for NMFS to make the necessary preliminary determinations pursuant to the MMPA. The July 14, 2010 application is the one available for public comment (
The proposed survey will occur in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), encompassing the area from approximately 8° N-12° S and 80-91° W, off the coasts of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, in International Waters and within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador, and is scheduled to occur from October 19-November 14, 2010. Some minor deviation from these dates is possible, depending on logistics and weather. The survey will use a pair of Generator Injector (GI) airguns, each with a discharge volume of 45 in
SIO plans to conduct a seismic survey as part of an integrated geophysical and geochemical study. In addition to the GI airguns, a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) will be utilized for research purposes. The planned survey will involve one source vessel, the R/V
The purpose of this project is to better understand how marine sediments record paleo-oceanographic information. The deposition of sediments in the upper 500 m (1640.4 ft) of the sediment column will be studied using known seismic horizons in the sediment column to estimate rates of deposition downstream from potential sediment sources on the topographic highs and to estimate loss from the ridges. The seismic survey and associated coring and water sampling will allow comparisons of geophysical estimates of the level of erosion from marine ridges and highs with geochemical estimates of sediment focusing based upon the distribution of Th-230, a particle-reactive isotope produced by the decay of dissolved uranium in the water column. In addition, the study will examine whether there are sediment sources for Th-230 in slowly-accumulating sediments.
The
The source vessel, the
In addition to the GI airguns, an MBES and an SBP will be used throughout the cruise, except while at water/core stations, to help verify seafloor conditions at possible coring sites and to collect additional seafloor bathymetric data. Passive geophysical sensors (a gravimeter and a magnetometer) will also be operated continuously throughout the entire cruise.
All potential incidental take, by harassment only, is expected to result from the operation of the GI airguns. Take is not expected to result from the use of the MBES or SBP, for reasons discussed below, or from collision with the vessel because it is a single vessel, moving at a relatively slow speed (operational speeds of approximately 11 km/hr [6 knots] during seismic acquisition within the survey areas and 15-18.5 km/hr [8-10 knots] between survey areas and stations), for a relatively short period of time (approximately 30 days). It is likely that any marine mammal would be able to avoid the vessel.
The seismic program will consist of approximately 5475 km (3402 mi) of
All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by SIO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the study. The Chief Scientist is Dr. Franco Marcantonio of Texas A&M University. The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.
The
The
The generator chamber of each GI airgun, responsible for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean, is 45 in
As the GI airgun is towed along the survey line, the towed hydrophone array in the streamer receives the reflected signals and transfers the data to the on-board processing system. Given the relatively short streamer length behind the vessel, the turning rate of the vessel while the gear is deployed is much higher than the limit of five degrees per minute for a seismic vessel towing a streamer of more typical length (greater than l km (0.6 mi)). Thus, the maneuverability of the vessel is not limited much during operations.
The root mean square (rms) received levels that are used as impact criteria for marine mammals are not directly comparable to the peak (pk or 0-pk) or peak-to-peak (pk-pk) values normally used to characterize source levels of airgun arrays. The measurement units used to describe airgun sources, peak or peak-to-peak decibels, are always higher than the rms decibels referred to in biological literature. A measured received level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the far field would typically correspond to a peak measurement of approximately 170 dB and to a peak-to-peak measurement of approximately 176-178 dB, as measured for the same pulse received at the same location (Greene, 1997; McCauley
Received sound levels have been modeled by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for a number of airgun configurations, including two 45 in
Along with the GI airgun operations, an MBES and a SBP will be operated from the source vessel at certain times during the planned study to help verify seafloor conditions at possible coring sites and to collect additional seafloor bathymetric data.
The Kongsberg EM 122 MBES operates at 10.5-13 (usually 12) kilohertz (kHz) and is hull-mounted on the
The Knudsen Engineering Model 320B/R SBP is a dual-frequency transceiver designed to operate at 3.5 and/or 12 kHz. It is used in conjunction with the MBES to provide data about the sedimentary features that occur below the sea floor. The energy from the SBP is directed downward via a 3.5-kHz transducer array mounted in the hull of the
The pulse length for the 3.5-kHz section of the 320B/R is 0.8-24 ms, controlled by the system operator in regards to water depth and reflectivity of the bottom sediments and will usually be 6, 12, or 24 ms at the water depths at the study sites and in transit from Puntarenas and to Arica. The system produces one sound pulse and then waits for its return before transmitting again. Thus, the pulse
NMFS has determined that for acoustic effects, using acoustic thresholds in combination with corresponding safety radii is an effective way to consistently apply measures to avoid or minimize the impacts of an action, and to quantitatively estimate the effects of an action. Thresholds are used in two ways: (1) To establish a mitigation shut-down or power-down zone,
As a matter of past practice and based on the best available information at the time regarding the effects of marine sound, NMFS estimates that Level A harassment from acoustic sources may occur when animals are exposed to levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) level for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds. A review of the available scientific data using an application of science-based extrapolation procedures (Southall
Empirical data concerning the 180- and 160-dB distances have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic verification study conducted by L-DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico from May 27-June 3, 2003 (Tolstoy
The empirical data indicate that, for deep water (>1000 m), the L-DEO model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy
Forty-three species of marine mammals, including 29 odontocetes, 7 mysticetes, 6 pinnipeds, and the marine sea otter (
Nine cetacean species, although present in the wider ETP, likely would not be found in the proposed seismic survey areas because their ranges do not extend that far south or north. Pacific white-sided dolphins (
Sei (
No confirmed fin whale sightings were made in the proposed study area during 10 years of survey effort in July-December by Ferguson and Barlow (2001) or by Jackson
The general distribution of minke whales (
Longman's beaked whale (
Dwarf (
Six species of pinnipeds are known to occur in the ETP: The Guadalupe fur seal (
The ETP is a biologically productive area that supports a variety of cetacean species (Au and Perryman, 1985). Several studies of marine mammal distribution and abundance have been conducted in the wider ETP. The most extensive regional distribution and abundance data that encompass the study area come primarily from multi-year vessel surveys conducted in the wider ETP by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). Information on the distribution of cetaceans inhabiting the ETP has been summarized in several studies (Polacheck, 1987; Wade and Gerrodette, 1993; Ferguson and Barlow, 2001; Gerrodette
In addition, procedures used during the various surveys that are cited have differed somewhat, and those differences could affect the results. For example, Ferguson and Barlow (2001) calculated cetacean densities in the ETP based on summer/fall research surveys in 1986-1996. Their densities are corrected for both changes in detectability of species with distance from the survey track line and for perception and availability bias. Gerrodette
Additional sighting records are available from recent surveys in the ETP. Jackson
Information on the occurrence, distribution, population size, and conservation status for each of the 23 cetacean species that may occur in the proposed project area during October-November is presented in Table 2 in this document. The five species of marine mammals expected to be most common in the waters of the project area, all delphinids, include the short beaked common dolphin (
The primary effect on marine mammals anticipated from the specified activities will result from exposure of animals to underwater sound. Exposure to sound can affect marine mammal hearing. When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (six species of true porpoises, four species of river dolphins, two members of the genus
• Pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, 21 cetacean species are likely to occur in the proposed survey area. Of the 21 species likely to occur in SIO's project area, two are classified as low frequency cetaceans (Bryde's, humpback, and blue whales) and 18 are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (sperm, Cuvier's beaked, Blainville's beaked, pygmy beaked, gingko-toothed beaked, melon-headed, pygmy killer, false killer, killer, and short-finned pilot whales and rough-toothed, bottlenose, pantropical spotted, spinner, striped, Fraser's, short-beaked common, and Risso's dolphins) (Southall
The effects of sounds from airguns might result in one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbances, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, and non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson
Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at
Several studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response;
Obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar frequencies, is known as masking. Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns, much larger than that proposed for use in this survey) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data of relevance. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in some situations, multi-path arrivals and reverberation cause airgun sound to arrive for much or all of the interval between pulses (Simard
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
The sound exposure thresholds that are used to estimate how many marine mammals might be harassed by a seismic survey are based on behavioral observations during studies of several species. However, information is lacking for many species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray (
Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that seismic pulses with received levels of pulses in the 160-170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) range seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of the animals exposed (Richardson
Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration, on summer feeding grounds, and on Angolan winter breeding grounds; there has also been discussion of effects on the Brazilian wintering grounds. McCauley
Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did not exhibit persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 100-in
It has been suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel
Studies of bowhead whales show that their responsiveness can be quite variable depending on the activity (
Reactions of migrating and feeding (but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys have been studied. Malme
Various species of the genus
Data on short-term reactions, or lack thereof, by cetaceans to impulsive noises do not necessarily provide information about long-term effects. It is
Seismic operators and PSOs on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (Goold, 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst
Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran
Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that this species shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; Moulton
There are almost no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) to seismic surveys. However, northern bottlenose whales (
Odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids and Dall's porpoises, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for the more responsive of the mysticetes, beluga whales, and harbor porpoises (Appendix A of the EA).
Additional details on the behavioral reactions (or the lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix A (5) of the EA.
Temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS) hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds. TTS has been demonstrated and studied in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall
Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project (
Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (
Given the available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse (with no frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 μPa
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale. There is not published TTS information for other species of cetaceans. However, preliminary evidence from a harbor porpoise exposed to airgun sound suggests that its TTS threshold may have been lower (Lucke
For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties for any sound source required to induce TTS. The frequencies to which baleen whales are most sensitive are lower than those for odontocetes, and natural background noise levels at those low frequencies tend to be higher. Marine mammals can hear sounds at varying frequency levels. However, sounds that are produced in the frequency range at which an animal hears the best do not need to be as loud as sounds in less functional frequencies to be detected by the animal. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison, 2004), meaning that baleen whales require sounds to be louder (
As noted above, most cetacean species tend to avoid operating airguns, although not all individuals do so. In addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for large airgun arrays and proposed for the much smaller airgun array for this action, should allow cetaceans to move away from the seismic source and avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array. Even with a large airgun array, it is unlikely that the cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative movement of the vessel and the marine mammal. The potential for TTS is much lower in this project because of the much smaller airgun array proposed to be used. With a large array of airguns, TTS would be most likely in any odontocetes that bow-ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. While bow-riding, odontocetes would be at or above the surface, and thus not exposed to strong pulses given the pressure-release effect at the surface. However, bow-riding animals generally dive below the surface intermittently. If they did so while bow-riding near airguns, they would be exposed to strong sound pulses, possibly repeatedly. If some cetaceans did incur TTS through exposure to airgun sounds, this would very likely be mild, temporary, and reversible.
To avoid the potential for injury, NMFS has determined that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). As summarized above, data that are now available imply that TTS is unlikely to occur unless odontocetes (and probably mysticetes as well) are exposed to airgun pulses stronger than 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms).
There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (Richardson
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS if the animal were exposed to strong sound pulses with rapid rise time (
Southall
Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur. Baleen whales generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals.
In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in marine mammals. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances from the sound source and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, and their auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten
Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented, but may include: (1) Swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water; (2) a change in behavior (such as a change in diving behavior) that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms of trauma; (3) a physiological change such as a vestibular response leading to a behavioral change or stress-induced hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn to tissue damage; and (4) tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such as through acoustically-mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues. As noted in SIO's application, some of these mechanisms are unlikely to apply in the case of impulse sounds. However, there are increasing indications that gas-bubble disease (analogous to “the bends”), induced in super-saturated tissue by a behavioral response to acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic mechanism for the strandings and mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans exposed to sonar. The evidence for this remains circumstantial and associated with exposure to naval mid-frequency sonar, not seismic surveys (Cox
Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar pulses are quite different, and some mechanisms by which sonar sounds have been hypothesized to affect beaked whales are unlikely to apply to airgun pulses. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband impulses with most of the energy below 1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10 kHz, generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time. A further difference between seismic surveys and naval exercises is that naval exercises can involve sound sources on more than one vessel. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that there is a direct correlation between the effects of military sonar and those of seismic surveys on marine mammals. However, evidence that sonar pulses can, in special circumstances, lead (at least indirectly) to physical damage and mortality (Balcomb and Claridge, 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson
There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as a result of exposure to seismic surveys, but a few cases of strandings in the general area where a seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys and strandings. Suggestions that there was a link between seismic surveys and strandings of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel
The Kongsberg EM 122 12-kHz MBES will be operated from the source vessel at some times during the planned study. Information about this equipment was provided earlier in this document. Any given mammal at depth near the trackline would be in the main beam for only one or two of the segments. Also, marine mammals that encounter the Kongsberg EM 122 are unlikely to be subjected to repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam and will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short pulses. Animals close to the ship (where the beam is narrowest) are especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one 2-15 ms pulse or 100-ms chirp (or two pulses or chirps if in the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser
Navy sonars that have been linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of cetaceans generally have longer pulse durations than the Kongsberg EM 122 and are often directed close to horizontally vs. more downward for the MBES. The area of possible influence of the MBES is much smaller—a narrow band below the source vessel. The duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much longer for Navy sonar. During SIO's operations, the individual pulses will be very short, and a given mammal would not receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by. Possible effects of an MBES on marine mammals are outlined below.
Marine mammal communications will not be masked appreciably by the MBES signals given the low duty cycle of the echosounder and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of baleen whales, the echosounder signals (12 kHz) do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid any significant masking.
Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine mammals to sonars, echosounders, and other sound sources appear to vary by species and circumstance. Observed reactions have included silencing and dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins
Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1-s tonal signals at frequencies similar to those that will be emitted by the MBES used by SIO, and to shorter broadband pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt
Given recent stranding events that have been associated with the operation of naval sonar, there is concern that mid-frequency sonar sounds can cause serious impacts to marine mammals (
As noted earlier in this document, animals are unlikely to be exposed to levels that would result in TTS or Level B harassment because of the shape of the beam, the duration of the signal, and the likelihood that they will be avoiding the vessel at greater horizontal distance when airguns are operating.
A SBP will be operated from the source vessel during the planned study. Details about this equipment were provided earlier in this document. The SBP on the
Marine mammal communications will not be masked appreciably by the SBP signals given their directionality and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be within their beams. Furthermore, in the case of most baleen whales, the SBP signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid significant masking.
Marine mammal behavioral reactions to other pulsed sound sources were discussed previously, and responses to the SBP are likely to be similar to those for other pulsed sources if received at the same levels. However, the pulsed signals from the SBPs are considerably weaker than those from the MBES. Therefore, behavioral responses are not expected unless marine mammals are within 10 m of the source, which is not expected to occur.
The source levels of the SBP are much lower than those of the airguns. It is unlikely that the SBP produces pulse levels strong enough to cause hearing impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is (briefly) in a position near the source. The SBP is usually operated simultaneously with other higher-power acoustic sources. Many marine mammals will move away in response to the approaching higher-power sources or the vessel itself before the mammals would be close enough for there to be any possibility of effects from the less intense sounds from the SBP. Because of the shape of the beams of these sources and their power, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to either the MBES or the SBP at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans to a few signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar
As stated above, current NMFS practice assumes that the onset of Level A harassment corresponds to 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans. The precautionary nature of these criteria is discussed in Appendix A (5) of the supporting EA, including the fact that the minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely-detectable TTS, and the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there is no danger of permanent damage. NMFS also assumes that cetaceans or pinnipeds exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) may experience Level B (behavioral) harassment.
The proposed SIO seismic survey will not result in any permanent impact to habitats used by marine mammals or to their food sources, and there will be no physical damage to any habitat. While it is anticipated that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible and was considered in further detail earlier in this document, as behavioral modification. The main impact issue associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as described previously.
The existing body of information on the impacts of seismic survey sound on marine fish and invertebrates is very limited. Furthermore, the available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on fish and invertebrates is from studies of individuals or portions of a population; there have been no studies at the population scale. Thus, available information provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the ocean or population scale. This makes drawing conclusions about impacts problematic because ultimately, the most important aspect of potential impacts relates to how exposure to seismic survey sound affects populations and their viability, including their availability to fisheries. However, there is some unpublished and very limited evidence of the potential for adverse effects on fish and invertebrates, thereby justifying further discussion and analysis of this issue. The three types of potential effects of exposure to seismic surveys on fish and marine invertebrates are pathological, physiological, and behavioral.
Pathological effects involve lethal and temporary or permanent sublethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary and permanent primary and secondary stress responses, such as changes in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to temporary and (if they occur) permanent changes in exhibited behavior (
Based on the physical structure of their sensory organs, marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to respond to particle displacement components of an impinging sound field and not to the pressure component (Popper
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
Mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey have been developed and refined during previous SIO seismic studies and associated EAs, IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of procedures required by past IHAs for other similar projects and on best practices recommended in Richardson
Mitigation measures proposed by SIO for adoption during the proposed survey include (1) visual monitoring by protected species observers (discussed later in this document), (2) establishment of an exclusion zone (EZ), (3) speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements, (4) GI airgun shut down procedures, and (5) ramp-up procedures. Although power-down procedures are often standard operating practice for seismic surveys, they will not be used here because powering down from two airguns to one airgun would make only a small difference in the 180-dB safety radius. The difference is not enough to allow continued one-airgun operations if a mammal came within the safety radius for two airguns.
As a matter of past practice and based on the best available information at the time regarding the effects of marine sound, NMFS estimates that Level A harassment from acoustic sources may occur when cetaceans are exposed to levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) level. NMFS also considers 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as the criterion for estimating the onset of Level B harassment from acoustic sources producing impulse sounds, as in this seismic survey.
Empirical data concerning the 180- and 160-dB distances have been acquired based on measurements during the acoustic verification study conducted by L-DEO in the northern Gulf of Mexico from May 27-June 3, 2003 (Tolstoy
If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, ramp-up will not commence. If one GI airgun has operated, ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single GI airgun and could move away if they choose. A ramp-up from a shut-down may occur at night, but only when the entire EZ is visible, and it has been determined from the pre-ramp up watch that the EZ is clear of marine mammals. Ramp-up of the GI airguns will not be initiated if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable EZ during day or night.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
SIO proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project in order to implement the proposed mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA. SIO's proposed Monitoring Plan is described next. The monitoring work described here has been planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the same regions. SIO is prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other groups insofar as this is practical and desirable.
Three protected species observers (PSOs) will be based aboard the seismic source vessel for the duration of the cruise and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during start-up of airguns at any time. Watches will be conducted by at least one observer 100% of the time during seismic surveys in daylight hours. Daylight observation by at least one observer will continue during non-seismic periods, as long as weather conditions make observations meaningful, for comparison of sighting rates and animal behavior during periods with vs. without airgun operations. PSOs will be appointed by SIO with NMFS concurrence after a review of their qualifications.
The
Before commencing seismic operations during daylight hours, two observers will maintain a 360-degree watch for all marine mammals for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of seismic operations after an extended shutdown of the airguns (1-2 minutes, depending on vessel speed). If no marine mammals are observed within the EZ during this time, the observers will notify the seismic personnel of an “all clear” status. Watch periods are scheduled as a 2-hour rotation. The
The bridge officers and other crew will be instructed to alert the observer on watch of any suspected marine mammal sighting. If needed, the bridge will be contacted in order to maneuver the ship to avoid interception with approaching marine mammals.
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a shutdown of the seismic source when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
• Species, group size, and age/size/sex categories (if determinable); behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting; heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel; sighting cue, apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (
• Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare.
All observations, as well as information regarding seismic source shutdown, will be recorded in a standardized format. Data collection procedures are adapted from the line-transect protocols developed by the SWFSC for their marine mammal abundance research cruises. A laptop computer is located on the observer platform for ease of data entry. The computer is connected to the ship's Global Positioning System, which allows a record of time and position to be made at 3-minute intervals and for each event entered (such as sightings, weather updates and effort changes). Data accuracy will be verified by the PSOs at sea and preliminary reports will be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the SIO's shore facility and to NSF weekly or more frequently. PSO observations will provide the following information:
• The basis for decisions about shutting down the airgun arrays;
• Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially ‘taken by harassment’, which will be reported to NMFS;
• Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted; and
• Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. All injured or dead marine mammals (regardless of cause) will be reported to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report should include species or description of animal, condition of animal, location, time first found, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video, if available.
With respect to the activities described here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is considered remote. However, as noted earlier, there is no specific information demonstrating that injurious or lethal “takes” would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures. The sections here describe methods to estimate “take by Level B harassment” and present estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed seismic program. The estimates of “take” are based on data collected in the ETP by NMFS SWFSC during 12 ship-based cetacean and ecosystem assessment surveys conducted during July-December from 1986-2006.
It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the seismic sources and the other sources, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the MBES or SBP would already be affected by the seismic sources. However, whether or not the seismic sources are operating simultaneously with the other sources, marine mammals are expected to exhibit no more than short-term and inconsequential responses to the MBES and SBP given their characteristics (
Extensive systematic ship-based surveys have been conducted by NMFS SWFSC for marine mammals in the ETP. SWFSC has recently developed habitat modeling as a method to estimate cetacean densities on a finer spatial scale than traditional line-transect analyses by using a continuous function of habitat variables,
Oceanographic conditions, including occasional El Nino and La Nina events, influence the distribution and numbers of marine mammals present in the ETP, resulting in considerable year-to-year variation in the distribution and abundance of many marine mammal species (Escorza-Trevino, 2009). Thus, for some species, the densities derived from recent surveys (
Table 3 in SIO's application gives the average (or “best”) and maximum densities for each species of cetacean likely to occur in the study area,
The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are presented next based on the 160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) Level B harassment criterion for all cetaceans. It is assumed that marine mammals exposed to airgun sounds at that level might change their behavior sufficiently to be considered “taken by harassment”.
It should be noted that the following estimates of “takes by harassment” assume that the surveys will be undertaken and completed; in fact, the planned number of line-kilometers has been increased to accommodate lines that may need to be repeated, equipment testing,
There is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and the assumptions used in the calculations presented here. However, the approach used here is believed to be the best available approach. Also, to provide some allowance for these uncertainties, “maximum estimates” as well as “best estimates” of the densities present and numbers potentially affected have been derived. Best estimates of density are the mean densities weighted by effort in the eight survey areas or corridors from Read
The number of different individuals that may be exposed to GI airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) on one or more occasions was estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the operating airgun array on at least one occasion, along with the expected density of animals in the area. The proposed seismic lines do not run parallel to each other in close proximity, which minimizes the number of times an individual mammal may be exposed during the survey; in this case, an individual could be exposed 1.01 times on average. The numbers of different individuals potentially exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were calculated by multiplying the expected species density, either “mean” (
The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using the GIS to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer (
Applying the approach described here, approximately 4340 km
Table 4 in SIO's application shows the best and maximum estimates of the number of exposures and the number of individual marine mammals that potentially could be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. Proposed take authorizations are based on best estimates, calculated according to the methodology described previously. The best estimate of the number of individual cetaceans that could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (but below Level A harassment thresholds) during the survey is shown in Table 4 of SIO's application and Table 3 here. That total includes 25 endangered whales: 1 blue whale (0.05% of the regional population), 1 humpback whale, and 23 sperm whales (0.09%). Percentage of regional population for humpback whale is not listed because Southern Hemisphere population numbers are poorly understood; however, the authorized take is low compared to regional population. It should be noted that the applicant did not initially request take authorization for humpback whales, believing that migrating individuals would depart the proposed study area prior to the activity dates. In subsequent discussions between NMFS and the applicant, it was agreed that there was some reasonable chance that late-migrant Southern Hemisphere individuals could be present in one or more of the study areas. The proposed take authorization for humpback whales reflects this decision. Most (96.8%) of the cetaceans potentially exposed are delphinids; short-beaked common, pantropical spotted, bottlenose, and Risso's dolphins and short-finned pilot whales are estimated to be the most common species in the area, with best estimates of 777 (0.02% of the regional population), 67 (0.01%), 82 (0.02%), 55 (0.05%), and 34 (0.01%) exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. For certain species where the calculated number of individuals exposed was between 1 and the mean group size, the requested take authorization has been increased to the mean group size as observed in the ETP (Ferguson
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the take occurs.
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting the low-energy marine seismic survey in the ETP may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B harassment) of small numbers of marine mammals. No mortality or injuries are
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Several species for which take authorization is requested are either ESA-listed and/or are considered “Depleted” under the MMPA. Blue, sperm, and humpback whales are listed as Endangered under the ESA (as well as MMPA-Depleted). Along the California coast blue whale abundance has been increasing during the past two decades (Calambokidis
For reasons stated previously in this document, the negligible impact determination is also supported by the likelihood that, given sufficient “notice” through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious; the fact that cetaceans would have to be closer than 40 m (131.2 ft) in deep water when the GI airgun is in use from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing PTS; and the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high at that short distance from the vessel, enabling the implementation of shut-downs to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
While the number of marine mammals potentially incidentally harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, less than one percent of any of the estimated population sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures mentioned previously in this document.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the proposed SIO seismic survey will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammal, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from the seismic survey will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
Subsistence whaling of several species of small cetaceans, including the bottlenose dolphin, takes place in territorial coastal waters of Peru (Read
There are six marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: The humpback whale, South Pacific right whale, sei whale, fin whale, blue whale, and sperm whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, SIO has begun consultation with NMFS on the proposed seismic survey. NMFS will also consult internally on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. As discussed previously in this document, take is requested only for species likely to occur in the survey area during the project timeframe (blue, humpback, and sperm whales), and consultation will consider these three species. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.
On behalf of NSF, LGL Limited, Environmental Research Associates, prepared an EA titled “Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA for Level B harassment, at levels specified in Table 3 of this document, to SIO incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the ETP during the period October-November 2010, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On 7/2/2010 (75 FR 38467-38468) and 7/9/2010 (75 FR 39497-39499), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published Notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
Comments were received from a nonprofit agency that was not selected as the designated nonprofit agency to perform the Janitorial and Grounds Service at the Alan Bible Federal Building and Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas, NV. In its comments, the nonprofit agency questions the fairness of the process used by the central nonprofit agency to identify the nonprofit agency to perform this project.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) operates pursuant to statutory and regulatory requirements. In accordance with these requirements, the Committee has designated central nonprofit agencies to perform certain duties, including facilitating the distribution of Government orders for goods and services among qualified nonprofit agencies. The central nonprofit agencies have established order distribution procedures which include dispute resolution processes. Accordingly, in this instance, if a qualified nonprofit agency questions the fairness of the order distribution process conducted by the central nonprofit agency, they must utilize the established dispute resolution process.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and to delete products previously furnished by such agency.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List to be provided by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of a prospective partially exclusive license of the following U.S. Patent Application 12/243,084 Filed October 01, 2008 to SecureNet LLC for use of the biopolymer for change detection and security applications.
Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.
United States Army Engineer Research and Development
Ms. Bea Shahin (217) 373-7234, FAX (217) 373-7210,
This patent application claims a method by which a biologically-natural material can be produced in bioreactors and transformed for use as a dry solid. The resulting biopolymer material can be used in place of synthetic, petroleum-based polymers for soil amendment applications to achieve increased soil strength, reduced air transport, and decreased soil erosion. During processing, the biopolymer also can be functionalized to improve its adsorption of heavy metals.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of a prospective partially exclusive license of the following U.S. Patent Application 12/243,084, Filed October 01, 2008, to Green & Grow LLC for use in agricultural applications and products (to include crop preparation, cover crop, seed germination, seed coatings, side dressing, lawn application and starter ground cover) and applications in the fields of soil and slope stabilization, enhanced bioremediation, dust and run-off control, fly ash removal, emissions particulate removal, metal and inorganic chelation in soils and water, soil erosion, road stabilizer, and dust suppression.
Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.
United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Ms. Bea Shahin (217) 373-7234, FAX (217) 373-7210,
This patent application claims a method by which a biologically-natural material can be produced in bioreactors and transformed for use as a dry solid. The resulting biopolymer material can be used in place of synthetic, petroleum-based polymers for soil amendment applications to achieve increased soil strength, reduced air transport, and decreased soil erosion. During processing, the biopolymer also can be functionalized to improve its adsorption of heavy metals.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Powerex Corp. (Powerex) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before October 4, 2010.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-8008).
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) 202-586-5260 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On February 25, 1998, the DOE issued Order No. EA-171 which authorized Powerex to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a two-year term as a power marketer using existing international transmission facilities. DOE renewed the Powerex export authorization on February 23, 2000, for a five-year term in Order No. EA-171-A, and again for five years on November 18, 2005, in Order No. EA-171-B. That Order will expire on November 18, 2010. On May 19, 2010, Powerex filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-171-B for an additional five-year term.
The electric energy that Powerex proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Powerex have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the Powerex application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket No. EA-171-C. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Mike MacDougal and Karen McDonald, Powerex Corp., 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1400, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2X8 and Deanna E. King, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300, Austin, Texas 78701. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Notice of preliminary determination.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has preliminarily determined that the 2007 edition of the
Comments on the preliminary determination must be provided by October 4, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Ronald B. Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-586-7935. For legal issues contact Kavita Patel, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-0669, e-mail:
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA), establishes requirements for the Building Energy Efficiency Standards Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831
If the Secretary makes a determination that the revised standard will not improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings, State commercial codes shall meet or exceed the last revised standard for which the Secretary has made a positive determination. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(ii)). On December 30, 2008, the Secretary published a determination in the
ECPA also requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the deadlines for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of Section 304(c) of ECPA and that it has made significant progress in doing so. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c))
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) approved the publication of the 2007 edition of
The Standard was developed under American National Standards Institute approved consensus standard procedures. Standard 90.1 is under continuous maintenance by a Standing Standard Project Committee (SSPC) for which the ASHRAE Standard Committee has established a documented program for regular publication of addenda or revisions, including procedures for timely, documented, consensus action on requests for change to any part of the standard. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approves addenda prior to their publication by ASHRAE and IESNA and therefore prior to their inclusion in a new version of Standard 90.1. ANSI approved the final addendum for inclusion in Standard 90.1-2007 on December 18, 2007. The 2007 edition was published in December 2007.
In arriving at a preliminary determination, the DOE first reviewed all significant changes between the 2004 edition and the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. Standard 90.1 is complex and covers a broad spectrum of the energy related components and systems in buildings ranging from simple storage buildings to complex hospitals and laboratories. The size of buildings addressed range from those smaller than single family homes to the largest buildings in the world. The approach to development of the standard used in the 2007 edition was not changed from that used for the 2004 edition, with no changes to the scope or the way components are defined. We preliminarily determined that because no significant changes were made to the structure, scope, or component definitions of Standard 90.1-2004, a similar methodology used for the analysis of Standard 90.1-2004 could be utilized for the analysis of Standard 90.1-2007, consisting of a qualitative comparison of the textual changes to requirements in Standard 90.1-2007 from Standard 90.1-2004, and a quantitative estimate of the energy savings developed from whole building simulations of a standard set of buildings constructed to both Standards over a range of U.S. climates. DOE chose to modify several details of how the quantitative analysis would be done, including changes in the simulation tool used, the building models, and the procedure and data for weighting of results by building type and climate. DOE held a public workshop on February 18, 2009 to provide for public comment on the proposed analysis methodology. DOE provided notice of the workshop in the
(1) Specific reductions in stringency in Standard 90.1-2007 that DOE should be made aware of and that have been identified by stakeholders.
(2) Specific changes in scope between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 and how DOE should interpret expansions of scope in its determination.
(3) DOE's proposed approach to changes in referenced ventilation standards between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007.
(4) DOE's proposed approach for addressing future effective dates for mechanical equipment requirements.
(5) The frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance in building standards (
(6) New non-residential building construction data (including Mid-rise and High-rise residential) by State or census division and building type.
(7) Data to quantify the impact of Standard 90.1 on additions and renovations to existing buildings.
(8) The relative prevalence of the semi-heated building envelope subcategory in the building types proposed for analysis (
(9) The relative importance of the Mid- and High-rise residential sector in DOE's determination and data for developing weighting factors for this sector.
(10) Data describing the relative frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance.
DOE only received stakeholder input peripherally related to one of these key issues, that of the relative importance of mid- to high-rise residential building and their construction. However, DOE received input on several other issues of concern to stakeholders.
DOE sought comment on its general approach to the preliminary determination analysis and during the public meeting outlined the proposed approach and responded to questions and to comments received. DOE reviewed the comments and data submitted regarding issues raised in the proposed methodology for the quantitative analysis. The more significant comments are discussed below. DOE received comments in four general areas regarding the determination analysis methodology: The treatment of equipment efficiency improvements, characteristics of multi-family buildings, climates used in the quantitative analysis, and how DOE addresses the cost-effectiveness of requirements. DOE received other comments relating to how the determination results were to be used.
DOE's proposed quantitative analysis methodology includes any equipment efficiency improvements mandated by Federal equipment efficiency standards, either established by DOE or by legislation but not initiated by addenda to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, in the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 baseline. The purpose for this is to prevent inclusion in the quantitative analysis of energy savings that would occur in new building construction (due to these mandated equipment efficiency improvements) regardless of the use of Standard 90.1-2004 or Standard 90.1-2007 as the basis for State building codes. This is consistent with the approach used in previous DOE determinations.
The National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) commented that DOE's approach would seem to miss an important energy savings feature and that the published standard does have a list of equipment efficiencies that should be the base for the calculations. NMHC commented that taking this into account would seem to be more important given the emphasis to improve the efficiency of the standard by a certain percentage. Also, NMHC commented that there is a time lag between when equipment improvements are adopted by the standards and when DOE publishes these as requirements. (NMHC, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 38, 40-41)
DOE does not use the determination methodology to ascertain whether the standard has met a minimum percentage improvement and is instead focused on estimating whether the adoption of the revised standard as the basis of State building codes would result in energy savings, as compared to the previous
The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) wanted clarification and assurance that DOE was not providing credit in the assessment of energy savings for any requirements in 90.1 that would in fact be preempted by existing Federal equipment efficiency standards and therefore could not be promulgated in State codes. (RECA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 43-45) DOE notes that there are no such requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and that this concern does not exist for this preliminary determination.
In its discussion on the number of climates, NMHC asked if DOE planned to reduce the number of simulation locations from those identified in the notice and encouraged DOE not to reduce the number of locations used for the quantitative analysis simulations. (NMHC, Public Meeting Transcript, p. 57) In response, DOE will use a single representative climate for each of the 15 U.S. climate zones identified in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 documents. It did not reduce the number of climate zones being used in the quantitative analysis but rather increased this number when compared with previous determinations.
In commenting on representativeness of the multi-family building models, the NMHC commented that wood-frame was the dominant construction type up to and including four stories. NMHC stated that above five stories, steel-frame construction is more common, but the percentage of the construction market represented by these taller buildings drops off considerably. NMHC suggested that for the mid-rise multi-family buildings, DOE could assume that wood-frame construction was representative of the market. NMHC noted a steel-frame building would be more representative of a high-rise construction (10 stories) and DOE could assume steel-frame for the high-rise multi-family building class. (NMHC, Public Meeting Transcript, p. 65) The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) expressed concern that the quantitative analysis would not pick up on the fact that multi-family buildings are built out of wood-frame construction. (AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, p. 73) In response, DOE appreciates the information provided by the NMHC and points out that wood-frame construction does form the basis of the mid-rise apartment building model. DOE has not included a high-rise apartment building model into its quantitative analysis for the Standard 90.1-2007 determination.
AF&PA expressed concern over how the results of a quantitative analysis are used by DOE and presented to the building community. In particular, AF&PA questioned why a quantitative analysis is being done by DOE, given the legislative charge to DOE regarding the determination. AF&PA stated that it appeared that doing a quantitative analysis may be going beyond what is required of DOE. Further, AF&PA stated that DOE believes that this comparison can be done with a qualitative analysis, but DOE is choosing to bring in a quantitative analysis that misses some very significant issues such as construction type and material choices. They stated that it seems that the DOE goal for 30 percent savings applies only to Federal buildings and questioned why DOE isn't looking at a typical pool of Federal buildings if it wants to do a quantitative analysis toward that goal. Finally, AF&PA stated that the results of a quantitative analysis would be a driving factor with the 90.1 committee, and that this would put further pressure on the committee to increase the stringency of wood-frame construction. (AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 69-74)
In response, DOE notes that the preliminary determination on ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 is not related to the legislative goal of 30-percent improvement in Federal buildings. In addition, while DOE has signed a memorandum with ASHRAE to improve energy efficiency in commercial building codes (Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Energy and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Signed July 2007), DOE does not consider the purpose of the preliminary determination to measure how far along a path building standards have progressed from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. DOE does believe that a quantitative analysis of savings should be done alongside a qualitative analysis and has carried this through in past ASHRAE Standard 90.1 determinations. The quantitative analysis allows DOE to examine quantitatively multiple changes to Standard 90.1, with some reflecting improved efficiency, and others possibly reduced efficiency to determine in balance whether there has been an overall improvement in building efficiency. DOE does not intend for this preliminary determination to be used as a tool to measure progress toward a 30-percent improvement in commercial building energy codes beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. In support of both the preliminary determination and ASHRAE-driven code improvement process, DOE and ASHRAE are relying on a sample set of commercial buildings (based on the DOE benchmark buildings developed for DOE's Net-Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative and available at
Following up on AF&PA comments, ASHRAE commented that the Standard 90.1 development process is done with consensus building following the ANSI process and is developed through a broad spectrum of representation. ASHRAE further commented that the 30-percent target that was reflected in a memorandum with DOE to improve efficiency in commercial buildings is a goal, not a mandate, since a mandate cannot be placed on a consensus body. (ASHRAE, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 81, 82)
AF&PA also commented that the DOE analysis reflects a snapshot in time and does not consider changes that will occur in the marketplace. Further, AF&PA believed that there is a legislative charge for DOE to support the notion of cost-effectiveness and use of readily available technology. They asked if there is a way for DOE to become more engaged in how that aspect is driving changes in envelope energy performance. (AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 87-88) In response, DOE points out that the analysis used to set the envelope requirements for different construction assemblies had cost-effectiveness as its basis. However, the purpose of the preliminary determination analysis is not to investigate the validity of the development of ASHRAE Standard
AF&PA also asked if a description of the building models, in particular how infiltration is modeled, could be provided. (AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 93-94) DOE has included a description of the benchmark building models and how these were used in the quantitative analysis documentation published at
RECA commented that some States that will adopt the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for both residential and commercial building energy codes with the understanding that because ASHRAE is referenced by the IECC, they are essentially equivalent. RECA asked whether DOE has prepared any guidance for States to describe what is acceptable and whether this would be provided in the preliminary determination. (RECA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 111-112)
Currently, DOE has not published any statements that a version of the IECC is equivalent in terms of energy savings to for ASHRAE 90.1 in the State code certification process. Each State's submittal with regard to certification of its energy code is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Further, the DOE commercial energy code certification requirements with regard to meeting or exceeding the efficiency of the most recent ASHRAE Standard 90.1 version for which a positive determination has been made are separate from the residential energy code certification requirements that reference the IECC. Some States may adopt the IECC and not adopt the commercial code requirements. For these reasons, DOE considers the commercial and residential building energy code certification by the States a separate process.
As acknowledged in the previous analysis, DOE recognizes that, given the numerous assumptions required to simulate the potential impact of a new commercial building energy standard, reasonable minds could differ over both the specific building models employed and the assumptions used in those models. DOE also recognizes the cautions from AF&PA regarding the quantitative analysis and previous comments about the complexity of the problem.
DOE recognizes that the methodology proposed for the quantitative analysis will be insufficient for determining an absolute quantification of energy savings estimates associated with using Standard 90.1-2007 (
DOE continues to believe that the preliminary determination should rely on both quantitative and qualitative comparisons. While quantitative estimates of energy savings are indeed a much preferred method of comparison, it is not always possible to simulate or provide appropriate weighting to many features in Standard 90.1. Therefore, DOE will continue to note changes that individually or in net result in increased energy efficiency, even where they could not be accurately quantified. States can use this information when upgrading their energy codes.
DOE continues to believe that the quantitative analysis should be based on the minimum requirements of each standard that reflect the minimum set of options available in new construction. In assessing the impact of those requirements, DOE also believes that assessment should be based on an estimate of typical construction practices. DOE believes that this has been done in the quantitative analysis.
For this preliminary determination, DOE utilized 5 years of previous building construction data, as developed using proprietary F.W. Dodge building statistical data by building type and by location down to the county level and purchased by DOE, to develop weighting factors to weight the building simulation results. (A summary of the data is available in a PNNL report—PNNL-19116—Jarnagin and Bandyopodhyay, 2010, Weighting Factors for the Commercial Building Prototypes used in the Development of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010 at
Consistent with the previous analysis, DOE compared versions of Standard 90.1 “as a whole” and did not issue determinations for individual addenda. DOE interprets the language in Section 304(b)(2) of ECPA to mean that when a comprehensive revision of the ASHRAE Standard is published (which in this case is ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007), then that revised or successor standard triggers the Secretary's obligation to issue a determination as to whether the revised standard improves energy efficiency. This determination is made by comparing the revised or successor standard to the last predecessor standard. While the addenda process is part of the ongoing maintenance of the standard and thus continually modifies or revises the existing standard over time, it would be an unreasonable reading of the statute to categorize each addenda in this maintenance process as a “revised or successor standard” within the meaning of Section 304(b)(2) of ECPA, so as to require a determination by the Secretary. Such an interpretation of the statute would put an unreasonable burden both on the States and DOE. For the States, a determination by the Secretary requires some State action, and what is required depends upon whether the Secretary issues an affirmative or a negative determination. If the Secretary were required to issue a determination after each addenda was published, the States would be constantly required to change their codes. This would affect the stability and certainty of State commercial building codes.
The statutory language in Section 304(b) of ECPA states that the Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any successor standard to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 will improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)) The Secretary must publish a notice of this determination in
However, Congress did address consideration of the technological feasibility and cost effectiveness of the Voluntary Building Energy Codes. Section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to participate in the ASHRAE process and to assist in determining the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of the ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6836) It also requires DOE to periodically review the economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes and participate in the industry process for review and modification, including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b))
Unlike Section 307 of ECPA (42 U.S.C. 6836), which specifically includes language concerning economic justification, Section 304 of ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification. “It is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully where it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section.”
The fact that the Section 304 of ECPA determination process does not require the Secretary to perform an economic analysis does not diminish the importance that the ASHRAE standards be technologically feasible and economically justified. However, the statute addresses these issues by directing DOE to participate in the ASHRAE process itself.
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, DOE has determined that it is not required to perform an economic analysis as part of its determination process in Section 304 of ECPA.
A significant change in DOE's approach from previous determinations was the use of specific buildings, as representative of a typical building type, in the development of building energy use intensity (EUI), without the scaling approach used in previous determinations. While the scaling approach used previously provides an assessment of the impact of building changes over a broad range of building sizes, DOE determined that the benefits did not outweigh the complexity of this approach for the purpose of a yes/no determination. The availability of commercial benchmark building models in EnergyPlus for a wide variety of building types and typical sizes was deemed sufficient for the preliminary quantitative determination analysis of Standard 90.1-2007.
One of the most significant commercial building end-uses regulated by energy codes and standards is lighting. For the preliminary quantitative analysis, each of DOE's building models have its internal lighting power density (LPD) determined using either the building area lighting compliance path or the space-by-space lighting compliance path from each ASHRAE Standard 90.1 edition. Building area LPDs are defined in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as maximum lighting power allowance given in watts (W)/square foot (ft
The building models used for the preliminary quantitative analysis are specific building designs, in most cases with specific spaces defined within the prototype and with different lighting schedules for each space in accordance with its expected use. DOE chose to use the space-by-space method to establish the overall lighting power within these prototypes. In the case of one prototype, the strip mall retail building, DOE also included lighting power to reflect the typical values for additional lighting power allowances that would be allowed as display lighting under Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007, assuming the same display area in the prototype. For building prototypes where space type distinctions were not deemed as important or significant, the building area LPD numbers were used (
The use of the space-by-space lighting method is a deviation from previous ASHRAE Standard 90.1 determinations where less detailed building models were utilized in the quantitative analysis. However, since the base LPD values for either path did not change between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 and the change in the additional lighting power allowance was small and considered for only one building type, the choice of compliance path was deemed not to affect significantly the determination of energy savings. For each building type, Table 1shows the lighting compliance path used for the quantitative analysis and the average LPD used in the building models. Once selected, the same compliance path was used for LPD assumptions in both Standard 90.1 editions being compared. For each building prototype, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007 building area LPDs are shown for comparison alongside the values used in the quantitative analysis.
The building area LPDs are identical for both Standard 90.1 versions. The space-by-space LPDs tabulated by space type are also identical in both Standards. However, in addition, under the space-by-space compliance path are additional lighting power allowances provided for specific circumstances (primarily display lighting). Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 both have additional lighting power allowances for decorative lighting and for retail display lighting to highlight merchandise. Standard 90.1-2004 also provides a small additional lighting power allowance for video display terminal lighting. This latter was removed in Standard 90.1-2007 and considered seldom used in practice. The additional lighting power for decorative lighting was not changed between standards. The additional lighting power allowance for retail display lighting was changed to use four specific merchandise categories described by lists of merchandise. Only two general merchandise categories were used in Standard 90.1-2004. DOE collected limited information on display areas in a small sample of retail buildings and made a conservative estimate that for the strip mall prototype, approximately 13 percent of the entire building area might qualify for the display lighting power allowances. DOE assumed that the additional lighting power allowance for that display area was reduced from an average of 2.75 W/ft
The final space-by-space calculations used in the quantitative analysis yield LPDs that differ from the LPDs determined from the building area compliance paths. For all building models other than restaurants and the mid-rise apartment, the lighting power densities used are between 7 percent lower to 8 percent higher than LPD from the building area compliance path. The LPDs modeled for the two restaurant prototypes are 16 to 18 percent higher than the LPD from the building area compliance path in either standard, a direct result of the relative ratio of kitchen to dining areas used in these prototypes compared with that assumed in the development of the ASHRAE 90.1 building area LPD values. All else being equal, the impact of higher LPD assumptions is to result in a somewhat greater cooling load and lower heating load in these prototypes.
The building average LPD modeled for the mid-rise apartment prototype is 43 percent lower than the tabulated building area LPD value shown in both versions of Standard 90.1. However, the lighting section in both versions states that lighting in living units (
Identical lighting schedules were used for the Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 building prototypes, as no addenda to Standard 90.1-2004 affected the scheduled usage.
In addition to the internal lighting power density, Standard 90.1 has requirements for exterior lighting power. These requirements are identical between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 and are based on the application of specific exterior lighting power densities allowances to defined exterior surfaces types (
Table 2 shows the exterior lighting power assumption, expressed in W/ft
Because the exterior lighting power densities did not change between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007, the inclusion of exterior lighting does not affect DOE's determination of energy savings; however, as it affects the baseline building energy use, it does have an impact on the percentage savings calculated for each building type.
DOE's preliminary quantitative determination was carried out using the EnergyPlus building simulation tool. EnergyPlus was selected for this determination for several reasons. First, DOE believes that the underlying calculation methods and the wide variety of systems available in EnergyPlus version 3.0, used for this preliminary determination, are sufficiently advanced over those in BLAST and DOE2 to justify the use of EnergyPlus. Quoting from DOE's EnergyPlus Web site (
DOE carried out both a broad quantitative analysis and a detailed textual analysis of the differences between the requirements and the stringencies in the 2004 and the 2007 editions of Standard 90.1.
The quantitative comparison of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 was carried out using whole-building energy simulations of buildings built to both ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. DOE simulated 15 representative building types in 15 U.S. climate locations, each climate location selected to be representative of one of the 15 U.S. climate zones used in the definition of building energy code criteria in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007. The simulations were developed using specific building prototypes based on the DOE commercial benchmark building models developed for DOE's Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative.
For each building prototype simulated in each climate the energy use intensities (EUI) by fuel type and by end-use were extracted. These EUIs by fuel type for each building were then weighted to national average EUI figures using weighting factors based on the relative square footage of construction represented by that prototype in each of the 15 climate regions. These weighting factors were based on commercial building construction starts data for a five year period from 2003 to 2007. The source of data was the McGraw-Hill Construction Projects Starts Database (MHC). The MHC database captures over 90% of new commercial construction in any given year and the collection process is independently monitored to ensure the coverage of most of the commercial construction in the U.S. The data is used by other federal agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for characterizing building construction in the U.S. For the purpose of developing construction weighting factors, the strength of this data lies in the number of samples, the characterization of each sample in terms of building end-use and size and number of stories, the frequency of data collection, and the detailed location data. In addition, the MHC database can be used to identify multi-family residential buildings that would be covered under ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
DOE's prototypes reflect the use of two fuel types, electricity and natural gas. Using the weighting factors, DOE was able to preliminarily establish an estimate of the relative reduction in building energy use, as determined by a calculated reduction in weighted average site EUI for each building prototype. Site energy refers to the energy consumed at the building site. In a corresponding fashion, DOE was also able to calculate a reduction in terms of weighted average primary EUI and in terms of weighted average energy cost intensity (ECI) in $/sf of building floorspace. Primary energy as used here refers to the energy required to generate and deliver energy to the site. To estimate primary energy, all electrical energy use intensities were first converted to primary energy using a factor of 10,800 Btus primary energy per kWh (based on the 2009 estimated values reported in Table 2 of the EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 2009, April 2009 release available at
To estimate the reduction in energy cost index, DOE relied on national average commercial building energy prices of $0.1028/kWh of electricity and $11.99 per 1000 cubic feet ($1.163/therm) of natural gas, based on EIA statistics for 2008 (the last complete year of data available in Table 5.3 Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers: Total by End-Use Sector for the commercial sector—available from EIA at
Energy use intensities developed for each representative building type were weighted by total national square footage of each representative building type to provide an estimate of the difference between the national energy use in buildings constructed to both editions of the Standard 90.1. Note that the 15 buildings types used in the preliminary determination reflect approximately 80% of the total square footage of commercial construction including multi-family buildings greater than three stories covered under ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
Note that only differences between new building requirements were considered in this quantitative analysis. Changes to requirements in the 2007 edition that pertain to existing buildings only are addressed in the detailed textual analysis only.
Both the 2007 and 2004 editions address additions and renovations to existing buildings. Since DOE has preliminarily found insufficient data to characterize renovations in terms of what energy using features are utilized, DOE has not determined that the results obtained from the whole building prototypes used would reasonably reflect the EUI benefits that would accrue to renovated floor space. For this reason, renovated floor space is not included in the DOE weighting factors. Building additions on the other hand are believed to be substantially equivalent to new construction. For this reason, FW Dodge construction data on additions has been incorporated into the overall weighting factors. Floor space additions reflect approximately 13 percent of new construction floor space based on data captured in the FW Dodge dataset.
The quantitative analysis assumed the same base ventilation level for buildings constructed to Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007. Neither edition of Standard 90.1 specifies ventilation rates for commercial building construction. ASHRAE has a separate ventilation standard for commercial construction, ASHRAE Standard 62.1
Ventilation rates can have significant impact on the energy use of commercial buildings. States and local jurisdictions typically specify the ventilation requirements for buildings within their respective building codes and can set these requirements independent of the energy code requirements. Because of the limited reference to ventilation within either the 2004 or the 2007 edition of ASHRAE 90.1, the requirements that States certify that their energy codes meet or exceed the 2007 edition of ASHRAE 90.1 would in general not require modification of State ventilation code requirements. However, in many cases, ventilation requirements can be traced back to requirements found in one or another version of ASHRAE Standard 62.1. For the purpose of the quantitative analysis, DOE assumed ventilation rate for the simulation prototypes based on the requirements ASHRAE 62.1-2004. DOE also performed a sensitivity analysis which calculated the quantitative impacts assuming a ventilation rate based on ASHRAE Standard 62.1-1999.
The quantitative analysis of the energy consumption of buildings built to Standard 90.1-2007, as compared with buildings built to Standard 90.1-2004, indicates national primary energy savings of approximately 3.7 percent of commercial building energy consumption based on the weighting factors for the 15 buildings simulated. Site energy savings are estimated to be approximately 4.4 percent. Using national average fuel prices for electricity and natural gas DOE estimated a reduction in energy expenditures of 3.8 percent would result from the use of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. As identified previously, these estimated savings figures do not include energy savings from equipment or appliance standards that would be in place due to Federal requirements regardless of their presence in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007.
We also performed a detailed analysis of the differences between the textual requirements and stringencies of the two editions of Standard 90.1 in the scope of the standard, the building envelope requirements, the building lighting and power requirements, and the building mechanical equipment requirements.
DOE works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory on a variety of projects related to high-performance buildings. NIST is the main overseer of the Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) software used to support 10 CFR 436 and Federal life cycle costing requirements within the Federal sector. DOE and NIST co-chair the Building Technology Research and Development (BT R&D) committee under the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as required under Section 913 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, DOE does not typically work with NIST on determinations of energy efficiency of building standards. The technical work on DOE's determinations is provided by staff at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Building Energy Codes Program.
The emphasis of our detailed requirement and stringency analysis was on looking at the specific changes that ASHRAE made in going from Standard 90.1-2004 to Standard 90.1-2007. ASHRAE publishes changes to their standards as addenda to the preceding standard and then bundles all the addenda together to form the next edition. ASHRAE processed 44 addenda to Standard 90.1-2004 to create Standard 90.1-2007. Each of these
In addition, each standard has multiple ways to demonstrate compliance, including a prescriptive set of requirements by section of the standard, various tradeoff approaches within those same sections, and a whole building performance method (Energy Cost Budget; “ECB”). For each addendum we identified whether it applies to the prescriptive requirements, or one of the tradeoff paths provided for in the envelope, lighting, or mechanical sections, or the ECB whole building performance path. For each addendum DOE identified the impact on the stringency for that path to compliance.
DOE's review and evaluation indicates that there are significant differences between the 2004 edition and the 2007 edition. Our overall preliminary conclusion is that the 2007 edition will improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. However, DOE identified two changes in textual requirements that taken alone appear to represent a reduction in stringencies and could decrease energy efficiency. The two changes are addendum “p” broadens the implicit definition of “visually impaired” as used in exceptions provided in the standard which allow for lighting power to not be included in the calculated lighting power densities subject to maximum limits and addendum “av” which provides for an explicit shading credit allowed for louvered projections, where such a credit was not explicitly provided for in 90.1-2004. DOE believes that in these cases, the reduction in stringency was not considered a major impact. For the other addenda, DOE preliminarily determined that the remaining addenda either represented no change in stringency, or indicated a positive change in stringency corresponding to improved efficiency. Overall, DOE preliminarily concluded the changes in textual requirements and stringencies are “positive,” in the sense that they would improve energy efficiency in commercial construction. Our quantitative analysis preliminarily shows that for the 15 prototype buildings, a weighted average national improvement in new building efficiency of 3.7 percent, when considering source energy, and by 4.4 percent, when considering site energy. As both the 2004 and 2007 editions cover existing buildings, to the extent that these standards are applied to existing buildings in retrofits or in new construction addition, the 2007 edition should improve the efficiency of the existing building stock. DOE has, therefore, preliminarily concluded that Standard 90.1-2007 receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of the ECPA.
Tables 3 and 4 show the aggregated energy use and associated energy savings by building type for the 15 building prototypes analyzed and on an aggregated national basis for the 2004 and 2007 editions, respectively. For each edition of Standard 90.1, the national building floor area weight used to calculate the national impact on building EUI or building ECI, is presented. The national average electricity and gas building energy use intensity is presented separately for each building prototype analyzed, electricity being the predominant energy usage in all prototypes. National-average site energy use intensities ranges from over five hundred Btu per square foot annually for the Fast Food prototype to approximately 28 Btu per square foot annually for the Non-refrigerated Warehouse type. Source energy use intensities and building energy cost intensities ($/sf-yr) are also presented. Further details on the quantitative analysis can be found in the full preliminary quantitative analysis report available at
Table 5 presents the estimated percent energy savings (based on change in EUI) between the 2004 and 2007 editions. Overall, considering those differences that can be reasonably quantified, the 2007 edition is expected to increase the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Numbers in Table 5 represent percent energy savings; thus, negative numbers represent increased energy use. There is a decrease in gas EUI for all building types except medium office. This decrease in gas EUI represents the majority of the national site energy savings from the 2007 edition. There is a decrease in electrical EUI for all building prototypes except for large hotel.
A qualitative analysis of all addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 was conducted. All 44 addenda processed by ASHRAE in the creation of Standard 90.1-2007 from Standard 90.1-2004 were evaluated by DOE for their impact on energy efficiency. DOE preliminarily determined whether that addenda would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on overall building efficiency. Table S-1 shows the potential number of positive and negative changes for each section of Standard 90.1.
The preliminary results of the textual analysis indicate that the majority of changes (30 of the total of 44 listed) were neutral. These include editorial changes, changes to reference standards, changes to alternative compliance paths, and other changes to the text of the standard that may improve the usability of the standard, but do not generally improve or degrade the energy efficiency of building. There were 11 changes that were evaluated as having a positive impact on energy efficiency and 2 changes that were evaluated as having a negative impact on energy efficiency.
1. Addendum p—Expanded lighting power exceptions allowed for use with the visually impaired; and
2. Addendum av—Allowance for louvered overhangs.
1. Addendum c—Increased requirement for building vestibules;
2. Addendum h—Removal of data processing centers from exceptions to HVAC requirements;
3. Addendum q—Removal of hotel room exceptions to HVAC requirements;
4. Addendum v—Modification of demand controlled ventilation requirements;
5. Addendum ac—Modification of fan power limitations;
6. Addendum ai—Modification of retail display lighting requirements;
7. Addendum ak—Modification of cooling tower testing requirements;
8. Addendum an—Modification of commercial boiler requirements;
9. Addendum ar—Modification of part load fan requirements;
10. Addendum as—Modification of opaque envelope requirements; and
11. Addendum at—Modification of fenestration envelope requirements.
The results of the textual analysis are shown in Table 6. Overall, the potential positive impacts outweigh the potential negative impacts in a simple numerical comparison.
If today's determination is finalized, each State would be required to review and update, as necessary, the provisions of its commercial building energy code to meet or exceed the provisions of the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) This action would be required to be taken not later than two years from the date of the final determination notice, unless an extension is provided.
The DOE recognizes that some States do not have a State commercial building energy code or have a State code that does not apply to all commercial buildings. If local building energy codes regulate commercial building design and construction rather than a State code, the State must review and make all reasonable efforts to update as authorized those local codes to determine whether they meet or exceed the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. States may base their certifications on reasonable actions by units of general purpose local government. Each such State must still review the information obtained from the local governments and gather any additional data and testimony for its own certification.
States should be aware that the DOE considers high-rise (greater than three stories) multi-family residential buildings, hotel, motel, and other transient residential building types of any height as commercial buildings for energy code purposes. Consequently, commercial buildings, for the purposes of certification, would include high-rise (greater than three stories) multi-family residential buildings, hotel, motel, and other transient residential building types of any height.
Section 304(b) of ECPA requires each State to certify to the Secretary of Energy that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of its commercial building energy code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed the Standard 90.1-2007 edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)) The certification must include a demonstration that the provisions of the State's commercial building energy code regarding energy efficiency meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007. If a State intends to certify that its commercial building energy code already meets or exceeds the requirements of Standard 90.1-2007, the State should provide an explanation of the basis for this certification,
DOE does list the States that have filed certifications and those that have or have not adopted new codes. Once a State has adopted a new commercial code, DOE typically provides software, training, and support for the new code as long as the new code is based on the national model codes (in this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1). Some States develop their own codes that are only loosely related to the national model codes and DOE does not typically provide technical support for those codes. However, DOE does provide grants to these States through grant programs administered by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Each state is unique in how they go about adopting and enforcing their energy codes.
Section 304(c) of ECPA, requires that the Secretary permit an extension of the deadline for complying with the certification requirements described above, if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements and that it has made significant progress toward meeting its certification obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations could include one or both of the following: (1) A plan for response to the requirements stated in section 304; or (2) a statement that the State has appropriated or requested funds (within State funding procedures) to implement a plan that would respond to the
Today's action is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has preliminarily determined that today's action is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6. of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. That Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are strictly procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration of grants. Today's action is required by Title III of ECPA, as amended, which provides that whenever the Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings and must publish notice of such determination in the
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that pre-empt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has reviewed the statutory authority. Congress found that:
(1) Large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features;
(2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage;
(3) The failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in newly constructed buildings increases long-term operating costs that may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made, insured, or guaranteed by Federal agencies or made by federally insured or regulated instrumentalities; and
(4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide an existing means by which to assure, in coordination with other building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain adequate energy conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831)
Pursuant to Section 304(b) of ECPA, DOE is statutorily required to determine whether the most recent versions of ASHRAE 90.1 would improve the level of energy efficiency in commercial buildings as compared to the previous version. If DOE makes a positive determination, the statute requires each State to certify that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency with respect to the revised or successor codes. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)).
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications unless “funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and local governments in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government.” (62 FR 43257) Pursuant to Section 304(e) of ECPA, the DOE Secretary is required to “provide incentive funding to States to implement the requirements of [Section 304], and to improve and implement State residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes, including increasing and verifying compliance with such codes. In determining whether, and in what amount, to provide incentive funding under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider the actions proposed by the State to implement the requirements of this section, to improve and implement residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes, and to promote building energy efficiency through the use of such codes.” (42 U.S.C. 6833(e)) Therefore, consultation with States and local officials regarding this preliminary determination was not required.
However, DOE notes that State and local governments were invited to participate in the development Standard 90.1-2007. Standard 90.1-2007, was developed in a national American National Standards Institute consensus process open to the public and in which State and local governments participate along with DOE and other interested parties. It is the product of a series of amendments to the prior addition of the
DOE annually holds a national building energy codes workshop at which the progress on development of the model energy codes are presented, along with discussion and sharing of problems and successes in adoption, implementation, and enforcement of building energy codes. The predominate attendance of these workshops are State and local officials responsible for building energy codes. They are consistently encouraged and urged to participate in the model building energy code processes, which will be the subject of DOE's next determinations under section 304 of ECPA. Thus, State and local officials have had the opportunity to participate in the development of the standard through the ASHRAE process. Some have done so.
Similarly, the comments of States and local governments about provisions of the developing Standard 90.1-2007 were received in formal comment periods and heard and addressed in ASHRAE committee deliberations open to the public. In addition, concerns and issues about adoption, implementation and enforcement issues were presented and discussed at informal sessions at the Department's annual national workshops on building energy codes. DOE believes that the above process has given State and local jurisdictions extensive opportunity to comment on and express their concerns on Standard 90.1-2007, the subject of this determination.
On issuance of this determination that Standard 90.1-2007 would improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings, ECPA requires the States to certify to the Secretary that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed the requirements of Standard 90.1-2007. States are given broad freedom to either adopt Standard 90.1-2007 or develop their own code that meets equivalent energy efficiency.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or tribal governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments.
If today's determination is finalized, each State would be required under Section 304 of ECPA to review and update, as necessary, the provisions of its commercial building energy code to meet or exceed the provisions of the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) Section 304 of ECPA requires State action in response to a positive determination by DOE. While the processes that States may undertake to update their codes vary widely, as a general rule a State at a minimum would need to:
• Evaluate Standard 90.1-2007 using the background material provided by DOE
• Compare the existing State commercial building energy code to Standard 90.1-2007 to see if an update is needed
• Update the State commercial building energy code to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007.
DOE evaluated the potential for State activity to exceed $100 million in any one year. The approach looked at the 3 steps for minimum activity listed in the previous paragraph—evaluate, compare and update. A fourth potential step of providing training on the new code was also considered as some States may consider training on the new code to be an integral part of adopting the new code. For the 3 steps of minimum activity, DOE estimated the following:
Evaluate Standard 90.1-2007—DOE estimated a minimum of 8 hours of review per State and a maximum review time of 500 hours of review per State (12.5 work weeks). The minimum review time of 8 hours (one day) is the estimated minimum amount of time can see states taking to review Standard 90.1-2007. Simply reading and reviewing the
(1) A cost per hour of $100 per hour was assumed based on actual rates proposed in subcontracts associated with compliance studies funded by DOE. The average rate calculated from these subcontracts for 10 types of building officials from 6 states was $93.41, so DOE chose to round this up to $100 per hour.
(2) Compare Standard 90.1-2007 to existing state code—Assuming the State is familiar with its code and has performed an effective evaluation of Standard 90.1 in the first step, the range of potential costs should be similar to Step 1. (See Step 1 for discussion of 8 hour and 500 hour times and $100 per hour cost estimate).
(3) Update the State Codes to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007—Adopting a new energy code could be as simple as updating an order within the State, or it could be very complex involving hearings, testimony, etc. Again, the range of potential costs should be similar to Step 1. (See Step 1 for discussion of origin of 8 hour and 500 hour times and $100 per hour cost estimate).
The potential range of total costs to States to under these assumptions would be $120,000 to $7.5 million. This range is well below the $100 million threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Act. DOE has also considered potential costs were States to include provide training on the new code.
(4) Train Code officials on New Code—Assuming every jurisdiction has at least one person that needs to be trained on energy code. There are roughly 40,000 general purpose local governments, or jurisdictions, in the U.S. The total number of jurisdictions in the U.S. that enforce energy codes is not known with any degree of certainty. The National League of Cities publishes an estimate of the number of local governments in the U.S. at
• 19,429 Municipal governments;
• 16,504 Town or Township governments;
• 3,034 County governments;
• 13,506 School districts; and
• 35,052 Special district governments.
DOE believes it is reasonable to assume that all of the municipal governments, town or township governments, and county governments could be required to acquire training on Standard 90.1-2007 in order to enforce this standard as an adopted energy code. In addition, the 50 state governments would be required to acquire training. This number adds up to 19,429 + 16,504 + 3,034 + 50 = 38,667. Another widely mentioned estimate of the total number of code adopting jurisdictions in the U.S. is 44,000. This number is based on the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCBCS). See, for example,
Based on training experiences of the Building Energy Codes Program staff, with conducting training sessions for jurisdictional staff regarding Standard 90.1, one full-day (8 hours) of training is normally sufficient . Therefore we have used 8 hours as a low estimate and 16 hours as a high estimate for training hours required if a jurisdiction were to adopt Standard 90.1-2007.
Adding the potential training costs of $32 million to $64 million to the costs for the 3 steps indicates a potential total costs ranging from $32.12 million to $71.5 million. The high end of this estimate is less than the $100 million threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no further action is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's action would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000), requires DOE to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” refers to regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Today's regulatory action is not a policy that has “tribal implications” under Executive Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today's action under Executive Order 13175 and has determined that it is consistent with applicable policies of that Executive Order.
The public is invited to submit comments on the preliminary determinations. Comments must be provided by October 4, 2010 using any of the methods described in the
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this preliminary determination.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed determination.
The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has preliminarily determined that the 2009 version of the International Code Council (ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would achieve greater energy efficiency in low-rise residential buildings than the 2006 IECC. Also, DOE has preliminarily determined that the 2006 version of the IECC would achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2003 IECC. Finally, DOE has preliminarily determined that the 2003 version of the IECC would not achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2000 IECC. If these determinations are finalized, States would be required to file certification statements to DOE that they have reviewed the provisions of their residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made a determination as to whether to update their code to meet or exceed the most recent code with an affirmative determination, the 2009 IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides guidance to States on how the codes have changed from previous versions, how to submit certifications, and how to request extensions of the deadline to submit certifications, should the preliminary determinations be adopted as final.
Comments on the preliminary determinations must be provided by October 4, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Ronald B. Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-586-7935. For legal issues contact Chris Calamita, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507,
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA), establishes requirements for the Building Energy Standards Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) Section 304(b) of ECPA, as amended, provides that when the 1992 Model Energy Code, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary of the Department of Energy must determine, not later than 12 months after the revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings and must publish notice of the determination in the
If the Secretary determines that the revision would improve energy efficiency then, not later than 2 years after the date of the publication of the affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has compared its residential building code regarding energy efficiency to the revised code and made a determination whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State determinations are to be made: (1) After public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings included in such determination and upon evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) available to the public. (
The International Code Council's (ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) establishes national energy efficiency requirements for buildings. In 1997, the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) was incorporated into the ICC and the Model Energy Code (MEC) was renamed to the IECC. A previous
The Department of Energy's review and evaluation found that there are not significant differences in energy efficiency between the 2003 edition and the 2000 edition of the IECC. Although there are a few changes that would modestly improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings, there are a number of changes that reduce energy efficiency in certain situations. Most of the changes to the IECC between the 2000 and 2003 editions would not affect energy efficiency but rather make the code simpler and clearer for designers, builders, and code compliance officials to understand and use. Based on these findings, the Department has preliminarily concluded that the 2003 edition of the IECC should not receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of ECPA. The Department preliminarily concludes that there is a slight improvement in energy efficiency for many residential buildings, but this improvement is not sufficient to merit an affirmative determination. It should be noted that DOE is not concluding that the energy efficiency of the 2003 IECC less stringent than the 2000 IECC.
The residential portion of the 2006 IECC has been extensively changed from that the 2003 IECC. However, the most significant changes to the code between 2003 and 2006 simplify the code format rather than fundamentally changing the overall (national average) energy efficiency of the code. Multifamily buildings, which in the past have had separate, less stringent thermal requirements, are an exception. By eliminating the separate requirements, the 2006 IECC increased the energy efficiency of multifamily buildings.
Although the most significant 2006 changes did not directly target efficiency improvements, the new format of the code does result in some energy efficiency differences. The requirements for any given building may have increased or decreased based on the specific location (climate) and building design. The Department has preliminarily found that overall the 2006 IECC has a small improvement in energy efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC. The Department preliminarily concludes that the 2006 edition of the IECC should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of EPCA.
The 2009 IECC has substantial revisions compared to the 2006 IECC. Many of these revisions appear to directly improve energy efficiency, and the sum results of all changes appear to result in a significant increase in code stringency. Therefore, the Department preliminarily concludes that the 2009 edition of the IECC should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of EPCA.
As a whole, the 2003 IECC's provisions for energy efficiency in residential buildings appear largely unchanged from the 2000 IECC. There are some changes in the code that can have a modest effect on energy efficiency. These are discussed below. In addition, there is a variety of minor changes intended to make the code more concise, more complete, and better organized, but not more or less stringent. For example, more specific requirements have been added for steel roofs/ceilings and floors to correspond to those already in the code for steel walls. Another example is the relocation of the 51 pages of state maps from the middle of the code to the back of the code. Additionally, the performance path in Chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC contains a variety of modest improvements compared to the 2000 IECC, which creates more concise requirements.
Duct insulation requirements generally increased in the 2003 IECC. The 2003 IECC requirements are shown in Table 1. These are somewhat difficult to compare to the 2000 IECC requirements because the latter are more complex, differing between ducts in unconditioned spaces and ducts completely exterior to the building and distinguishing requirements by the design temperature difference between the duct air and the space in which the ducts are located. The 2000 IECC requirements for ducts in unconditioned spaces are shown in Table 2. Assuming typical supply air temperatures of 55 degrees F for cooling and 95 degrees F for heating (for heat pumps), the 2000 IECC insulation requirement for supply ducts in unconditioned spaces is R-5 (minimum) for nearly all cases. Insulation required by the 2000 IECC for return ducts in unconditioned spaces will generally be R-3.3 in warmer climates and R-5 in colder climates.
For the very common case of supply ducts in attics, and the case that is likely to have the greatest impact on energy use, the 2003 IECC always requires at least R-8, which exceeds the 2000 IECC's R-5 requirement. For supply ducts in other unconditioned spaces, the 2003 IECC's requirements exceed the 2000 IECC's requirements in all cases except very warm locations (less than 1500 heating degree-days), where the 2003 IECC requires R-4 compared to the 2000 IECC's requirement of R-5. Because supply ducts transport air in its hottest (or coldest) condition, insulation has its greatest impact on these ducts. The 2003 IECC is almost always more stringent than the 2000 IECC for supply ducts. This includes all supply ducts in attics and, based on the distribution of population
Requirements for return ducts in attics are slightly more stringent in the 2003 IECC (R-4 vs R-3.3) in the warmest climates, slightly less stringent (R-4 vs R-5) in mid climates, and slightly more stringent (R-6 vs R-5) in the coldest climates.
Research
There are two changes that can increase the stringency of the performance path in Chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC in certain cases. First, any house proposed to use electric resistance heating must have equal or lower calculated energy use than a hypothetical “standard design” that uses a more efficient electric air source heat pump. This change makes the performance approach much more stringent for designs that have electric resistance heating. However, compliance can be achieved for these designs using the prescriptive compliance methods in Chapters 5 and 6, thereby bypassing the increased stringency of the performance path.
Second, a provision has also been added requiring that the least efficient orientation in terms of energy use be assumed for a proposed group of residences with identical designs. Therefore, in a development where the same design is built on multiple lots facing various directions, the compliance analysis must be based on the least advantageous orientation. In most of the United States, this is the orientation that points the most window area toward a westerly direction, maximizing solar heat gains in summer afternoons and therefore increasing air conditioning energy use. Because proposed building designs must have a calculated annual energy use equal to or less than that of a home with window area equally distributed toward the four cardinal directions, the requirement to assume the least efficient orientation effectively makes the code more stringent because the increased energy use from the least efficient orientation must be offset by improved energy efficiency. This requirement in the 2003 IECC will have only modest average impact because it affects only the performance approach and identical house designs used repeatedly in a development.
A special set of requirements has been added to Table 502.2.5 of the 2003 IECC for sunroom additions having a floor area of less than 500 ft
Testing with the DOE-2 simulation tool indicates that for a 500 ft
The IECC contains prescriptive envelope requirements (insulation R-values and glazing U-factors) in Chapter 6 and Section 502.2.4 of the code. In the 2000 IECC, only the heating degree-days for the city where the housing was to be built could be used to determine the applicable prescriptive envelope requirements. In the 2003 IECC, the heating degree-days can still be used to determine the requirements, but additionally the designer/builder can use the climate zones provided in the state maps in the IECC. For most locations, the Chapter 3 climate zones and heating degree-days lead to the exact same requirements. Using the climate zones in the maps instead of the heating degree-days will allow about 10% of cities nationwide to have a less stringent set of prescriptive requirements. However, about 20% of cities nationwide will have more stringent requirements when the climate zones are used with the prescriptive requirements. If the designer/builders select to use the climate zone maps in the 10% of cities where it lowers requirements but not in the 20% of locations where it raises requirements, the 2003 code effectively is less stringent. However, DOE believes code users will make use of the climate zone maps even in many of the locations where they raise requirements. It is doubtful most code users will go through the level of effort of determining which method of determining climate based requirements may give less stringent requirements. In fact, DOE believes most users will not even be aware of these differences, but will prefer the climate zone maps because of their simplicity. The REScheck compliance materials developed by the U.S. Department of Energy utilize the same heating degree day based requirements for both the 2000 and 2003 IECC.
The maximum U-factor for skylight replacements in existing buildings (Section 502.2.5 of the IECC) is raised from a U-factor of 0.50 to a U-factor of 0.60 for locations above 1,999 heating degree-days. A higher U-factor reduces energy efficiency.
The change in the 2003 IECC that is expected to have the greatest impact on energy efficiency for the nation is the improved duct insulation because a majority of new residential buildings have ducts that pass through attics, crawl spaces, unheated basements and other spaces where the IECC requires duct insulation. The improved duct insulation in the 2003 IECC is estimated to save about 1% of heating and cooling costs.
The “Systems Analysis” performance compliance method is a less commonly used compliance method and the modest energy savings from the improvements in this optional compliance method can easily be bypassed by choosing a different compliance method. Because this approach is optional, it is impossible to calculate the cumulative effect these code changes will have on energy efficiency. DOE believes that the changes to the system analysis method are insufficient to sway the decision on whether the determination is affirmative or not.
The changes that reduce energy efficiency for sunroom additions and skylight replacements are not considered to have substantial impacts on national energy use as they do not apply to new buildings and only apply to specific types or retrofits and additions to existing buildings. The skylight U-factor change is only a modest reduction in energy efficiency and sunroom additions are a small fraction of the residential construction market.
The addition of the climate zone maps in the 2003 IECC as an option to using city-specific heating degree-day data allows for the possibility of preferentially lowering thermal envelope requirements in about 10% of all national locations. However, it is difficult to exploit this change because the code user must perform relatively complex calculations rather than using the popular and user-friendly REScheck software.
DOE preliminarily concludes the improved duct insulation will slightly improve energy efficiency in most houses. However, the reductions in energy efficiency for skylight replacements and sunroom additions are expected to at least partially offset these savings from a national energy total use perspective. The vast majority of all requirements in the IECC are unchanged from 2000 to 2003. For these reasons, DOE initially finds insufficient improvements in the 2003 to merit an affirmative determination.
The residential portion of the IECC in general and the building thermal envelope (ceilings, walls, doors, windows, foundations, etc.) requirements in particular were completely restructured from 2003 to 2006. This resulted in the code becoming much shorter and simpler, its volume reduced from 38 pages to 9 pages. The climate basis on which envelope requirements depend was completely reworked. The 2003 IECC has envelope requirements that vary continuously with heating degree-days (HDD),
A major change to envelope requirements was the combining of separate requirements for two building categories (one- and two-family dwellings, and all other low-rise residential buildings). The 2006 IECC requirements are the same for all low-rise residential building types, which has the effect of increasing the energy efficiency of the other low-rise buildings. Also eliminated were nine related tables that provided predefined packages of thermal transmittance prescriptive requirements (glazing, ceiling-roof, exterior wall, floor over unconditioned space, basement and crawl space walls, and floor slab on grade) for different window to wall area ratios (WWR). In their place, the 2006 IECC provides a single table of predefined packages of thermal
Table 4 shows a comparison of major prescriptive envelope requirements for a single-family house at a typical 15% WWR. The requirements for the 2003 IECC will differ from those shown in Table 4 for other WWRs and for multifamily buildings. The 2006 IECC climate zones do not exactly map to the 2003 IECC zones. Table 5 shows a more detailed estimate of how residential construction maps from the 2006 IECC compare to the 2003 IECC climate zones.
The Department has conducted an analysis and has preliminarily found that the 2006 IECC would modestly increase energy efficiency on an overall national average basis. This analysis is summarized below; a technical support document published in conjunction with this Notice contains the full results. The Department stresses that this increased energy efficiency is based on an average across all new residential buildings. The analysis identified combinations of locations and building design where the 2006 IECC would slightly reduce energy efficiency; however, the analysis indicates that the reductions would be more than offset by cases where energy efficiency is improved.
Table 6 provides the overall results of the comparative analysis of the
The analysis underlying the results in Table 6 does not account for all changes in the IECC from 2003 to 2006. For example, the 2006 IECC requires increased duct insulation in certain cases. On the other hand, the 2006 IECC is missing requirements for pool heater controls (on-off switch) and pool covers contained in the 2003 IECC. However, these and a few other miscellaneous changes do not appear to alter a determination that the 2006 IECC has a modest improvement in overall energy efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC. The Department expects all heated pools to have an on-off switch, basic pool covers are dependent on the diligent occupant behavior for removing/covering the pool, and many homes do not have a pool or may not heat their pool. Furthermore, the 2003 IECC allows the pool cover requirement to be bypassed if 20% of the heating energy is provided by solar heat from the sun striking the pool surface.
There was one particular issue that received the most extensive debate during the 2006 IECC development process. This issue was how the 2006 IECC sets requirements based on the window area of a home. There was considerable concern because a residential building with unlimited windows (
A major factor influencing the Department's preliminary determination of improved efficiency in the 2006 IECC is the improvement in energy efficiency for multifamily housing. The building envelope requirements in 2006 IECC are identical for all residential building types. This is not the case in the 2003 IECC where the requirements for multifamily building types are considerably less stringent than those for one and two-family dwellings. This is shown in the wall requirements in Figure 502.2(1) of the 2003 IECC. While multifamily residential construction has a much smaller market share than single-family in terms of number of dwelling units, there is a nearly universal improvement in requirements for multifamily buildings regardless of building design or climate zone. As indicated below in the certification discussion, high-rise (greater than three stories) multifamily residential buildings and hotel, motel, and other transient residential building types of any height as commercial buildings for energy code purposes. However, the building envelope revisions in 2006 IECC would impact residential buildings such as townhouses, row houses, and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as condominiums and garden apartments.
Each of the major changes in the 2009 IECC that impact energy efficiency is examined individually below. All but one of the changes appear to improve energy efficiency.
The 2009 IECC has a major new requirement that a minimum of 50% of all lamps (bulbs, tubes, etc.) be “high efficacy,” which is defined to include compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), T-8 or smaller diameter fluorescent tubes, or other products achieving comparable or better lumen-per-watt ratings. Traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet this requirement. The 2006 IECC had no lighting requirements for residential buildings. The Department estimates that lighting consumed 11.6% of all primary energy use in residential buildings in 2006 and that the requirement in the 2009 IECC could reduce lighting energy use by about 25%.
The 2009 IECC has a number of changes that improve energy efficiency in the building envelope. There are direct increases in prescriptive building envelope requirements in Tables 402.1.1 and 402.1.3 of the IECC. Table 7 shows these changes. Additionally, there were a number of minor improvements, including establishing an area limit of 24 ft
Although the fundamental requirement to seal all potential sources of leaks has not changed, the air leakage control specifications in Section 402.4 of the 2009 IECC are considerably more detailed than in the 2006 edition, requiring either a comprehensive inspection against a checklist of component sealing criteria or a whole-building pressurization test. There is a new requirement that fireplaces have gasketed doors to limit air leakage. Additionally, compliance with Standard ASTM E283 is now required to limit air leakage through recessed light fixtures. The 2006 IECC only required recessed light fixtures to be sealed but did not require compliance with the ASTM standard. This testing of fixtures is expected to help eliminate energy consuming leaks through these fixtures, which can be a very common method of lighting in kitchens and other rooms in new houses.
The 2009 IECC contains a new requirement that buildings with ducts that pass outside the conditioned space (for example, if ducts are in unconditioned attics, garages or crawlspaces) have the ducts pressure tested and shown to have a maximum leakage rate below specified limits. While the 2006 IECC also requires ducts to be sealed, the addition of a specific leakage limit verified by a pressure test in each new home or retrofit is expected to substantially reduce leakage in many if not most cases.
Testing of completed homes in Washington State where prescriptive code requirements for duct sealing apply without any testing to confirm compliance, “showed no significant improvement” over non-code homes.
Numerous other studies around the nation show substantial duct leakage in new homes, including those in states with codes requiring duct sealing. For example, a 2001 study of 186 houses built under the Model Energy Code in Massachusetts reported “serious problems were found in the quality of duct sealing in about 80% of these houses”.
The energy savings of improved duct sealing are very substantial. A California study estimated a sales-weighted state annual average savings from duct sealing of 38 therms and 239 kWh for a 1761 ft
1. There are a number of changes to the “simulated performance alternative” compliance path in the 2009 IECC. The glazing area in the baseline “standard reference design” was reduced from a maximum of 18% of the conditioned floor area to 15%. This results in increased energy efficiency for any proposed design having a glazing area of more than 15%. Because use of this compliance path is completely optional, these savings will only occur when the user chooses this compliance path. Another change does not directly alter code stringency in the performance path but may ultimately result in some energy savings is the removal of the option to trade high-efficiency HVAC equipment for reductions in other requirements in the code, such as reduced envelope insulation. Because building envelopes have substantially longer lives than HVAC and/or water heating equipment, energy savings from envelope improvements may persist for many more years than comparable equipment improvements. Also, because high-efficiency equipment is already the predominant choice in many markets, disallowing envelope/equipment trade-offs is likely to result in improved overall efficiency in many situations.
There is only one change in the 2009 IECC that directly reduces energy efficiency. Insulation requirements for many ducts outside the building thermal envelope are reduced from R-8 to R-6; exceptions are supply ducts in attics, which must still have R-8 insulation, and ducts in floor trusses, which retain the 2006 code's R-6 requirement.
The Department has conducted an energy simulation analysis of 2009 IECC compared to the 2006 using the DOE-
High-efficacy lighting was assumed to increase from 10% to 50% of all lighting within the building, reducing lighting energy use by 26%, or $74 a year. Savings attributable to the lighting requirements in the IECC will decrease as Federal law requires improved light bulbs in 2012 to 2014. Improved duct sealing was assumed to save 10% of the heating and cooling costs. Figure 1 shows the estimated annual energy cost savings resulting from the 2009 IECC changes for 14 diverse climates and for the national average. Actual savings will vary depending on many factors, including how well ducts are currently sealed in the absence of any testing requirements.
In the past some states have adopted the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) in lieu of the 2009 IECC because the IRC provides a comprehensive building construction code (structural, plumbing, electrical, energy, etc.) in a single book for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses. Consequently, DOE anticipates that some states may wish to adopt the 2009 IRC in lieu of the 2009 IECC. In order to provide technical assistance to States that may wish to adopt the 2009 IRC, DOE has evaluated the 2009 IRC to compare the stringency of its energy provisions with those of the 2009 IECC. Our analysis indicates that the 2009 IRC
Chapter 11 of the IRC contains energy efficiency provisions. The IRC allows compliance with the IECC as an alternative to complying with Chapter 11. Most of the energy efficiency requirements in the IRC and IECC are identical. However, there are several differences between the two codes that result in the 2009 IRC having reduced energy efficiency compared to the 2009 IECC. All the differences are listed below.
1. The 2009 IECC requires a glazed fenestration solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30 or lower whereas the 2009 IRC requires a higher (less stringent) SHGC of 0.35 or lower, in climate zones 1, 2, and 3. Further, the 2009 IRC allows impact resistant fenestration in zones 1 through 3 to meet an even less stringent SHGC requirement of 0.40 and less stringent U-factor requirements in zones 2 and 3.
2. For basement walls, the 2009 IECC requires either R-15 continuous insulation or R-19 cavity insulation in zones 6-8, whereas the 2009 IRC requires lower (less stringent) R-values in these zones: R-10 continuous or R-15 cavity.
3. The 2009 IECC requires R-38 floors in zones 7 and 8; the 2009 IRC requires only R-30.
4. The 2009 IECC limits the allowance for R-30 insulation in ceilings without attics to 500 ft
The 2009 IRC differs from the 2009 IECC in some ways that, although they do not reduce the stringency of code requirements, have the potential to result in increased energy consumption in certain situations:
1. Both the IRC and IECC allow for “trade-offs” by which the efficiency of one building component can be lowered in trade for higher efficiency in another. The 2009 IECC limits the extent to which glazing properties can be reduced in such trade-offs. The 2009 IECC sets a trade-off “cap” on SHGC at a maximum of 0.50 in climate zones 1, 2, and 3 and a cap on U-factor trade-offs of U-0.48 in zones 4 and 5 and U-0.40 in zones 6, 7, and 8. These caps are not present in the 2009 IRC. As these caps do not increase stringency of the code (but rather restrict trade-off options), there is no direct impact on annual energy consumption or cost. There may, however, be some impacts on occupant comfort and/or resistance to moisture condensation, either of which could possibly induce occupants to increase energy consumption, for example by raising thermostat set points.
2. The air barrier and insulation inspection requirements differ slightly between the codes. The 2009 IECC requires checking that “Air-permeable insulation is inside of an air barrier” (right column in the first row). The 2009 IRC is missing this, which could result in insulation on the exterior side of an air barrier being exposed to wind-induced air movement that reduces its effective R-value.
3. The definitions of “conditioned space” are different between the two codes, which, depending on local officials' interpretations, could result in different portions of a building being deemed conditioned and hence subject to the code's envelope requirements.
4. The three labels
5. The 2009 IRC (section N1101.1, “Scope”) states that Chapter 11 (Energy Efficiency) does not apply to portions of the building envelope that do not enclose conditioned space. Section 101.5.2 of the IECC is more specific, exempting only
The Department of Energy has performed a limited analysis of potential impact of the differences between the 2009 IECC and 2009 IRC. The analysis involves thermal simulation of home performance in several representative locations using the EnergyGauge (DOE-2)
• 2400 ft
• Natural gas furnace heating at $1.20/therm
• Central air conditioning electricity at 12 cents/kWh
• Equipment efficiencies at Federal minimum levels
• 360 ft
If today's determinations are finalized, each State would be required to determine the appropriateness of revising the portion of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed the provisions of the ICC International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) A State determination for the 2009 IECC would be sufficient to address all of the DOE determinations in this notice. Note that the applicability of any State revisions to new or existing buildings would be governed by the State building codes. However, it is our understanding that generally, the revisions would not apply to existing buildings unless they are undergoing a change that requires a building permit. The determinations would be required to be made not later than two years from the date of notice final determination, unless an extension is provided. The State determination must be: (1) Made after public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings and upon the evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) made available to the public. States have considerable discretion with regard to the hearing procedures they use, subject to providing an adequate opportunity for members of the public to be heard and to present relevant information. The Department recommends publication of any notice of public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
Section 304(a)(4) of ECPA, as amended, requires that if a State makes a determination that it is not appropriate to revise the energy efficiency provisions of its residential building code, the State must submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for this determination and the statement shall be available to the public. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))
States should be aware that the Department considers high-rise (greater than three stories) multifamily residential buildings and hotel, motel, and other transient residential building types of any height as commercial buildings for energy code purposes. Residential buildings include one- and two-family detached and attached buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as condominiums and garden apartments.
States should also be aware that the determinations do not apply to Chapter 5 of the 2009 IECC, which addresses commercial buildings as defined above. Therefore, States must certify their evaluations of their State building codes for residential buildings with respect to all provisions of the IECC except for those chapters.
Section 304(c) of ECPA, as amended, requires that the Secretary permit an extension of the deadline for complying with the certification requirements described above, if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements and that it has made significant progress toward meeting its certification obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations could include one or more of the following: (1) A plan for response to the requirements stated in Section 304, or (2) a statement that the State has appropriated or requested funds (within State funding procedures) to implement a plan that would respond to the requirements of Section 304 of ECPA.
Today's action is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has preliminarily determined that today's action is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6. of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. That Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are strictly procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration of grants. Today's action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State building codes. The action would not have direct environmental impacts. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or tribal governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments.
Today's action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State building codes. Today's action would not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments, and it would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's action would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, ”Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Executive Order 13175. “Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000), requires DOE to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” refers to regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Today's regulatory action is not a policy that has “tribal implications” under Executive Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today's action under Executive Order 13175 and has determined that it is consistent with applicable policies of that Executive Order.
The public is invited to submit comments on the preliminary determinations. Comments must be provided by October 4, 2010 using any of the methods described in the
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of these preliminary determinations.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The EIA has submitted the form EIA-886 “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicles” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and a three-year extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be filed by October 4, 2010. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible.
Send comments to OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-395-7285) or e-mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jason Worrall. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-586-5271) or e-mail (
This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (
1. Form EIA-886, “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicles, Form”.
2. Energy Information Administration.
3. OMB Number 1905-0191.
4. Three-year extension.
5. Mandatory.
6. Form EIA-886 is an annual survey that collects information on the number and type of Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs) and other advanced technology vehicles that vehicle suppliers made available in the previous calendar year and plan to make available in the following calendar year; the number, type and geographic distribution of AFVs in use in the previous calendar year; the amount and distribution of each type of Alternative Transportation Fuel (ATF) consumed in the previous calendar year.
The objectives of the
7. Business or other for-profit.
8. 10,812.5 hours.
Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0069, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6205J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0069, 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 on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1. 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
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
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's annual estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
Yes. Hours were removed for the certification program collection include in the previous ICR. Fewer hours for EPA are anticipated for the survey work due to a decreased level of sophistication in the analysis and decreased effort being needed to solicit survey responses. More hours were added for teachers completing the educator survey and administering the student survey. Finally, registering such a large number of teachers has resulted in more hours needed at EPA. Hours and burden for educators is about the same; hours for students has also decreased significantly. The bottom line burden hours increased along with the total cost.
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
In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies public. Historically, EPA has met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of EPA's comment letters, in the
Revision to FR Notice Published 08/06/2010: Extending the Comment Period from 11/04/2010 to 12/03/2010.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting on September 29-30, 2010, of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring & Methods Subcommittee (AAMMS) to provide advice concerning the development of a guidance document on network design for near-road ambient air monitoring and the implementation of an associated pilot monitoring study.
The CASAC AAMMS meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) and on Thursday, September 30, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The public meeting will be held at the Marriott at Research Triangle Park, 4700 Guardian Drive, Durham, NC 27703, telephone (919) 941-6200.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the September 29-30, 2010 public meeting may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 546-2073; fax (202) 565-2098; or e-mail at
Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants. On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated monitoring requirements as part of a final rule supporting the revision to the primary (health-based) NAAQS for nitrogen oxides. As part of the rulemaking, certain State and local air agencies are required to operate near-road nitrogen dioxide (NO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation of the product, Biter Fighter, pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. The cancellation was voluntarily requested by the registrant, Ticks and Mosquitoes, LLC., and accepted by EPA. This cancellation order follows a June 9, 2010
The cancellation is effective September 3, 2010.
Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5412; fax number: (703) 305-0118; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0452. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
This notice announces the cancellation of the product, Biter Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, registered under FIFRA section 3. Cancellation of the product, Biter Figher, containing the chemicals calcium lactate and urea, was requested by the registrant, Ticks or Mosquitoes,
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the June 9, 2010
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellation of the registration of the product, Biter Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registration is canceled. The effective date of the cancellation that is the subject of this notice is September 3, 2010. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the product, Biter Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the product subject to this order are as follows.
The registrant may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of Biter Fighter, EPA Registration Number 75771-1, until September 6, 2011, which is 1 year after the publication of this Cancellation Order in the
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 21, 2010.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 31, 2010.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 1, 2010.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 31, 2010.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
In order for an ESRD facility to receive the low-volume adjustment, CMS will require that an ESRD facility must provide an attestation to the fiscal intermediary or the Medicare administrative contractor (FI/MAC) that it has met the criteria to qualify as a low-volume facility. The FI or MAC would verify the ESRD facility's attestation of their low-volume status using the ESRD facility's final-settled cost reports. Also, an ESRD facility may make a one-time election to be excluded from the four-year transition to the ESRD PPS. A facility may elect to be paid entirely based on the ESRD PPS beginning January 1, 2011. If the ESRD facility fails to submit an election, or the ESRD facility's election is not received by their MAC by November 1, 2010, payments to the ESRD facility for items and services provided during the transition will be paid under the basic case-mix adjusted composite payment system.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506I(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
As costs have risen over time, ideas to improve Medicare payment systems and efficiency have been developed. Moving from a cost based payment arrangement to a hospital prospective payment system has dramatically simplified billing and coding procedures and generated important impacts on Medicare savings and quality of care measures. While prospective hospital payments based on diagnosis related group (DRGs) for acute care was the innovation of the 1980s, the Federal government has taken interest in value-based purchasing (VBP) in recent years. The VBP strategy rests on linking hospital performance to financial incentives. VBP has been heralded as a method to increase efficiency and quality of care while decreasing cost. In addition to its use as a payment system, the VBP strategy allows for performance scoring of hospitals based on the designated VBP quality measures.
In the case of the ACE Demonstration, the test has been designed to address the use of a global payment for an episode of care as an alternative approach to payment under traditional Medicare. The episode of care is defined as the bundle of Part A and Part B services provided during an inpatient stay for Medicare FFS beneficiaries for included Medicare severity-based diagnosis-related groups (MS-DRGs). The ACE Demonstration is limited to health care groups (
• Hip/knee replacement or revision surgery; and/or
• Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or cardiac intervention procedure (pace-maker and stent placement).
Evaluation of ACE will reveal whether the use of a bundled payment system will produce savings for Medicare for episodes of care involving the included DRGs. In addition to cost savings, the evaluation will assess changes to quality of care at the demonstration sites; whether or not the payment system creates better collaboration between physicians and facilities leading to higher quality patient care.
3.
4.
5.
6. T
Since each OPO has a monopoly on organ procurement within its donation service area, CMS must hold OPOs to high standards. Collection of this information is necessary for CMS to assess the effectiveness of each OPO and determine whether it should continue to be certified as an OPO and designated for a particular donation service area by the Secretary or replaced by an OPO that can more effectively procure organs within the donation service area.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, Ph.D., CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Persistence of Viable Influenza Virus in Aerosols—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is authorized to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers under Section 20(a)(1) of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Influenza continues to be a major public health concern because of the substantial health burden from seasonal influenza and the potential for a severe pandemic. Although influenza is known to be transmitted by infectious secretions, these secretions can be transferred from person to person in many different ways, and the relative importance of the different pathways is not known. The likelihood of the transmission of influenza virus by small infectious airborne particles produced during coughing and breathing is particularly unclear. The question of airborne transmission is especially important in healthcare facilities, where influenza patients tend to congregate during influenza season, because it directly impacts the infection control and personal protective measures that should be taken by healthcare workers.
The purpose of this study is to measure the amount of viable influenza virus in airborne particles that are produced by patients when they cough, and the size and quantity of the particles carrying the virus. A better understanding of the amount of potentially infectious material released by patients and the size of the particles carrying the virus will assist in determining the possible role of airborne transmission in the spread of influenza and in devising measures to prevent it.
Volunteer participants will be recruited by a test coordinator using a flyer describing the study. Interested potential participants will be screened using a short health questionnaire to verify that they have influenza-like symptoms and that they do not have any medical conditions that would preclude their participation. Qualified participants who agree to participate in the study will be asked to read and sign an informed consent form. Based on a previous study using similar forms, we estimate that the health questionnaire will require about 5 minutes to complete, and the informed consent form will take about 20 minutes to read and sign. Once the informed consent form is signed, the participant will be asked to cough into an aerosol particle collection system, and the airborne particles produced by the participant during coughing will be collected and tested.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3602.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the medical device, NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM. NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM is indicated to allow patients with stable, high spinal cord injuries and with stimulatable diaphragms to breathe without the assistance of a mechanical ventilator for at lease 4 continuous hours a day. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 5,472,438) from Case Western Reserve University, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated February 17, 2010, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that the FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for NEURX DIAPHRAGM PACING SYSTEM is 5,166 days. Of this time, 4,830 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 336 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,737 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Q4B Evaluation and Recommendation of Pharmacopoeial Texts for Use in the ICH Regions; Annex 11: Capillary Electrophoresis General Chapter.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The guidance provides the results of the ICH Q4B evaluation of the Capillary Electrophoresis General Chapter harmonized text from each of the three pharmacopoeias (United States, European, and Japanese) represented by the Pharmacopoeial Discussion Group (PDG). The guidance conveys recognition of the three pharmacopoeial methods by the three ICH regulatory regions and provides specific information regarding the recognition. The guidance is intended to recognize the interchangeability between the local regional pharmacopoeias, thus avoiding redundant testing in favor of a common testing strategy in each regulatory region. This guidance is in the form of an annex to the core guidance on the Q4B process entitled “Q4B Evaluation and Recommendation of Pharmacopoeial Texts for Use in the ICH Regions” (the core ICH Q4B guidance).
Submit either electronic or written comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft guidance entitled “Q4B Evaluation and Recommendation of Pharmacopoeial Texts for Use in the ICH Regions; Annex 11: Capillary Electrophoresis General Chapter” was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory agencies in June 2010.
The guidance provides the specific evaluation outcome from the ICH Q4B process for the Capillary Electrophoresis General Chapter harmonization proposal originating from the three-party PDG. This guidance is in the form of an annex to the core ICH Q4B guidance made available in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of premarket approval applications (PMAs) that have been approved. This list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the Internet and the agency's Division of Dockets Management.
Submit written requests for copies of summaries of safety and effectiveness data to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Please cite the appropriate docket number as listed in table 1 of this document when submitting a written request. See the
Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6570.
In the
In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.
The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from April 1, 2010, through June 30, 2010. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Language and Communication Study Section, October 4, 2010, 8 a.m. to October 5, 2010, 5 p.m., Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be one day only October 4, 2010. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 USC, as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant 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
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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(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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cellular and Molecular Biology of the Kidney Study Section, October 4, 2010, 8 a.m. to October 5, 2010, 5 p.m., Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be one day only October 4, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contractproposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial propertysuch as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with thegrant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearlyunwarranted 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 meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP).
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the establishment of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the Health Administration Center (HAC) of the Department of Veteran Affairs. We have provided background information about the proposed matching program in the “Supplementary Information” section below. The Privacy Act provides an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the proposed matching program. We may defer implementation of this matching program if we receive comments that persuade us to defer implementation.
The public should address comments to: Walter Stone, CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Information Security & Privacy Management (DISPM), Enterprise Architecture and Strategy Group (EASG), Office of Information Services (OIS), CMS, Mailstop N1-24-08, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., eastern daylight time.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits.
Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records (SOR) are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;
3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,
5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
CMS has taken action to ensure that all CMPs that this Agency participates in comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
“Computer Matching Agreement Between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Health Administration Center (HAC) of the Department of Veterans Affairs for Verification of CHAMPVA Eligibility”.
Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Health Administration Center (HAC) of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This Computer Matching Program (CMP) is executed to comply with the provisions of Public Laws (Pub. L.) 93-82, 94-581, 102-190, and 107-14 (codified at Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1713, renumbered Title 38 U.S.C. 1781), which restrict CHAMPVA eligibility for benefits dependent upon a beneficiary's Medicare Part A and Part B status. This computer match will match CHAMPVA applicants and beneficiaries with Medicare Part A and B beneficiaries.
The purpose of this computer matching agreement is to establish the conditions, safeguards and procedures under which the CMS and HAC will conduct a computer-matching program to determine entitlement to CHAMPVA benefits. Under the terms of this matching agreement, HAC will provide to CMS a list of social security numbers (SSN) for all CHAMPVA eligible beneficiaries who may also be eligible for Medicare benefits. This information is maintained in HAC's System of Records (SOR) entitled “Health Administration Center Civilian Health and Medical Program Records-VA.” CMS agrees to conduct a computer match of the SSNs of beneficiaries provided by HAC against the information found in CMS's Enrollment Database (EDB) SOR. HAC will receive the results of the computer match in order to determine a beneficiary's eligibility for care under CHAMPVA.
Upon establishment of the CHAMPVA program under Public Law 93-82, CHAMPVA entitlement will be terminated when any individual becomes eligible for Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) on a non-premium basis. Public Law 94-581 provided for reinstatement of CHAMPVA as second payer for beneficiaries aged 65 and over who exhausted a period of Medicare Part (Hospital Insurance). These beneficiaries must also be enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) in order to retain their CHAMPVA entitlement. Public Law 102-190 extended CHAMPVA benefit to age 65 for any beneficiary eligible for Medicare Part A on the basis of disability/end stage renal disease (ESRD) only if that individual is also enrolled in Medicare Part B. Public Law 107-14 provided for extending benefit coverage for beneficiaries over the age of 65 years if the beneficiary is in receipt of Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B.
The information used in this matching program is maintained in the HAC system identified as 54VA16, entitled “Health Administration Center Civilian Health and Medical Program Records-VA,” last published at 68 FR 53784 (September 12, 2003). SSNs of CHAMPVA beneficiaries will be released to CMS pursuant to the routine use number 21 as set forth in the system notice.
The matching program will be conducted with data maintained by CMS in the EDB, System No. 09-70-0502, published at 67 FR 3203 (January 23, 2002). Matched data will be released to HAC pursuant to the routine use number 2 as set forth in the system notice.
The CMP shall become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the Matching Program is sent to OMB and Congress, or 30 days after publication in the
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the applicant information, submission deadlines, funding criteria and other requirements for the FY2009 Section 202 Demonstration Pre-Development Grant Program NOFA. Approximately $20 million is made available through this NOFA, by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009). The purpose of the Section 202 Demonstration Pre-Development Grant Program is to assist Sponsors of projects that receive Fund Reservation Awards pursuant to the FY 2009 NOFA for the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program by providing pre-development grant funding for architectural and engineering work, site control, and other planning related expenses that are eligible for funding under the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program.
The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements can be found using the Department of Housing and Urban Development agency link on the Grants.gov/Find Web site at
Questions regarding specific program requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in the program NOFA. Questions regarding the 2009 General Section should be directed to the Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight at 202-708-0667 (this is not a toll-free number) or the NOFA Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 (toll-free). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), after consultation with the General Services Administration, has reestablished the charter for the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives Workgroup (Workgroup) for 2 years. The Workgroup provides an opportunity for stakeholders to give policy and technical advice on efforts to develop and implement sea lamprey control techniques alternative to lampricides in Lake Champlain.
Dave Tilton, Fish and Wildlife Service, Western New England Complex, 11 Lincoln Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452; 802-872-0629, extension 12.
The Workgroup conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). It reports to the Secretary through the Fish and Wildlife Service and Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative and functions solely as an advisory body. The Workgroup provides recommendations and advice to the Cooperative on:
• Feasible and appropriate sea lamprey management methods alternative to lampricides;
• Funding priorities for research and/or demonstration projects;
• Facilitating coordinated research between Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes; and
• Development of requests for proposals, project proposals, and research efforts affecting the Lake Champlain Basin.
The Workgroup consists of no more than 25 members and alternates appointed by the Secretary for 3-year terms. Up to five of the members may be special Government employees, selected for their scientific expertise. In addition, up to 20 members of the Workgroup will represent those with an interest in and a commitment to the Lake Champlain Basin's natural resources and its environmental quality. The States of Vermont and New York will each have a representative on the Workgroup. Other members will be selected from, but not limited to, the following interest groups:
(1) Recreational and charter fishermen, (2) sportfishing organizations, (3) environmental organizations, (4) general public residing within the Lake Champlain area, and (5) academic research and educational personnel. These members must be senior-level representatives with knowledge about fishery restoration objectives within the Lake Champlain Basin, including sea lamprey control, and must have the ability to represent their designated constituencies.
We have filed a copy of the Working Group's charter with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration; Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate; Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of Representatives; and the Library of Congress.
The Certification for reestablishment is published below.
I hereby certify that the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives Workgroup is necessary and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties pursuant to the Department of the Interior's authority under the Lake Champlain Basin Program (33 U.S.C. 1270) and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757g).
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0136).
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) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in 30 CFR parts 202, 204, 206, and 210. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements. We consolidated this ICR and ICR 1010-0090, Stripper Royalty Rate Reduction Notification, in order to facilitate program wide review of Federal oil and gas valuation. The new title of this ICR is “30 CFR Parts 202, 204, 206, and 210, Federal Oil and Gas Valuation.”
Submit written comments on or before October 4, 2010.
Submit written comments by either FAX (202) 395-6566 or e-mail (
Please also submit a copy of your comments on this ICR to BOEM by any of the following methods. Please use “ICR 1010-0136” as an identifier in your comment.
• Electronically go to
• Mail comments to Hyla Hurst, Regulatory Specialist, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Minerals Revenue Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS 61013B, Denver, Colorado 80225. Please reference ICR 1010-0136 in your comments.
• Hand-carry comments or use an overnight courier service. Our courier address is Building 85, Room A-614, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225. Please reference ICR 1010-0136 in your comments.
Hyla Hurst, telephone (303) 231-3495, ore-mail
When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals.
We use the information collected in this ICR to ensure that royalty is accurately valued and appropriately paid on oil and gas produced from Federal onshore and offshore leases. Please refer to the burden hour table for all reporting requirements and associated burden hours. All data submitted is subject to subsequent audit and adjustment.
The valuation regulations at 30 CFR part 206, subparts C and D, mandate that companies collect and/or submit information used to value their Federal oil and gas, including (1) transportation and processing allowances; and (2) regulatory allowance limitation information. Companies report certain data on Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance (OMB Control Number 1010-0139). The information requested is the minimum necessary to carry out our mission and places the least possible burden on respondents. If BOEM does not collect this information, both Federal and state governments may incur a loss of royalties.
Lessees may deduct the reasonable, actual costs of transportation and processing from Federal royalties. These allowances are reported on Form MMS-2014.
Lessees may request to exceed regulatory limitations. Upon proper application from the lessee, BOEM may approve an oil or gas transportation allowance in excess of 50 percent or a gas processing allowance in excess of 66
In 2004, we amended our regulations to comply with section 7 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. The regulations provide guidance for lessees and designees seeking accounting and auditing relief for qualifying Federal marginal properties. Under the regulations, both BOEM and the state concerned must approve any relief granted for a marginal property.
Under 43 CFR 3103.4-2, the Stripper Oil Royalty Rate Reduction Program (Stripper Oil Program) was established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the surface management agency for Federal onshore leases. The Minerals Revenue Management (MRM), who administered the Stripper Oil Program for BLM, approved royalty rate reductions for operators of stripper oil properties for applicable sales periods from October 1, 1992, through January 31, 2006. Effective February 1, 2006, the reduced royalty rates under this program were terminated. This change is not currently reflected in the CFR; however, BLM is processing a final rule to remove this citation from the regulations.
For production through January 31, 2006, reporters used Form MMS-4377, Stripper Royalty Rate Reduction Notification, to notify MRM of royalty rate changes. Although the royalty rate reductions were terminated, MRM continues to verify previously submitted notifications and may require the operator to submit an amended Form MMS-4377.
We are requesting OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted to BOEM under this collection is protected, and no items of a sensitive nature are included in this information collection.
For information collections relating to valuation requirements, responses are mandatory. For the remaining information collections in this ICR, responses are required to obtain a benefit.
We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary. The following chart shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:
To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision approving the conveyance of surface estate for certain lands to Koyuk Native Corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Bering Straits Native Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Koyuk Native Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of Koyuk, Alaska, and are located in:
Containing 2.35 acres.
Containing 557.17 acres.
Aggregating 559.52 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Nome Nugget.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 4, 2010 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960, by e-mail at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The State of Alaska has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest from the United States in those lands underlying the Kuskokwim River in Southwestern Alaska. The State asserts that the Kuskokwim River was navigable and unreserved at the time of Statehood; therefore, title to the submerged lands passed to the State at the time of Statehood (1959). Certain lands included in the application are within the exterior boundary of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, created by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
All comments to this action should be received on or before December 2, 2010.
Comments on the State of Alaska's application or the BLM Draft Summary Report must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Survey Planning and Preparation (AK-9270), Division of Cadastral Survey, BLM Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.
Jack Frost, 907-271-5531; E-mail
On March 10, 2006, the State of Alaska filed an application for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest pursuant to Section 315 of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act and the regulations contained in 43 CFR Subpart 1864 for the lands underlying the Kuskokwim River (AA-086371). A Recordable Disclaimer of Interest, if issued, will confirm that the United States has no valid interest in the subject lands. This notice is intended to notify the public of the pending application and the State's grounds for supporting it. The State asserts that this river is navigable. Therefore, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, the Alaska Statehood Act, or any other legally cognizable reason, ownership of these lands underlying the river automatically passed from the United States to the State at the time of statehood in 1959.
The State's application, AA-086371, is for “all submerged lands lying within the bed of the Kuskokwim River, and all interconnected sloughs, between the ordinary high water lines of the left and right banks from its origins at the confluence with the South Fork of Kuskokwim River and North Fork of Kuskokwim River within Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Kateel River Meridian, Alaska, downstream to its confluence with the Kuskokwim Bay within Township 2 South, Range 77 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska.” The State did not identify any known adverse claimant or occupant of the affected lands.
A final decision on the merits of the application will not be made before December 2, 2010. During the 90-day period, interested parties may comment on the State's application, AA-086371, and supporting evidence. Interested parties may also comment during this time on the BLM's Draft Summary Report. The State's application and the BLM Draft Summary Report may be viewed on the BLM Recordable Disclaimer of Interest Web site at
Comments filed with the Division of Cadastral Survey, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available for public inspection at the BLM Alaska State Office (
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If no valid objection is received, a Disclaimer of Interest may be approved, if all else is proper, stating that the United States does not have a valid interest in these lands.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nye County, Nevada, and by this Notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments on the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the Draft EIS for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project are available at the BLM Tonopah Field Office and at the Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada, or at the following Web site:
Timothy Coward, (775) 482-7800, BLM Tonopah Field Office, 1553 South Main Street, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, Nevada 89049;
Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the BLM for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah, Nye County, Nevada. The proposed project is not expected to use the total acres applied for in the ROW application. The project is located within the southern portion of the Big Smoky Valley, north of U.S. Highway 95/6 along the Gabbs Pole Line Road (State Highway 89). The facility is expected to operate for approximately 30 years. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 100 megawatts.
The project's proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation.
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes the proposed project's site-specific impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, geological resources, hazardous materials handling, land use, noise, paleontological resources, public health, socioeconomics, soils, traffic and transportation, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, waste management, worker safety, and fire protection. The Draft EIS also describes facility design engineering, efficiency, reliability, transmission system engineering, and transmission line safety.
Three action alternatives were analyzed in addition to the No Action alternative: the Proposed Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the BLM preferred alternative.
Scoping of the project occurred from November 24, 2009 through December 24, 2009. A total of 24 comments were received. Comments on cumulative impacts identified the affects to air quality to include criteria pollutant and “Dark Sky” attributes on the effects of the viewshed, and the availability of water for current and future use. Other comments were that the proposed project is located in an area of pediment adjacent to 2 highly mineralized mountain ranges which have identified molybdenum and lithium deposits.
Maps of the proposed project area and the alternatives being analyzed in the Draft EIS are available at the BLM Tonopah Field Office, the Battle Mountain District Office, and at:
Please note that public comments and information submitted, including names, street addresses, and e-mail addresses of persons who submit comments, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jarbidge Field Office planning area and by this
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of the availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the Jarbidge Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available in the Jarbidge Field Office at the above address or at the following Web site:
Richard Vander Voet, Jarbidge Field Manager, or Aimee Betts, Jarbidge RMP Project Manager, telephone (208) 736-2350; address Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301.
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS addresses public land and resources managed by the Jarbidge Field Office in parts of Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in south-central Idaho and Elko County in northern Nevada. These lands and resources are currently managed under the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended. The planning area extends from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the east, and from the Snake River on the north to the northern boundaries of the BLM Elko Field Office and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest on the south. Although these counties have a combined population of approximately 160,000, Indian Cove, Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and Roseworth are the only communities in the planning area. All have populations of less than 100 people. The majority of the planning area supports sagebrush steppe and seeded grasslands.
The Jarbidge RMP addresses management on approximately 1.4 million acres of public land and 1.6 million acres of Federal mineral estate in the Jarbidge Field Office. Planning decisions in the RMP will only apply to the BLM-administered public lands and mineral estate in the planning area. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS has been developed with broad public participation through a collaborative planning process in accordance with FLPMA and NEPA. Its purpose is to provide appropriate management direction for the Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that responds to the 2001 Land Use Plan Evaluation Report for the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, new information, changes in resource condition and user demands, and complies with a Stipulated Settlement Agreement (
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes a series of management actions, within six management alternatives, designed to achieve or maintain desired future conditions that have been defined through the planning process for various concerns including, but not limited to: vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation, energy development, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
• The No Action Alternative represents continuation of existing management under current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended.
• Alternative I focuses on enhancing and sustaining existing and historic uses of the planning area.
• Alternative II focuses on increasing commercial uses throughout the planning area.
• Alternative III focuses on restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through intensive management of fuels and enhanced fire suppression capabilities throughout the planning area.
• Alternative IV focuses on actively restoring the resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through restoration projects and managing uses. Alternative IV has two sub-alternatives (Alternative IV-A and Alternative IV-B) that differ in the size of two proposed ACECs. Alternative IV-B is the Preferred Alternative.
• Alternative V focuses on the restoration of habitats toward historic vegetation communities.
The Preferred Alternative has been identified as described in 40 CFR 1502.14(e). However, identification of this alternative does not represent final agency direction, and the Proposed RMP may reflect changes or adjustments based on information received during public comment, new information, or changes in BLM policies or priorities. The Proposed RMP may include objectives and actions described as portions of other analyzed alternatives. For this reason, the BLM invites and encourages comments on all objectives and actions described in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
Among the special designations under consideration within the range of alternatives, ACECs are proposed to protect certain resource values. There are three existing ACECs: Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand Point; these ACEC designations would be carried forward in some alternatives, sometimes with changes in acreage.
Pertinent information regarding all proposed ACECs in the Preferred Alternative, including values, resource use limitations, and acreages are summarized below. Further information is available at the following Web site:
• Relevant and Important Values: Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Scenic, Wildlife.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Land Use Authorizations, Mineral Development.
• Other Restrictions: Managed as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I.
• Relevant and Important Values: Botanical.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Recreation, Land Tenure Transactions, Mineral Development.
• Other Restrictions: Locate staging areas for fire suppression and rehabilitation activities outside the ACEC.
• Relevant and Important Values: Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Wildlife.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Mineral Development.
• Other Restrictions: Managed as VRM Class I and II.
• Relevant and Important Values: Aquatic, Botanical.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Land Tenure Transactions, Mineral Development.
• Relevant and Important Values: Cultural, Geologic, Historic, Paleontological.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Land Use Authorizations, Mineral Development.
• Other Restrictions: Closed to fossil collection.
The following ACECs were proposed in alternatives other than the Preferred Alternative:
• Middle Snake ACEC for relevant and important botanical and fish values.
• Sagebrush Sea ACEC for relevant and important botanical, cultural, fish, and wildlife values.
• Salmon Falls ACEC for relevant and important botanical, fish, and scenic values
In addition, ACECs in the preferred alternative may also appear in other alternatives with different acreages and management prescriptions.
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and e-mail addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Following the public comment period, public comments will be used to prepare the Proposed Jarbidge RMP and Final EIS. The BLM will respond to each substantive comment by making appropriate revisions to the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. A Notice of the Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will be posted in the
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43 CFR 1610.2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service (NPS), by notice in the
Jo Pendry, Chief Commercial Services Program, 1201 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Under Section 405(a)(3) of the 1998 Act, the standard formula for LSI value (standard LSI formula) for applicable capital improvements provided by a concessioner under a NPS concession contract is summarized as the initial construction cost of the related capital improvement, adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of the approval of the substantial completion of the construction of the related capital improvement to the date of payment, less physical depreciation of the related capital improvement.
However, Section 405(a)(4) of the 1998 Act, starting in 2009, authorizes the inclusion of alternative LSI value formulas in NPS concession contracts estimated to have an LSI value in excess of $10,000,000 (such as the new contract).
Under this authority, NPS, in the February 1, 2010,
By notice in the
NPS, in consideration of the public comments made in response to both public notices, has re-examined the financial and other circumstances of the new contract and the proposed LSI alternative. This re-examination led to consideration and adoption of a final LSI alternative. The final LSI alternative continues the 40-year depreciation of the LSI value of eligible capital improvements but eliminates the exclusion of additional LSI value for new fixtures called for by the proposed LSI alternative. This change addresses a primary concern expressed by commenters, the elimination of LSI value in new fixtures. Under the final LSI alternative, the LSI value of all eligible capital improvements, including new fixtures, will be depreciated on a straight-line basis over a 40-year period. In addition, the monthly depreciation schedule called for by the proposed LSI alternative has been changed to an annual basis in the interest of simplicity. The final LSI alternative for the new contract is generally described as follows:
(a) The reduction of the initial LSI value under the new contract on an annual straight-line depreciation basis applying a 40-year recovery period regardless of asset class.
(b) The reduction of the leasehold surrender interest value in capital improvements (as defined in the new contract) constructed or installed during the term of the new contract based on straight line depreciation and also applying a 40-year recovery period (on an annual basis) with no asset class distinctions.
NPS has determined, after review of the particular financial and other circumstances of the new contract and consideration of public comments, that use of the final LSI alternative, in comparison to the standard LSI formula, is necessary in order to provide a fair return to the Government and to foster competition for the new contract by providing a reasonable opportunity for profit to the new concessioner. NPS also considers that the final LSI alternative is consistent with the objectives of the 1998 Act, particularly, as discussed below, with respect to the fair return it will provide to the Government and the new concessioner and the enhanced competition for the new contract that it will foster. These determinations are required by the 1998 Act with respect to alternative LSI formulas that are not based on the depreciation rules of the Federal income tax laws and regulations that were in effect in 1998. Although this final LSI alternative is based on the
As a consequence, if the NPS were to establish the required minimum franchise fee for the new contract under the terms of the standard LSI formula, that minimum fee necessarily would reflect a speculative estimate of the amount of and cost to cure the physical depreciation that will occur during the contract term as well as speculative estimates of the annual CPI rate over the term of the new contract. Likewise, when a prospective concessioner offers to meet or exceed the minimum franchise fee established by NPS under the standard LSI formula, this business decision is necessarily made in reliance on speculative estimates of future CPI and future physical depreciation of LSI improvements.
For a simplified example, assuming an initial LSI value of $10 million at contract commencement, NPS may estimate that the related capital improvements will depreciate physically 30 percent over the term of the contract whereas a prospective concessioner may estimate that the same capital improvements will depreciate only 10 percent during the term of the contract. If the NPS estimate proves to be correct, the LSI value at contract expiration will be reduced by 30 percent, to $7 million (before CPI adjustment). If the concessioner's estimate proves to be right, the depreciation reduction will only be $1 million (before CPI adjustment). Such a difference in LSI value ($7 million v. $9 million) will have a severe impact on the respective returns to the Government and the concessioner.
The likelihood of a significant difference in physical deprecation estimates is very high. In a number of negotiated settlements of possessory interest values (a possessory interest is a compensable interest in real property improvements similar to LSI) between NPS and incumbent concessioners (in which the existing physical depreciation of the related capital improvements were estimated by both parties), the NPS estimate of existing physical depreciation exceeded that of the concessioner by very significant percentages. In this regard, the parties to these negotiations were estimating the amount of
The speculative nature of estimating LSI value under the standard LSI formula is also driven by its requirement that ending LSI value is subject to CPI adjustment. Future CPI, of course, may only be estimated. Further, the standard LSI formula requires the CPI adjustment to be made on the basis of the All Urban Consumers CPI. However, there is no assurance that the cost to cure depreciation at the expiration of the new contract will reflect the All Urban Consumers CPI. The inflation that may occur in the construction industry over the term of the new contract may be expected to differ significantly (higher or lower) from the All Urban Consumers CPI.
In these circumstances, the NPS estimate of ending LSI value made at the time of contract solicitation, if proven after contract expiration to have been overstated, would have resulted in a less than fair return to the Government (as a result of an unduly low minimum franchise fee that was based on depreciation and CPI assumptions which proved to be inaccurate).
For these reasons, NPS considers that the final LSI alternative is necessary to include in the new contract in order to provide a fair return to the Government under the new contract.
NPS points out that the final LSI alternative for the new contract is projected to provide approximately the same rate of financial return for the new concessioner as would be provided under the standard LSI formula. This is because, in developing the minimum franchise fee for the new contract, NPS estimated that the proposed contract would provide the new concessioner with a reasonable opportunity to make a net profit in relation to capital invested and the obligations of the contract. This estimate took into consideration, among other matters, applicable industry rate of return expectations, the purchase price of the existing LSI improvements, and the expected LSI value that will be payable to the concessioner after contract expiration. If the standard LSI formula were utilized, the projected LSI value payment to the new concessioner would necessarily be considerably higher in order to avoid a windfall to the concessioner, resulting in a higher minimum franchise fee for the new contract.
The lower LSI value payment upon contract expiration provided by the final LSI alternative (as opposed to the significantly higher value provided by the standard LSI formula) results in a lower minimum franchise fee during the term of the new contract in order to achieve the same approximate projected rate of return to the concessioner over the term of the new contract. Thus, the final LSI alternative results in increased cash flows to the concessioner during the entire term of the contract rather than a higher payment of LSI at the expiration of the contract under the standard LSI formula. It is likely that many prospective concessioners would consider the higher cash flows provided by the LSI alternative throughout the
Fostering competition for concession contracts is a serious concern to NPS. Since the passage of the 1998 Act on November 22, 1998, four concession contract opportunities involving LSI in excess of $10 million have been solicited. NPS did not receive proposals under these solicitations from any entity that was not a current NPS concessioner. In fact, the last time NPS received a proposal from a non-current NPS concessioner for a concession contract with an LSI or possessory interest value (a right of compensation similar to LSI) in excess of $10 million was in 1992 (the Yosemite contract). Tellingly, the Yosemite contract provided for straight-line amortization of its required possessory interest investment in a manner very much like the final LSI alternative for the new contract.
NPS considers that a major reason for this record is the generally required utilization of the standard LSI formula. The standard formula is unlike usual private sector transactions of a similar nature (in addition to containing the speculative depreciation and CPI elements discussed above). Private firms that are not familiar with the NPS concession program have indicated that the complexities and uncertainty associated with the standard LSI formula have deterred them from submitting offers for concession opportunities. The NPS believes use of the final LSI alternative in the new contract will foster competition for it by providing interested offerors with a reasonable opportunity for profit that, with respect to LSI, is assured, understandable and more comparable to practices in the private sector.
The final LSI alternative will also enhance competition for the concession contract that will succeed the new contract. This is because the LSI value at the end of the new contract will be significantly lower than it would be under the standard LSI formula, thereby lowering the amount of LSI purchase money needed by a prospective new concessioner. This lower entry cost should encourage the submission of competitive proposals from prospective concessioners.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Accordingly, the comment states that NPS should address LSI for all contracts in the same manner, regardless of LSI value. However, the magnitude of the LSI value is relevant to the impact of the speculative nature of LSI value under the standard LSI formula, as evidenced by the special authority provided by Section 405(a)(4) of the 1998 Act. This authority is not applicable to contracts with LSI value of less than $10 million.
10.
11.
12.
NPS notes that the final LSI alternative (as with the proposed LSI alternative) is applicable only to the new contract. NPS has made no decision to apply the final LSI alternative (or any other LSI alternative) to future concession contracts. If the same or other alternative LSI formulas are considered for utilization in subsequent concession contracts pursuant to the 1998 Act, opportunities for public comment will be provided as required. A rule-making is not required or in the public interest.
1.
First, a lower LSI ending value provides greater flexibility to NPS in developing the terms of subsequent concession contracts, as the initial capital investment required of the new concessioner will be significantly lower. This lower required capital investment will make more concessioner funds available to undertake needed concessioner operational and capital investment priorities, including necessary actions for protection of park area resources and the general environment. NPS notes in this regard that an objective of the 1998 Act is to provide accommodations, facilities and services that are consistent to the highest degree practicable with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the applicable park area.
Secondly, the final LSI alternative should result in increased competition for the future concession contract that will be awarded upon expiration of the
2.
Complete details and further explanation of the final LSI alternative are publically available at
Bureau of Land Management; Idaho Falls District, Upper Snake Field Office, Idaho.
Temporary closure.
Notice is hereby given that a temporary closure will apply to approximately 1,800 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Upper Snake Field Office, Idaho. This same area has been closed to target shooting and full-size vehicles for the past 3 years to prevent illegal dumping and littering, including hazardous materials. This closure will be in effect for 24 months, to allow completion of a resource management plan (RMP), which will provide permanent management direction for the area. During the temporary closure, the 1,800 acres will continue to be open to human entry by foot and by horse. Off-road vehicles are allowed entry but will be required to stay on developed roads and trails. Any person who fails to comply with a closure or restriction order issued under this authority may be subject to the penalties described in 43 CFR8360.0-7.
This temporary closure will be effective on the date this notice is published in the
The Upper Snake Field Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 or call (208) 524-7500. By mail: Field Manager, Upper Snake Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401.
Annually, the BLM buries or removes between 20 and 50 dumped dead animals and approximately 10 tons of solid waste from public lands near North Menan Butte, a National Natural Landmark and an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The waste originates when the public brings propane tanks, hot water heaters, computers, televisions, washers, dryers, car batteries, paint cans, and other waste objects and leaves them on the public lands. Target shooters shoot at this waste, leaving shell casings littering the landscape. This area is now a health and safety hazard due to the dumping, shooting, and the potential for disease transmission from uncovered dead animal carcasses. This waste has also included hazardous materials in recent years. During the temporary closure, the 1,800 acres will continue to be open to human entry by foot and by horse. Off-road vehicles are allowed entry but will be required to stay on developed roads and trails.
The following public lands are included in the closure:
Signs will be placed on the highway and at the site explaining the road and target shooting closures. Fences and road barriers will be maintained that allow for continued access by off-highway vehicles, motorcycles, equestrian use, and foot traffic in the southern portion. The closure order and related map will also be posted at the Upper Snake River Field Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401, and can also be viewed online at:
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: ATF Adjunct Instructor Data Form.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gus Jakowitsch, Learning Management Branch, 99 New York Ave., NE., Washington, DC 20226.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, 2 Constitution Square, Room 2E-502, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) (public agency acquisition of services from a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination on petitions related to the relevant investigation period applicable to the same worker group. The duplicative petitions did not present new information or a change in circumstances that would result in a reversal of the Department's previous negative determination, and therefore, further investigation would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of August 16, 2010 through August 20, 2010. Copies of these determinations may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N., Washington, DC 20210 or
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than September 13, 2010.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than September 13, 2010.
Copies of these petitions may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail, to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or to
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th of August 2010.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1351,
The Marshall Star is a Center newsletter available in print and PDF formats. Marshall employees and retirees may place classified ads to appear in the Marshall Star.
Phone.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1351,
DIME & WING are components of a NASA competition program which allows teams to design and build a science experiment which will then be operated in a NASA microgravity drop tower facility. Teams of 4 students are selected to come to GRC and drop their experiment and will be required to complete a registration form to get on base, photo release form and medical form.
Electronic.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Education and Public Outreach Committee of the NASA Advisory Council.
Monday, September 20, 2010, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Johnson Space Center, Gilruth Center—Longhorn Room, Houston, TX 77058.
This meeting will also take place telephonically and via WebEx. Any interested person should contact Ms. Erika G. Vick, Executive Secretary for the Education and Public Outreach Committee, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, at
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
• Regulations that Constrain Public Engagement.
• NASA and Social Media.
• Education Design Team.
• Action Item Status.
• Johnson Space Center Presentations.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published NUREG-1947, “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4.” The site is located on the southwest side of the Savannah River in eastern Burke County, Georgia. The application for the COLs was submitted by letter dated March 31, 2008 pursuant to 10 CFR part 52. A notice of receipt and availability of the application, which included the environmental report (ER), was published in the
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that NUREG-1947, “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4,” is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Documents Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and will also be placed directly on the NRC Web site at
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview of the DSEIS and to accept public comments on the document. The public meeting will be held at the Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus Auditorium, 216 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA on Thursday, October 7, 2010. The meeting will convene at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10 p.m., as necessary. The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the DSEIS and (2) an opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start of the meeting. No formal comments on the DSEIS will be accepted by the NRC staff during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either during the transcribed portion of the meeting or in writing. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, therefore, the NRC cautions against including any information that should not 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 comments or remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting by contactingMs. Mallecia Sutton by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 0673 or via Internet to the NRC at
Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Ms. Sutton will need to be contacted no later than September 30, 2010, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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.
In addition, members of the public may send written comments on the DSEIS for the VEGP COL to Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements and Directives Branch (RAD), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RAD at (301) 492-3446.
To be considered, written comments should be postmarked by November 24, 2010. Electronic comments may be sent to the NRC at
Ms. Mallecia Sutton, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Ms. Sutton may be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of pendency of request.
This notice advises interested persons that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) has received a request from Ricketts Acquisition LLC for an exemption from the bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, with respect to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan. Section 4204(a)(1) provides that the sale of assets by an employer that contributes to a multiemployer pension plan will not constitute a complete or partial withdrawal from the plan if the transaction meets certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the purchaser post a bond or deposit money in escrow for the five-plan-year period beginning after the sale. PBGC is authorized to grant individual and class exemptions from this requirement. Before granting an exemption, the statute and PBGC regulations require PBGC to give interested persons an opportunity to comment on the exemption request. The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of the exemption request and solicit their views on it.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 18, 2010.
Comments may be submitted by any off the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to
Eric Field, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4020. (For TTY/TTD users, call the Federal relay service toll free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4020.)
Section 4204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“ERISA” or the “Act”), provides that a bona fide arm's length sale of assets of a contributing employer to an unrelated party will not be considered a withdrawal if three conditions are met. These conditions, enumerated in section 4204(a)(1)(A)-(C) are that:
(A) The purchaser has an obligation to contribute to the plan with respect to covered operations for substantially the same number of contribution base units for which the seller was obligated to contribute;
(B) The purchaser obtains a bond or places an amount in escrow, for a period of five plan years after the sale, equal to the greater of the seller's average required annual contribution to the plan for the three plan years preceding the year in which the sale occurred or the seller's required annual contribution for the plan year preceding the year in which the sale occurred (the amount of the bond or escrow is doubled if the plan is in reorganization in the year in which the sale occurred); and
(C) The contract of sale provides that if the purchaser withdraws from the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale and fails to pay any of its liability to the plan, the seller shall be secondarily liable for the liability it (the seller) would have had but for the relief afforded under section 4204.
The bond or escrow described above would be paid to the plan if the purchaser withdraws from the plan or fails to make any required contributions to the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale. Additionally, section 4204(b)(1) provides that if a sale of assets is covered by section 4204, the purchaser assumes by operation of law the contribution record of the seller for the plan year in which the sale occurred and the preceding four plan years.
Section 4204(c) of ERISA authorizes the PBGC to grant individual or class variances or exemptions from the purchaser's bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) when warranted. The legislative history of section 4204 indicates a Congressional intent that the statute be administered in a manner that assures protection of the plan with the least intrusion into normal business transactions practicable. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., S. 1076, The
Under PBGC's regulation on variances for sales of assets (29 CFR part 4204), a request for a variance or exemption from the bond/escrow requirement under any of the tests established in the regulation (§§ 4204.12 and 4204.13) is to be made to the plan in question. PBGC will consider variance or exemption requests only when the request is not based on satisfaction of one of the four regulatory tests under regulation §§ 4204.12 and 4204.13, or when the parties assert that the financial information necessary to show satisfaction of one of the regulatory tests is privileged or confidential financial information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (Freedom of Information Act).
Under § 4204.22 of the regulation, PBGC shall approve a request for a variance or exemption if it determines that approval of the request is warranted, in that it:
(1) Would more effectively or equitably carry out the purposes of Title IV of the Act; and
(2) Would not significantly increase the risk of financial loss to the plan.
Section 4204(c) of ERISA and § 4204.22(b) of the regulation requires PBGC to publish a notice of the pendency of a request for a variance or exemption in the
PBGC has received a request, dated November 25, 2009, from Ricketts Acquisition LLC (the “Purchaser”) for an exemption from the bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) with respect to its purchase of the Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC (the “Seller”). In the request, the Purchaser represents, among other things, that:
1. The Seller was obligated to contribute to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) for certain employees of the purchased operations.
2. The Purchaser has agreed to assume the obligation to contribute to the Plan for substantially the same number of contribution base units as the Seller.
3. The Seller has agreed to be secondarily liable for any withdrawal liability it would have had with respect to the purchased operations (if not for section 4204) should the Purchaser withdraw from the Plan and fail to pay its withdrawal liability.
4. The estimated amount of the withdrawal liability of the Seller with respect to the operations subject to the sale is $34,030,359.
5. The amount of the bond/escrow established under section 4204(a)(1)(B) is $4,068,868, which is to be posted if PBGC has not acted on the request by the end of the plan year of the request.
6. The Major League Baseball Clubs (the “Clubs”) have established the Major League Central Fund (the “Central Fund”) pursuant to the Major League Baseball Constitution. Under this Constitution, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball pays contributions to the Plan from the Central Fund on behalf of each participating employer in satisfaction of the employer's pension liability under the Plan's funding agreement. The monies in the Central Fund are derived directly from (i) gate receipts from All-Star games; (ii) radio and television revenue from World Series, League Championship Series, Division Series, All-Star Games, and (iii) certain other radio and television revenue, including revenues from foreign broadcasts, regular, spring training, and exhibition games (“Revenues”).
7. In support of the exemption request, the Purchaser asserts that “[t]he Plan is funded directly from Revenues which are paid from the Central Fund directly to the Plan without passing through the hands of any of the Clubs. Therefore, the Plan enjoys a substantial degree of security with respect to contributions on behalf of the Clubs. A change in ownership of a particular Club does not affect the obligation of the Central Fund to fund the Plan out of the Revenues. As such, approval of this exemption request would not increase the risk of financial loss to the Plan.”
8. A complete copy of the request was sent to the Plan and to the Major League Baseball Players Association by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Rentiesville Post Office, Rentiesville, Oklahoma 74459 has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioner, and others to take appropriate action.
Deadline for filing administrative record: September 9, 2010. For other dates,
Submit filings electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), the Commission has received an appeal of the closing of the Rentiesville Post Office, Rentiesville, Oklahoma 74459. The appeal, postmarked August 23, 2010, was received by the Commission on August 25, 2010. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and designates the case as Docket No. A2010-5 to consider the petitioner's appeal. If the petitioner would like to further explain her position with supplemental information or facts, she may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission by no later than September 29, 2010.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
1. The Postal Service shall file the administrative record in this appeal, or otherwise file a responsive pleading to the appeal, by September 9, 2010.
2. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Steven M. Hoffer is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order and procedural schedule in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Several sections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act” or “Investment Company Act”)
Rule 0-2 under the Investment Company Act,
Applicants for orders can include registered investment companies, affiliated persons of registered investment companies, and issuers seeking to avoid investment company status, among other entities. Commission staff estimates that it receives approximately 125 applications per year under the Act. Although each application typically is submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in the vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a single respondent for purposes of this analysis.
The time to prepare an application depends on the complexity and/or novelty of the issues covered by the application. We estimate that the Commission receives 20 of the most time-consuming applications annually, 80 applications of medium difficulty, and 25 of the least difficult applications. Based on conversations with applicants, we estimate that in-house counsel would spend from ten to fifty hours helping to draft and review an application. We estimate a total annual hour burden to all respondents of 3,650 hours [(50 hours × 20 applications) + (30 hours x 80 applications) + (10 hours x 25 applications)].
Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by outside counsel. The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time required for preparation. Based on conversations with attorneys who serve as outside counsel, the cost ranges from approximately $10,000 for preparing a well-precedented, routine application to approximately $150,000 to prepare a complex and/or novel application. This distribution gives a total estimated annual cost burden to applicants of filing all applications of $9,650,000 [(20 x $150,000) + (80 x $80,000) + (25 x $10,000)].
These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
This collection of information is necessary to obtain a benefit and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Shagufta Ahmed at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Rule 0-2” (17 CFR 275.0-2) and “Form ADV-NR” (17 CFR 279.4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1). Rule 0-2 and Form ADV-NR facilitate service of process to non-resident investment advisers and their non-resident general partners or non-resident managing agents. The Form requires these persons to designate the Commission as agent for service of process. The purpose of this collection of information is to enable the commencement of legal and or regulatory actions against investment advisers that are doing business in the United States, but are not residents.
The respondents to this information collection would be each non-resident general partner or non-resident managing agent of an SEC-registered adviser. The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement to complete Form ADV-NR imposes a total burden of approximately 1 hour for an adviser. Based on our experience with these filings, we estimate that we will receive 18 Form ADV-NR filings annually. Based on the 1.0 hour per respondent estimate, the Commission staff estimates a total annual burden of 18 hours for this collection of information.
Rule 0-2 and Form ADV-NR do not require recordkeeping or records retention. The collection of information requirements under the rule and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to the rule and Form ADV-NR is a filing with the Commission. This filing is not kept confidential and must be preserved until at least three years after termination of the enterprise. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-7(d)) (the “Act” or “Investment Company Act”) requires an investment company (“fund”) organized outside the United States (“foreign fund”) to obtain an order from the Commission allowing the fund to register under the Act before making a public offering of its securities through the United States mail or any means of interstate commerce. The Commission may issue an order only if it finds that it is both legally and practically feasible effectively to enforce the provisions of the Act against the foreign fund, and that the registration of the fund is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors.
Rule 7d-1 (17 CFR 270.7d-1) under the Act, which was adopted in 1954, specifies the conditions under which a Canadian management investment company (“Canadian fund”) may request an order from the Commission permitting it to register under the Act. Although rule 7d-1 by its terms applies only to Canadian funds, other foreign funds generally have agreed to comply with the requirements of rule 7d-1 as a prerequisite to receiving an order permitting the foreign fund's registration under the Act.
The rule requires a Canadian fund proposing to register under the Act to file an application with the Commission that contains various undertakings and agreements of the fund. The requirement for the Canadian fund to file an application is a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Certain of the undertakings and agreements, in turn, impose the following additional information collection requirements:
(1) The fund must file agreements between the fund and its directors, officers, and service providers requiring them to comply with the fund's charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain other obligations relating to the undertakings and agreements in the application;
(2) The fund and each of its directors, officers, and investment advisers that is not a U.S. resident, must file an irrevocable designation of the fund's custodian in the United States as agent for service of process;
(3) The fund's charter and bylaws must provide that (a) the fund will comply with certain provisions of the Act applicable to all funds, (b) the fund will maintain originals or copies of its books and records in the United States, and (c) the fund's contracts with its custodian, investment adviser, and principal underwriter, will contain certain terms, including a requirement that the adviser maintain originals or copies of pertinent records in the United States;
(4) The fund's contracts with service providers will require that the provider perform the contract in accordance with the Act, the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a), as applicable; and
(5) The fund must file, and periodically revise, a list of persons affiliated with the fund or its adviser or underwriter.
As noted above, under section 7(d) of the Act the Commission may issue an order permitting a foreign fund's registration only if the Commission finds that “by reason of special circumstances or arrangements, it is both legally and practically feasible effectively to enforce the provisions of the (Act).” The information collection requirements are necessary to assure that the substantive provisions of the Act may be enforced as a matter of contract right in the United States or Canada by the fund's shareholders or by the Commission.
Rule 7d-1 also contains certain information collection requirements that are associated with other provisions of the Act. These requirements are applicable to all registered funds and are outside the scope of this request.
The Commission believes that one foreign fund is registered under rule 7d-1 and currently active. Apart from requirements under the Act applicable to all registered funds, rule 7d-1 imposes ongoing burdens to maintain records in the United States, and to update, as necessary, certain fund agreements, designations of the fund's custodian as service agent, and the fund's list of affiliated persons. The Commission staff estimates that each year under the rule, the active registrant and its directors, officers, and service providers engage in the following collections of information and associated burden hours:
• For the fund and its investment adviser to maintain records in the United States:
• For the fund to update its list of affiliated persons: 2 hours: 2 hours of support staff time.
• For new officers, directors, and service providers to enter into and file agreements requiring them to comply with the fund's charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain other obligations: 0.5 hours: 7.5 minutes of director time; 2.5 minutes of officer time; 20 minutes of support staff time.
• For new officers, directors, and investment advisers who are not residents of the United States to file irrevocable designation of the fund's custodian as agent for process of service: 0.25 hours: 5 minutes of director time; 10 minutes of support staff time.
Based on the estimates above, the Commission estimates that the total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements is 2.75 hours.
If a fund were to file an application under rule 7d-1 to register under the Act, the Commission estimates that the rule would impose initial information collection burdens (for filing an application, preparing the specified charter, bylaw, and contract provisions, designations of agents for service of
As noted above, after registration, a Canadian fund may file a supplemental application seeking special relief designed for the fund's particular circumstances. Rule 7d-1 does not mandate these applications. The active registrant has not filed a substantive supplemental application in the past three years. Therefore, the Commission has not allocated any burden hours for these applications.
These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission rules.
If a Canadian or other foreign fund in the future applied to register under the Act under rule 7d-1, the fund initially might have capital and start-up costs (not including hourly burdens) of an estimated $17,280 to comply with the rule's initial information collection requirements. These costs include legal and processing-related fees for preparing the required documentation (such as the application, charter, bylaw, and contract provisions), designations for service of process, and the list of affiliated persons. Other related costs would include fees for establishing arrangements with a custodian or other agent for maintaining records in the United States, copying and transportation costs for records, and the costs of purchasing or leasing computer equipment, software, or other record storage equipment for records maintained in electronic or photographic form.
The Commission expects that a foreign fund and its sponsors would incur these costs immediately, and that the annualized cost of the expenditures would be $17,280 in the first year. Some expenditures might involve capital improvements, such as computer equipment, having expected useful lives for which annualized figures beyond the first year would be meaningful. These annualized figures are not provided, however, because, in most cases, the expenses would be incurred immediately rather than on an annual basis. The Commission is not including these costs in its calculation of the annualized capital/start-up costs because no fund has applied under rule 7d-1 to register under the Act pursuant to rule 7d-1 in the last three years.
These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Shagufta Ahmed at
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-14 (17 CFR 239.23)—Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933 for Securities Issued in Business Combination Transactions by Investment Companies and Business Development Companies. Form N-14 is used by investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons:
(i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for “alternative trading systems” (“ATSs”), which are entities that carry out exchange functions but which are not required to register as national securities exchanges under the Act. In lieu of exchange registration, an ATS can instead opt to register with the Commission as a broker-dealer and, as a condition to not having to register as an exchange, must instead comply with Regulation ATS. Rule 302 of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.302) describes the recordkeeping requirements for ATSs. Under Rule 302, ATSs are required to make a record of subscribers to the ATS, daily summaries of trading in the ATS, and time-sequenced records of order information in the ATS.
The information required to be collected under Rule 302 should increase the abilities of the Commission, state securities regulatory authorities, and the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to ensure that ATSs are in compliance with Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules and regulations. If the information is not collected or collected less frequently, the regulators would be limited in their ability to comply with their statutory obligations, provide for the protection of investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to register as broker-dealers and comply with the requirements of Regulation ATS. There are currently 81 respondents. These respondents will spend approximately 10,530 hours per year (81 respondents at 130 burden hours/respondent) to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 302. At an average cost per burden hour of $59, the resultant total related cost of compliance for these respondents is $621,270.00 per year (10,530 burden hours multiplied by $59/hour).
Compliance with Rule 302 is mandatory. The information required by Rule 302 is available only for the examination of the Commission staff, state securities authorities, and the SROs. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522 (“FOIA”), and the Commission's rule (17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish or make available information contained in any reports, summaries, analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and records of any person or any other investigation.
ATSs are required to preserve any records, for at least three years, made in the process of complying with the requirements set out in Rule 302.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August 2010. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of Jefferies Commodity Real Return ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02 permits the trading of Trust Issued Receipts (“TIRs”) either by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”).
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of other issues of Trust Issued Receipts on the American Stock Exchange LLC,
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will pursue its
Jefferies Commodity Investment Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the Fund's promoter, and will serve as Managing Owner of the Fund (the “Managing Owner”). The Managing Owner will serve as the commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor of the Fund. The Managing Owner is registered as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and is a member of the National Futures Association. The Bank of New York Mellon will be the administrator, custodian and transfer agent of the Fund. ALPS Distributors, Inc. will serve as the Fund's marketing agent.
The Index tracks the changes in the closing levels of the futures positions that would in three months comprise the Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index (“TR/J CRB Index”). The TR/J CRB Index is designed to track the changes in the closing levels of nearby rolling futures positions.
The Fund will hold a portfolio of futures contracts on the Index Commodities (as described below), as well as cash, 3-month U.S. Treasury bills, TIPS and other high credit quality short-term fixed income securities, for deposit with the Fund's Clearing Broker (Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC), as margin. The Fund's portfolio will be traded with a view to tracking the Index over time, whether the Index is rising, falling or flat over any particular period. The Fund is not “managed” by traditional methods, which typically involve effecting changes in the composition of the Fund's portfolio on the basis of judgments relating to economic, financial and market considerations with a view to obtaining positive results under all market conditions. To maintain the correspondence between the composition and weightings of the Index Commodities comprising the Index, the Managing Owner adjusts the Fund's portfolio from time-to-time to conform to periodic changes in the identity and/or relative weighting of the Index Commodities. The Managing Owner will aggregate certain of the adjustments and makes changes to the Fund's portfolio at least monthly or more frequently in the case of significant changes to the Index.
According to the Registration Statement, the Index is designed to provide timely and accurate representation of a long-only, broadly diversified investment in commodities through a transparent and disciplined calculation methodology. The Index is currently composed of futures contracts on the following 19 physical commodities (each, an “Index Commodity” and, collectively, “Index Commodities”): Aluminum, cocoa, coffee, copper, corn, cotton, crude oil, gold, heating oil, lean hogs, live cattle, natural gas, nickel, orange juice, silver, soybeans, sugar, RBOB gasoline, and wheat. The Index Commodities currently trade on United States futures exchanges, with the exception of aluminum and nickel, which trade on the London Metal Exchange.
According to the Registration Statement, as the Fund approaches or reaches position limits with respect to certain futures contracts comprising the Index and the Managing Owner determines in its commercially reasonable judgment that it has become impracticable or inefficient for any reason for the Fund to gain full or partial exposure to any Index Commodity by investing in a specific futures contract that is a part of the Index, the Fund may invest in a futures contract referencing the particular Index Commodity other than the specific contract that is a part of the Index, or invest in one or more Futures-Linked Investments referencing the particular Index Commodity, including forward agreements, swaps, or other OTC derivatives, or in the alternative, invest in other futures contracts or Futures-Linked Investments not based on the particular Index Commodity if, in the commercially reasonable judgment of the Managing Owner, such replacement instruments tend to exhibit trading prices that correlate with a futures contract that is a part of the Index.
According to the Registration Statement, the Index uses a four-tiered approach to allocate among the Index Commodities included in the Index. Group I includes only petroleum products; Group II includes seven Index Commodities which are highly liquid; Group III is comprised of four liquid Index Commodities; Group IV includes Index Commodities that may provide diversification.
All Index Commodities are equally weighted within Groups II, III and IV, as provided below.
The Index is calculated daily by Thomson Reuters (Markets) LLC, a Thomson Reuters company (“Reuters” or the “Index Calculation Agent”). The Index began publishing in April 2007. The changes in the closing levels of the Index are reported by a number of major market data vendors. Reuters is not affiliated with a broker dealer.
Group I of the Index includes only petroleum products—WTI crude oil, heating oil and RBOB gasoline. According to the Registration Statement, these Index Commodities are among the most economically significant and frequently traded and historically have contributed meaningfully to the return and correlative characteristics of commodity benchmark indices. In order to reflect the critical role of petroleum in the global economy and maintain the diversified nature of the Index, the Index has assigned an Index Weight of 33% to the Group I Index Commodities, represented by the crude oil, RBOB gasoline and heating oil contracts traded on the NYMEX.
Group II is comprised of futures contracts on the Index Commodities that are traded in markets that are highly liquid. These seven markets represent a diverse cross section across several commodity sectors. Each Index Commodity is assigned an Index Weight of 6% of the Index. In turn, Group II constitutes 42% of the Index.
Group III is comprised of futures contracts on Index Commodities that are traded in markets that are liquid. These four Index Commodities include a second cross section of diverse and liquid markets in order to diversify the Index. Each Index Commodity in Group III is assigned an Index Weight of 5% of the Index. In turn, Group III constitutes 20% of the Index.
Group IV is comprised of futures contracts on Index Commodities that may provide additional diversification to the Index by increasing the exposure of the Index to the Softs, Grains, Industrial Metals, Meats and Precious Metals markets. Each Index Commodity in Group IV is assigned an Index Weight of 1% of the Index. In turn, Group IV constitutes 5% of the Index.
According to the Registration Statement, the Index employs arithmetic averaging with monthly rebalancing, while maintaining a uniform exposure to the various Index Commodities over time.
The Index Commodities are rebalanced monthly, generally following the close of business on the sixth Business Day of each month, to return to the specified dollar weights, referenced as “Index Weight” in the table above. This rebalancing is achieved by selling Index Commodities that have gained in value relative to other Index Commodities and buying Index Commodities that have lost in value relative to other Index Commodities. This monthly rebalancing helps to maintain both the stability and consistency of the Index and the consistent exposure to the Index Weights of the underlying Index Commodities over time.
The Fund will meet the initial and continued listing requirements applicable to Trust Issued Receipts in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 and Commentary .02 thereto. With respect to application of Rule 10A-3
A more detailed description of the Shares, the Fund, the Index and the Index Commodities, as well as investment risks, is set forth in the Registration Statement.
The Web site for the Fund (
The Index Calculation Agent calculates the closing level of each Index on both an excess return basis and a total return basis. An excess return index reflects the changes in market value over time, whether positive or negative, of the Index Commodities. A total return is the sum of the changes in market value over time, whether positive or negative, of the Index Commodities incorporating the return of 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. The Fund is designed to track the Index as calculated on an excess return, not a total return, basis.
In order to calculate the indicative Index levels, the Index Calculation Agent determines the real time price of each Index Commodity every 15 seconds. The Index Calculation Agent then applies a set of rules to these values to create the indicative level of the Index. These rules are consistent with the rules which the Index Calculation Agent applies at the end of each trading day to calculate the closing levels of the Index.
The Intra-day Indicative Value (“IIV”) per Share of the Fund is calculated by applying the percentage price change of the Fund's holdings in futures contracts to the last published NAV of the Fund. The Index Calculation Agent will publish this value every 15 seconds through one or more major market data vendors. The Index Calculation Agent will publish the closing level of the Index daily. The Managing Owner will publish the NAV of the Fund and the NAV per Share of the Fund daily. Additionally, the Index Calculation Agent will publish the intra-day level of the Index, and the Managing Owner will publish the indicative value per Share of the Fund (quoted in U.S. dollars) once every fifteen seconds throughout each trading day. All of the foregoing information will be published as follows:
The intra-day level of the Index and the IIV per Share of the Fund (each quoted in U.S. dollars) will be published once every fifteen seconds throughout each trading day through one or more major market data vendors and on the Managing Owner's Web site.
The most recent end-of-day Index closing level will be published as of the close of the NYSE Arca each trading day on the consolidated tape, Reuters and/or Bloomberg and on the Managing Owner's Web site.
The most recent end-of-day NAV of the Fund will be published as of the close of business by major market data vendors and on the Managing Owner's Web site. In addition, the most recent end-of-day NAV of the Fund will be published the following morning on the consolidated tape.
The NAV for the Fund will be disseminated to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange also will disseminate on a daily basis via CTA information with respect to recent NAV and shares outstanding. The Exchange will also make available on its Web site daily trading volume of each of the Shares, closing prices of such Shares, and the corresponding NAV. The closing prices and settlement prices of futures on the Index Commodities are also readily available from the Web sites of the applicable futures exchanges, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. The relevant futures exchanges also provide delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on their respective Web sites. The specific contract specifications for the futures contracts are also available on such Web sites, as well as other financial informational sources. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
In addition, in order to provide updated information relating to the Fund for use by investors and market professionals, an updated IIV will be calculated. The IIV is calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per share of the Fund as a base and updating that value throughout the trading day to reflect changes in the value of the Index Commodities. The IIV disseminated during NYSE Arca trading hours should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the NAV, which is calculated only once a day.
The IIV will be disseminated on a per Share basis by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during NYSE Arca Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”). The value of a Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between NYSE Arca and the applicable futures exchange when the Shares are traded on NYSE Arca after normal trading hours of such futures exchanges.
The Exchange believes that dissemination of the IIV provides additional information regarding the Fund that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to professionals and investors in connection with the related Shares trading on the Exchange or the creation or redemption of such Shares.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. E.T. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
The trading of the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200(e), which sets forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers in Trust Issued Receipts to facilitate surveillance. See “Surveillance” below for more information.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the underlying futures contracts, or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule
The Exchange represents that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV, the Index or the value of the underlying futures contracts occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV, the Index or the value of the underlying futures contracts persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, including Trust Issued Receipts, to monitor trading in the Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange's current trading surveillances focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, the physical commodities included in, or options, futures or options on futures on, Shares through ETP Holders, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market. The Exchange can obtain market surveillance information, including customer identity information, with respect to transactions occurring on the exchanges that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”).
In addition, with respect to Fund assets traded on exchanges, not more than 10% of the weight of such assets in the aggregate shall consist of components whose principal trading market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (2) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Baskets and Redemption Baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (3) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (4) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from the Fund will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the Index Commodities traded on U.S. markets.
The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and that the NAV for the Shares is calculated after 4 p.m. E.T. each trading day. The Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares of the Funds is publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to convert NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company (a “Delaware LLC”). This proposal is solely a technical rule change. There are no new regulatory issues implicated in this proposal. Further, the Exchange is not proposing any material changes, but rather only amendments to make technical conforming changes to the formation documents to correspond with the LLC conversion. All substantive provisions that govern an exchange are consistent with the Act and remain intact. The Exchange's proposed formation documents, including the Certificate of Formation, Limited Liability Agreement and By-Laws, are consistent in form and scope with the most recent governing documents that were approved by the Commission.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to convert NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware LLC. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. acquired NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (formerly the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.) on July 24, 2008.
Following the conversion, the Exchange proposes to be governed by a Certificate of Formation, the LLC Agreement and the By-Laws of the LLC (the “LLC By-Laws”) in accordance with the LLC Act. These proposed formation documents reflect all of the current rights and obligations of the members and owners of the Exchange in the appropriate form of governing documents of a Delaware LLC. The specific changes to the current documents are discussed in the following sections.
In order to convert from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware LLC, a Certificate of Conversion and a Certificate of Formation of the LLC will be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. The Certificate of Conversion is necessary to effect the conversion of the Exchange from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware LLC pursuant to the LLC Act. Further, the LLC Act requires that a Certificate of Formation of the LLC be filed to accomplish the formation of the LLC. Unlike a Certificate of Incorporation which contains actual governing provisions, a Certificate of Formation only sets forth three pieces of information, the name of the company, the address of the registered office and the name and address of the registered agent. As such, only the information in the FIRST and SECOND provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation are reflected in the Certificate of Formation with certain minor changes. First, a Delaware LLC must contain the words “LLC” in its name. In light of this requirement, the name set forth in the FIRST provision of the Certificate of Formation of the LLC reflects the proposed name “NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC” rather than “NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.” Additionally, the LLC is referred to as a “limited liability company” in this provision rather than a “corporation.”
The governing provisions of a Delaware LLC need to be set forth in the limited liability company agreement of such Delaware LLC. As such, the remaining provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation are proposed to be reflected in the LLC Agreement and the LLC By-Laws, as together, these documents are considered the limited liability company agreement of the LLC for purposes of the LLC Act (the “Agreement”).
Following the conversion of the Exchange, it is proposed that the Exchange adopt the Agreement. As noted above, the Agreement will consist of the LLC Agreement and the LLC By-Laws. The LLC By-Laws proposed to be adopted are in substantially the same form as the By-Laws currently in effect, with certain modifications as further explained below.
The LLC Agreement proposed by the Exchange is similar to that of the NSM LLC Agreement. Schedule A of the LLC describes the proposed ownership of the limited liability company interests (designated therein as “shares” of the LLC), which ownership structure is identical to that currently in place. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (“NASDAQ OMX Group”) is the sole common shareholder of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. and is proposed to become a member of the Exchange (within the meaning of the LLC Act) and the sole owner of all of the Common Stock (as defined in the LLC Agreement) of the LLC. There is also the PHLX Member Voting Trust (the “Trust”) which holds the one (1) Series A Preferred Stock of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. The Trust is proposed to become a member of the Exchange (within the meaning of the LLC Act)
The Exchange is incorporating the current By-Laws of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. into the LLC Agreement as Exhibit A to that LLC Agreement. The Exchange proposes to make minimal conforming amendments to the current By-Laws to comport with the conversion to an LLC. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to create an introductory paragraph to the By-Laws to explain that the By-Laws together with the LLC Agreement constitute the LLC Agreement within the meaning of the LLC Act.
As mentioned above, the Exchange proposes to adopt an LLC Agreement as part of its conversion to a Delaware LLC. Such LLC Agreement will contain many provisions set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange, with such modifications as are necessary to reflect the new entity form. NASDAQ OMX Group and the Trust, the current common and preferred stockholders of the Exchange, respectively, would each be admitted to, and become a member of, the LLC. As a member of the LLC, each such person will hold limited liability company interests in the LLC, denoted in the LLC Agreement as Common Stock and Preferred Stock.
The proposed LLC Agreement begins with an introductory paragraph identifying the parties to the LLC Agreement and certain recitals. Such recitals set forth the conversion process generally, including (i) the applicable Delaware law
Section 1 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Name; Conversion”, specifies the name of the entity in addition to other information with respect to the conversion process. As discussed above, the name of the Exchange, “NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.”, set forth in provision FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation, is proposed to be changed to “NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC” as required by the LLC Act. Section 1 of the LLC Agreement also notes that the organization documents, namely the Certificate of Formation and LLC Agreement with attachments, supersede the former organizational documents, in this case the Certificate of Incorporation
Section 2 of the LLC Agreement, titled Principal Business Office, lists the principal business office of the Exchange and provides notice of such information to those reviewing the LLC Agreement. Such provision is standard in limited liability company agreements of Delaware LLCs
Section 3 of the LLC Agreement, titled Registered Office; Registered Agent, lists the Exchange's registered office and registered agent, which was formerly reflected in provision SECOND of the Certificate of Incorporation. The entity acting as the registered agent and the place of the registered office will remain unchanged post-conversion.
Section 4 of the LLC Agreement, titled Members, sets out the name and mailing address of each Stockholder, providing notice of such information to those reviewing the LLC Agreement. Such provision is standard in limited liability company agreements of Delaware LLCs
Section 5 of the LLC Agreement, titled Certificates, refers to the filing of Certificate of Formation and the Certificate of Conversion of the LLC. Such provision acknowledges and confirms that such filings, which were necessary for the conversion to be effected, were authorized by the LLC. This Section additionally sets forth those person(s) who have the authority to file any other certificates with the Delaware Secretary of State on behalf of the LLC pursuant to the LLC Act. This provision has no analog under the existing organizational documents of the Exchange but given its administrative nature, such change will have no material substantive effect on the current operations of the Exchange.
Section 6 of the LLC Agreement, titled Purpose, discusses the Exchange's business purpose. This provision is virtually identical to provision THIRD of the Certificate of Incorporation with the following modifications: (i) This Section references a limited liability company instead of a corporation to reflect the appropriate entity form of the Exchange post-conversion, and (ii) this section also includes standard language to clarify that not only can the LLC engage in the general purpose set forth therein but it can also engage in those activities necessary or incidental to such purpose. This clarifying language is common in limited liability company agreements of Delaware LLCs
Section 7 of the LLC Agreement, titled Powers, discusses the general powers of the Exchange, the Board of Governors and the Officers and largely defers to the applicable provisions set forth in the LLC By-Laws. The LLC By-Laws at Article IV, Section 4-4 delineate in more detail the powers of the Board of Governors which are referred to in Section 7 of the LLC Agreement. Similarly, the LLC By-Laws delineate in more detail the powers of the Officers of the Exchange in Article V. Article IV, Section 4-4 and Article V of the LLC By-Laws are identical to the corresponding provisions in the current By-Laws of the Exchange.
Section 8 of the LLC Agreement, titled Management, sets forth the general management structure of the Exchange. It is proposed that the management structure of the LLC be the same as currently in effect under the governing documents of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. As proposed, the management would remain vested with the Board of Governors, the general powers, composition and removal of which are set forth in Section 8 of the LLC Agreement. Such provision is substantially identical to that of provision SIXTH of the Certificate of Incorporation.
Section 9 of the LLC Agreement, titled Officers, discusses generally the officers of the LLC and their appointment, role as agent and duties but defaults to the By-Laws for a more detailed description of such topics. The applicable provisions of the LLC By-Laws are in Article V and remain identical to the description provided in Article V of the By-Laws currently in effect.
Section 10 of the LLC Agreement, titled Limited Liability, corresponds, in part, with provision FIFTEENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation and Article IV, Section 4-18 of the current By-Laws in that it limits the personal liability of Governors for the debts and obligations of the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to include, in Section 10 of the LLC Agreement, standard language, which is consistent with, and reflective of, the limitation on liability of members provided for in the LLC Act, to limit the personal liability of the Stockholders for the debts and obligations of the Exchange. Similar language is contained in the NSM LLC Agreement in Section 11 therein.
Sections 11 through 14 of the LLC Agreement are equity-related provisions which encompass the topics of capital contributions, additional capital
The first sentence of Section 15 of the LLC Agreement, titled Books and Records, is reflective of Article TWELFTH of the Certificate of Incorporation. Section 15 of the LLC Agreement also sets forth certain additional information relating to general administrative matters with respect to the books and records of the LLC including that (i) the Board of Governors will keep and maintain complete books and records of the LLC, (ii) the Stockholders have the right to inspect such books and records, and (iii) the Board of Governors has the right to select method by which the books will be kept and the public accounting firm who will provide any independent audit of such books and records. Given the general administrative nature of such additions, none of these additions shall have any material substantive effect on the manner in which the Exchange is governed by the Board of Governors or the general operations of the Exchange.
Section 16 of the LLC Agreement, titled Limited Liability Company Interests, sets forth the classes of limited liability company interests, denoted as shares, of the LLC and the rights and obligations of each class. The language pertaining to the authorized shares, classes, rights and obligations of the Stockholders contained in this section is virtually identical to the language contained in provision FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation, which relates to the current shares and classes of the Exchange. There has been no material change to any of the rights and obligations of the Stockholders. A sentence has been added to allow for the Exchange to issue additional interests or securities in the Exchange upon approval by the Board of Governors.
Section 17 of the LLC Agreement, titled Other Business, is standard language in the limited liability company context and merely states that the Stockholders may engage in other business other than their interest in the LLC and that the LLC has no rights to such other business or the proceeds derived therefrom. This concept is consistent with that of a stockholder of a corporation in that a stockholder, generally, has no obligation to present opportunities to the corporation or turn over proceeds derived from other ventures of the stockholder. A similar provision is contained in Section 18 of the NSM LLC Agreement.
Section 18 of the LLC Agreement, titled Exculpation and Indemnification, provides for the exculpation and the indemnification of the Stockholders and related persons. The inclusion of such a provision in the limited liability context is not uncommon as it reflects the fact that Stockholders, under the LLC Act, can act on behalf of the LLC to the extent authorized under the LLC Agreement and the LLC By-Laws. As such, it is proposed to provide the same level of exculpation and indemnification for such persons as is given to the Board of Governors to the extent such persons are authorized to act on behalf of the LLC. As such, the same standard of conduct applicable to the Board of Governors under Article SIXTEENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation is proposed to be used in Section 18 of the LLC Agreement. Articles FIFTEENTH and SIXTEENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation, relating to the exculpation and indemnification of the Board of Governors, have been set forth in Article IV, Sections 4-18(g) and 4-18(h) of the LLC By-Laws.
Section 19 of the LLC Agreement is merely a general statement that any
Section 21 of the LLC Agreement sets forth the events which will cause the dissolution of the LLC, as prescribed by mandatory provisions of the LLC Act or as otherwise agreed among the parties. A similar provision is contained in Section 21 of the NSM LLC Agreement.
Sections 22 through 26 and 28 of the LLC Agreement are general provisions which are relatively standard in limited liability company agreements of Delaware LLCs.
Section 27 of the LLC Agreement contains the necessary vote under which the LLC Agreement may be amended. Under the Certificate of Incorporation, the Board of Governors had the right to amend the By-Laws currently in effect. Such By-Laws provide for amendment in the manner prescribed in Article XXII, Section 22-1. This same amendment vote has been set forth in Section 27 of the LLC Agreement so that the authority of the Board of Governors to amend will remain unchanged following the conversion.
The provisions in the Certificate of Incorporation have been incorporated into the Certificate of Formation, LLC Agreement and By-Laws as indicated herein but for provisions FIFTH and TENTH. The language used in provision FIFTH of the Certificate of Incorporation was not incorporated verbatim into the LLC Agreement; however, as noted previously, the general concept of this provision is reflected in the last sentence of Section 5 of the LLC Agreement. Additionally, provision TENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation was not carried over to the proposed Agreement because such provision is not consistent with applicable Delaware law in the limited liability company context.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to adopt the By-Laws of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. as the LLC By-Laws with the changes noted below.
It is proposed to incorporate certain global changes to the By-Laws currently in effect including (i) referencing the Certificate of Formation of the LLC, the LLC By-Laws and/or the LLC Agreement, as applicable, instead of the Certificate of Incorporation as such documents will replace and supersede the Certificate of Incorporation and existing By-Laws, (ii) deleting references to the DGCL (including the definition thereof) throughout the By-Laws as such law will no longer be applicable to the Exchange post-conversion and substituting in lieu thereof the phrase “applicable law,” and (iii) updating all references to “NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.” to “NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC” consistent with the name change associated with the conversion.
Specifically, in Article I, titled Definitions, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Section 1-1 Definitions. The Exchange proposes to reference the LLC By-Laws, the LLC Agreement and the Trust Agreement in the definition for both Designated Governors and Designated Independent Governor, in lieu of the reference to provision FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation, which will no longer be effective post-conversion. None of these changes will have a material substantive effect but are merely reflective of the proposed change in applicable governing documents.
Further, the Exchange proposes to include in the text associated with the term “Member” a sentence that such term as used in the LLC By-Laws is distinct from the usage of member within the meaning of the LLC Agreement and the LLC Act.
The term “Stockholder” is proposed to be modified to reflect that NASDAQ OMX Group and the Trust are no longer stockholders of a corporation but members of a Delaware LLC. Such change does not have material substantive effect but is merely a conforming change to the new entity form of the Exchange. The rights and obligations of these persons remain unchanged following the conversion, only the terminology is proposed to be revised. Such definition is consistent with the meaning given to such term in the LLC Agreement.
The Exchange proposes to define “NASDAQ OMX Conversion” to refer to the conversion proposed and described herein from the Delaware corporation, “NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.” to the Delaware LLC, “NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC.” The Exchange proposes to eliminate references to the Merger Subsidiary
The Exchange proposes to amend Article III, titled Member and Member Organization Nominations—Member and Member Organization Annual Elections—Member and Member Organization Meetings, to remove references to the Certificate of Incorporation and instead reference the By-Laws, as the By-Laws, following the conversion, will be the appropriate governing document.
Section 3-3 of Article III, titled Removal of Designated Governors, is proposed to refer to a special meeting in the first sentence thereof in lieu of the current reference to an annual meeting. The reference to an “annual” meeting is inconsistent with the remainder of the first sentence in Section 3-3. Such sentence discusses a meeting called in accordance with Section 3-2(e). Section 3-2(e) sets forth the procedure to call a
The Exchange proposes to amend Article IV, titled Board of Governors, to remove references to the Merger and Merger Subsidiary and instead reference the Conversion. Section 4-18 of Article IV of the LLC By-Laws, titled Indemnification, is proposed to reflect the relevant indemnification standard provided in provision FIFTEENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation pertaining to the indemnification of Governors. It is proposed to include in Section 4-21 of Article IV of the LLC By-Laws clarifying language regarding the necessary purpose behind a books and records inspection request. Such language is consistent with and provided by the LLC Act.
The Exchange proposes to add a Section 4-24 to Article IV of the LLC By-Laws. This provision, entitled “Interested Transactions” is substantially identical to the language used in provision ELEVENTH of the Certificate of Incorporation and ensures that the guidelines relating to the types of transactions described therein are retained following the conversion of the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to remove the reference to “corporate” in each instance where the phrase “corporate seal” is used in Article V of the current By-Laws, specifically Section 5-8. The term “corporate” is not applicable to the Exchange post-conversion.
The Exchange proposes certain changes to Article VIII, titled Presiding Officials of the Exchange, Article X, titled Standing Committees, Article XII, titled Permits-Eligibility-Election-Initiation Fee, Article XV, titled Transfer of Foreign Currency Options Participations, Article XVII, titled Insolvency-Suspension-Reinstatement, and Article XVIII, titled Offenses, Discipline, Penalties and Business Connections [
The Exchange proposes to make certain clerical changes to Article XV, titled Transfer of Foreign Currency Options Participations. These changes are not substantive in nature and merely reflect a reorganization of the existing provisions. Specifically, the terms ordering Section 15-3 (
The Exchange proposes to incorporate additional language to the transfer provision contained in Article XXIX, Section 29-4(b) to address Delaware LLC-specific issues. The existing conditions to transfers previously set forth in Section 29-4(b) remain unchanged. Rather, the additional language in the first sentence of Section 29-4(b) merely adds a new requirement to the effectiveness of a transfer. Under the proposed Section 29-4(b), a written instrument in which the transferee agrees to be bound by the LLC Agreement must be delivered along with the other instruments noted in Section 29-4(b) prior to a transfer being effective. This will ensure that any transferee is aware of, and bound by, all relevant governing provisions. Additionally, two sentences have been added to this subsection in order to address the admission of any transferee who complies with this Section to the LLC. Unlike a stockholder in the corporation, a transferee needs to be admitted to the LLC before it can obtain the rights of a member thereof. This is an additional formality in the limited liability company context that needs to be provided for; however, the provision for admission contained in Section 29-4(b) does not effect a material substantive change on the transfer provision as a whole but is merely reflective of a nuance specific to the limited liability company form. To the extent that a transferee complies with Section 29-4, the additional language provides that they will automatically be admitted to the LLC.
There are two other Articles of the Certificate of Incorporation of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. which are reflected in the By-Laws of the Exchange. Article SEVENTH is set forth in By-Law Article XXVIII, Section 28-13 and titled Action Without a Meeting. Also, Article EIGHTH of the Certificate of Incorporation is set forth in By-Law Article XXVIII, Section 28-1 and titled Place of Stockholder Meetings. The LLC Agreement and attached By-Laws provide the Board the ability to amend documents as set forth in By-Law Article XXII, Section 22-1, Amendments to By-Laws as well as Section 27 of the LLC Agreement.
The Exchange intends for this proposal to be operative upon filing with the State of Delaware.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 17, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, relating to the amendment of clearly erroneous execution rules to provide greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking trades, and the comment letters that have been submitted in connection with the filing.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
By the Commission.
On June 17, 2010, each of BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX”), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”), EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), International Securities Exchange LLC (“ISE”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX”), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE Amex LLC (“NYSE Amex”), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) (collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule changes so that it has sufficient time to consider these proposed rule changes, relating to the amendment of clearly erroneous execution rules to provide greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking trades, and the comment letters that have been submitted in connection with these filings.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, e-mail, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer to the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 2, 2010. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
1.
II. SSA has submitted the information collections listed below to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them within 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than October 4, 2010. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
1.
2.
Form SSA-3820 collects various types of information about a child's condition from treating sources and other medical sources of evidence. The DDS evaluators use the information to develop medical and school evidence and assess the alleged disability. The information, together with medical evidence, forms the evidentiary basis upon which SSA makes its initial disability evaluation. The respondents are claimants seeking SSI childhood disability payments.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
3.
This is a correction notice: SSA published this information collection with the correct burden hours at 75 FR 35512 on June 22, 2010. However, we did not show the breakdown of burden hours for the different types of respondents. We are correcting that error here.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
4.
5.
6.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program that is scheduled to expire on October 6, 2010.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a renewal of an existing computer matching program that we are currently conducting with OPM.
We will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869 or writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and OPM.
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the conditions, terms, and safeguards under which OPM will disclose civil service benefit and payment data to us. We are legally required to offset specific benefits by a percentage of civil service benefits received (Spousal and Survivors benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, and Disability Insurance Benefits are offset by a percentage of the recipient's own Federal government pension benefits). The Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance (OASDI), SSI, and Special Veterans' Benefits (SVB) programs administered by us will use the match results under this agreement to meet its civil service benefit offset obligations. The OASDI programs are social insurance programs. The SSI program pays benefits to aged, blind, and disabled recipients with incomes below levels established by law and regulations. The SVB program provides special benefits to certain World War II veterans. Specific information regarding the matching programs to be conducted because of the disclosure is provided in the appendices.
The legal authority for SSA to conduct this matching activity for SSI purposes is contained in section 1631(e)(1)(B) and (f) of the Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(B) and (f)) and for the SVB purposes is contained in section 806 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1006). Section 224 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 424a) provides for the reduction of Social Security disability benefits when the disabled worker is also entitled to a Public Disability Benefit. Sections 215(a)(7) and 215(d)(3) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7) and 415(d)(3)) provide for a modified benefit computation to be used for certain beneficiaries who are concurrently entitled to both Social Security benefits and a monthly periodic payment based in whole or in part on employment not covered by Social Security, including a civil service benefit. This modified benefit computation is called the Windfall Elimination Provision. Section 202(k)(5)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 402 (k)(5)(A)) requires that SSA reduce the Social Security benefits of certain beneficiaries entitled to Social Security spouse's benefits who are also entitled to a government pension based on their own noncovered earnings. This reduction is referred to as Government Pension Offset.
Section 1631(f) of the Act requires Federal agencies to furnish SSA with information necessary to verify eligibility, and section 224(h)(1) of the Act requires any Federal agency to provide SSA with information in its possession that SSA may require for the purposes of making a timely determination of the amount of reduction under section 224 of the Act.
OPM will provide SSA with an electronic file containing civil service benefit and payment data from the annuity and survivor master file. The
Each record on the OPM file will be matched for Social Security Number (SSN) verification to SSA's Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications. The
The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and OMB, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Office of the Secretary.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. This information collection involves the use of various forms necessary because of management and oversight responsibilities of the agency imposed by OMB Circular 2 CFR 215 (A-110) (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations) and OMB Circular A-102 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). These forms include Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), Federal Financial Report (SF-425), Request for Advance or Reimbursement (SF-270), and Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs (SF-271).
The Department has terminated Financial Status Report (SF-269 and SF-269A) and Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF-272 and SF-272A). The information contained in these forms is now consolidated into SF-425, which was approved by OMB for Federal-wide use on October 1, 2008 and recently revised on June 28, 2010. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments must be submitted November 2, 2010.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0212 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ellen Shields, Associate Director of the Financial Assistance Management Division, M-65, Office of the Senior Procurement Executive, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4268. Refer to OMB Control Number 2105-0520.
The Department's request for approval of the Federal Financial Report (FFR) (SF-425) is based on the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
East Penn Railroad, LLC (ESPN) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49
ESPN has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) no overhead traffic has been handled on the line;
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on October 6, 2010, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to ESPN's representative: Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
ESPN has filed environmental and historic reports that address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by September 10, 2010. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA, at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), ESPN shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by ESPN's filing of a notice of consummation by September 3, 2011, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on October 5, 2010, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Kathryn R. Barney, CSX Transportation, Inc., 500 Water Street, J-150, Jacksonville, FL 32202.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
CSXT has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by September 10, 2010. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA, at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by September 3, 2011, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's telephone number is (202) 493-0524.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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) 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) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the first phase, which this notice addresses, NHTSA will conduct two types of qualitative research. One research project will consist of two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities. Each group will have eight (8) participants and will last two (2) hours for a total of 96 participant hours. For the second research project in this phase, NHTSA will conduct on-site interviews at various tire retailers. NHTSA anticipates 25 respondents with each interview taking 25 minutes for a total of approximately 11 participant hours. The results of this research phase, as well as comments received to a separate notice, that will be published soon, will be used to finalize the content of an online survey NHTSA will conduct in the second research phase.
The estimated annual burden hour for the first phase of research is 107 hours. Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage (all occupations) in the May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will take an average of $15.95 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is $1,706.65 ($15.95 per hour × 107 burden hours).
Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department'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 collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2010.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's telephone number is (202) 493-0524.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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) 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) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the first phase, which this notice addresses, NHTSA will conduct one type of qualitative research. This research project will consist of two (2) focus groups in four (4) cities. Each group will have eight (8) participants and will last two (2) hours for a total of 128 participant hours. The results of this research phase, as well as comments received to a separate notice published today, will be used to finalize the content of an online survey NHTSA will conduct in a second research phase.
The estimated annual burden hour for the first phase of research is 128 hours. Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage (all occupations) in the May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will take an average of $15.95 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is $2,041.60 ($15.95 per hour × 128 burden hours).
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department'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 collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236, as detailed below.
The New Jersey Transit (NJT) seeks relief from the 2 year periodic testing requirements of the Rules, Standards, and Instructions, Title 49 CFR part 236, §§ 236.377 Approach Locking, 236.378 Time Locking, 236.379 Route Locking, 236.380 Indication Locking, and 236.381 Traffic Locking, on vital microprocessor-based systems. NJT proposes to verify and test signal locking systems controlled by microprocessor-based equipment by use of alternative procedures every 4 years after initial baseline testing or program change as follows:
• Verification of the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Check Sum/Universal Control Number (UNC) of the existing location's specific application logic to the previously tested version.
• Testing the appropriate interconnection to associated signaling hardware equipment outside the processor (switch indication, track indication, signal indication, approach locking (if external)) to verify correct and intended inputs to and outputs from the processor are maintained.
• Analyzing and comparing the results of the 4 year alternative testing with the results of the baseline testing performed at the location and submit the results to FRA.
• All records of locking tests will identify the method used (
Applicant's justification for relief: Many of NJT's interlocking, controlled points and other locations are controlled by solid-state vital microprocessor-based systems. These systems utilize programmed logic equations in lieu of relays and other mechanical components for control of both vital and non-vital functions. The logic does not change once a microprocessor-based system has been tested. Locking tests are documented on installation.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236, as detailed below.
The New Jersey Transit (NJT) seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of six power-operated derails at Lower Hack Interlocking at milepost (MP) 2.7 on the Morristown Line, Hoboken Division. The existing facility is a remotely-controlled movable bridge interlocking located within a traffic control system on either side of the bridge on three main tracks.
NJT is the owner and operator of the line. The Norfolk Southern Corporation and Morristown and Erie Railway, Inc. operate local freight service on this portion of the line.
The reason given for the proposed changes is to improve reliability and retire facilities no longer required for present train operations.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent to Terminate (Withdraw) EIS.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for a proposed highway project examining both new highway alignments and infrastructure improvements to enhance transportation mobility and accessibility through and around Skowhegan in the Towns of Skowhegan and Madison, Maine is terminated (withdrawn). The original Notice of Intent for this EIS process was published in the
Mark Hasselmann, Right of Way and Environmental Programs Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Maine Division, 40 Western Avenue, Augusta, Maine 04330, Telephone (207) 622-8350, extension 103; or Judy Lindsey, Project Manager, Maine Department of Transportation, State House Station 16, Augusta, Maine 04333-0016, Telephone (207) 624-3291.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), has terminated the EIS process begun in 2005 to address mobility and accessibility needs through and around Skowhegan, Somerset County, Maine. Work on the EIS is being discontinued due to adverse economic and environmental impacts, lack of community support, and a lack of design and construction funds. Therefore, the EIS for this project has been terminated. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations
23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the bi-annual meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF) to discuss informational content and design of aeronautical charts and related products, as well as instrument flight procedures development policy and design criteria.
The ACF is separated into two distinct groups. The Instrument Procedures Group (IPG) will meet October 26, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Charting Group will meet October 27 and 28, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be hosted by the MITRE Corporation, 7515 Colshire Drive, Building 2, Room 1N100, McLean, VA 22102.
For information relating to the Instrument Procedures Group, contact Thomas E. Schneider, FAA, Flight Procedures Standards Branch, AFS-420, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK, 73125; telephone: (405) 954-5852; fax: (405) 954-2528.
For information relating to the Charting Group, contact John A. Moore, FAA, National Aeronautical Navigation Services (AeroNav Services) Group, Regulatory Support and Coordination Team, AJW-372. 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4-Station 5544, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; telephone: (301) 427-5154, fax: (301) 427-5412.
Pursuant to § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Aeronautical Charting Forum to be held from October 26 through October 28, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the MITRE Corporation, 7515 Colshire Drive, Building 2, Room 1NIOO, McLean, VA 22102.
The Instrument Procedures Group agenda will include briefings and discussions on recommendations regarding pilot procedures for instrument flight, as well as criteria, design, and developmental policy for instrument approach and departure procedures.
The Charting Group agenda will include briefings and discussions on recommendations regarding aeronautical charting specifications, flight information products, as well as new aeronautical charting and air traffic control initiatives. Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to the space available.
Please note there are special security requirements for access to the MITRE Corporation. A picture I.D. is required of all US citizens. All foreign national participants are required to have a passport. Additionally, not later than October 12, 2010, foreign national attendees must provide their name, country of citizenship, company/organization, and country of the company/organization. Send the information to: Al Herndon, MITRE Corporation, Mail Stop N-390, 7515 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102, or via e-mail (preferred) to:
Foreign nationals who do not provide the required information will not be allowed entrance—NO EXCEPTIONS.
The public must make arrangements by October 8, 2010, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements and/or new agenda items to the committee by providing a copy to the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The meeting will be held September 23, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at Bessie Coleman Room, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda will include:
• Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
• Review Terms of Reference and Initial Tasking.
• Overview of NextGen—Setting the stage for Committee actions.
• RTCA Task Force 5 Recommendations.
• FAA Actions and Activities.
• International Perspective.
• Close-out ATMAC Action Items.
• Trajectory Ops WG Recommendations.
• Tracking August 4th ATMAC Recommendations going forward.
• RTCA Joint WG Metroplex Recommendations.
• Discussion of Initial Task.
• Discussion of Requested New WG Tasks.
• Review Working Subcommittee.
• Overview of ATMAC Workgroups and Discussion of Required Skills and Expertise for Future Workgroups.
• Set Meeting Dates for 2011.
• Closing Plenary (Other Business, Adjourn).
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Piedmont & Northern Railway, Inc. (P&N), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate over approximately 13.04 miles of rail line (the Line) owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), a noncarrier,
This transaction is related to the verified notice of exemption filed in FD 35403,
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after September 18, 2010 (30 days after the supplements to the notice of exemption were filed). The notice was filed on August 12, 2010, but the Agreement and supplements were filed on August 19, 2010. Therefore, August 19, 2010, will be considered the official filing date and the basis for all due dates.
P&N certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction would not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and further certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to FD 35402, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Aronco Leasing Company (Aronco), a private passenger car operator based in Helendale, California, seeks a waiver of compliance from the Safety Glazing Standards of 49 CFR 223.15
Aronco states that passenger car
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) seeks a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of 49 CFR Part 232—
UP proposes moving the trains from the FXE interchange point at the International Yard on the Lordsburg subdivision to the UP's Dallas St. yard, a distance of 2.8 miles, without the need to comply with the requirements of those parts of the CFR as noted above. A Class III brake test under § 232.211 would be performed prior to departing the International Yard.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The City of St. Matthews, KY (City), and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) jointly seek a temporary waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222. The City intends to establish a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that it had previously continued under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.41(c)(1). The City is seeking a waiver for the requirement to construct and complete a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone by June 24, 2010, as required by 49 CFR 222.41(c)(2) and for an extension of such date to September 1, 2011. In addition, the City, CSX and the City of Richlawn, KY (Richlawn), seek a temporary waiver from provisions of 49 CFR 222.41(c) so that a single public highway-rail grade crossing in Richlawn, that meets the definition of a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone, but the required notices or other actions have not been submitted, could be included in St. Matthews' Pre-Rule Quiet Zone.
There are 5 crossings in the existing City's Pre-Rule Quiet Zone extending from Chenoweth Lane (MP T5.43) to Thierman Lane (MP T6.12) on the CSX Louisville Division, Louisville-Cincinnati Subdivision. All of the crossings are equipped with flashing lights and gates, constant warning time train detection circuitry and power-out indicators. Two of these crossings will be treated with Supplementary Safety Measures (SSM) as follows: 1 crossing with gates and non-traversable curb medians and 1 crossing with four-quadrant gates. One of the SSMs has been installed (gates and non-traversable curb medians on Thierman Lane) and the other (four-quadrant gates on Chenoweth Lane) will be completed within the October 2011 to April 2012 timeframe and hopefully sooner.
The City notes that there is a pre-existing Alternative Safety Measure (ASM) consisting of an 80-foot non-traversable curb median on the southern approach of Chenoweth Lane. The City has committed to implement several interim measures to improve crossing safety until the installation of the four-quadrant gate system at Chenoweth Lane is completed. The City will install 30 feet of non-traversable curb median on the north approach of the Chenoweth Lane crossing. Law enforcement officers will be present during the morning and evening rush hours at varying times and locations to issue citations to motorists and pedestrians that illegally cross the tracks. The City will also include crossing safety information in its quarterly newsletter. The City requests that the existing Pre-Rule Quiet Zone be allowed to continue until September 1, 2011, by which time it is hoped that the four-quadrant gate system will have been completed.
The City states that it has had its pre-rule quiet zone since 1974, and that its residents and others have become accustomed to its existence. It asserts that the proposed extension would not pose any additional risk to public health or safety. The City also notes that it has worked diligently since the Final Rule was released in 2005, to take the necessary steps to retain its pre-rule quiet zone. This includes the retaining of a consulting firm to assist with the project and to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements. Throughout the process, the City and CSX have worked diligently and cooperatively to implement this project. The City and CSX entered into a Preliminary Engineering agreement during the summer of 2008, for the design and cost estimate of the four-quadrant gate system at Chenoweth Lane.
CSX requested that the City provide the necessary exit gate timing for the system and recommended that it be obtained from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Unfortunately, confusion on how to obtain this information resulted in CSX not receiving the timing information in sufficient time to enable the installation of the system prior to June 24, 2010. The City terminated its Pre-Rule Quiet Zone on June 1, 2010, as it was not able to complete the necessary improvements prior to the deadline date. It since has learned that it could have asked for a waiver to have the deadline extended and is now asking that the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone be reinstated pending completion of the improvements necessary for the establishment of the quiet zone. The City and CSX are requesting that the June 24, 2010 deadline be extended to September 1, 2011, so that the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone can remain active.
The City, CSX and Richlawn also petition that the public highway-rail grade crossing on Hubbards Lane (MP T6.38) in Richlawn be included in the City's Pre-Rule Quiet Zone. Train horns have not been routinely sounded by trains approaching Hubbards Lane crossing for more than 30 years and therefore meets the definition of a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone in 49 CFR 222.9. However, due to either a clerical or administrative error, this crossing was never included in the City's Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or in a separate Pre-Rule Quiet Zone. A SSM consisting of gates with a non-traversable curb median will be installed by September 15, 2010. The City states that its calculation indicates that the addition of Hubbards Lane with its SSM, results in a Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) for the 6 crossing quiet zones (the 5 existing crossings in the City's Pre-Rule Quiet Zone plus Hubbards Lane) that would be less than the Risk Index With Horns (RIWH). Even though this would enable the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone to be established without the planned installation of the four-quadrant gate system at Chenoweth, the City is committed to its installation. The City, CSX and Richlawn request that the pre-existing restrictions on the routine sounding of the train horn by trains that are approaching the public crossings on the CSX rail line from Chenoweth Lane to Hubbards Lane be re-instated.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is giving notice that the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, is requesting a portion of the airport (3.349 acres, a portion of Area A and Tract 13) as “right-of-way” for the improvement along Route 13 and at the intersection of Route 13 and Route 148. The above-mentioned land is not needed for aeronautical use, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of the property. Area A was purchased without federal funds in 1946 and Tract 13 was purchased in 1957 through Grant 9-11-0066105. In accordance with section 47107(h) of
Gary D. Wilson, Program Manager, 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number 847-294-7631/FAX Number 847-294-7046. Documents reflecting this FAP action may be reviewed at this same location or at Williamson County Regional Airport, Marion, Illinois.
Following is a legal description of the property located in Williamson County, Marion, Illinois, and describes as follows:
The south half (S
The North half of the Southwest fourth of the Southwest Quarter of Section eight (8), Township Nine (9) South, Range two (2) East of the third Principal Meridian, except three (3) acres lying in the Northwest corner thereof, said exception being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the above described North half of the Southwest fourth of the Southwest quarter of Section eight (8), Township nine (9) South, Range two (2) East of the third Principal Meridian, thence running East four hundred twenty (420) feet; thence South Three Hundred Fifteen (315) feet; thence West four hundred twenty (420) feet; thence North three hundred fifteen (315) feet to the place of beginning, situated in the County of Williamson, in the State of Illinois.
The Southwest Quarter (SW
That certain frontage road of 50 foot width running through the Williamson County Airport Authority Business Park as shown by a survey recorded October 1, 1986 at Misc. book 184, page 616, Williamson County, Illinois, situated in the County of Williamson and State of Illinois.
Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9 in Williamson County Airport Business Park, as shown by a Survey Recorded October 1, 1986 at Misc. Book 184, page 616, in Williamson County, Illinois, situated in the County of Williamson and the State of Illinois.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the sale of the subject airport property nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Department of the Treasury.
Request for comment.
In 2003 Congress established the Financial Literacy and Education Commission (Commission) through passage of the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act under Title V of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. Congress designated Treasury's Office of Financial Education to lend its expertise and provide primary support to the Commission, which is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. Additionally, Congress charged the Commission to “improve the financial literacy and education of persons in the United States through development of a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education.” On behalf of the Commission, the Department of the Treasury invites public comment on the draft
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2010 to be considered.
Submission of Written Comments: Written comments should be sent by any one of the following methods:
E-mail
Send paper comments to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Education, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department will make all comments available in their original format, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers, for public inspection and photocopying in the Department's library, Room 1428, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling (202) 622-0990. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available.
For additional information, contact Dubis Correal by e-mail at
In 2006, the Commission released its first National Strategy for Financial Literacy. In July 2009, the Commission set up a new working group which undertook a comprehensive and inclusive process that included reviewing strategic documents from other nations and other agencies, as well as reaching out for input to a wide range of stakeholders in the field of financial education. The National Strategy is meant to provide a broad strategic overview for the financial literacy and education field. The working group identified five action areas—policy, education, practice, research, and coordination. The working
Before the draft National Strategy is finalized, the Department of the Treasury, on behalf of the Commission, seeks public comment on the draft National Strategy. Please go to
(1) Do you agree with the vision statement? Yes or no? If no, what are your suggestions?
(2) Do you agree with the mission statement? Yes or no? If no, what are your suggestions?
(3) Do you agree with the goal statements? Yes or no? If no, which goal statement(s) would you change and how?
(4) Do you agree with the objectives under each goal? Yes or no? If no, which objective(s) would you change and how?
(5) Which objectives are most relevant to your organization? What other objectives are missing?
(6) How would your organization implement the draft National Strategy? Please list three specific examples.
(7) What type of organization do you represent?
a. Public, federal government.
b. Public, state government.
c. Public, local government.
d. Not-for-profit.
e. Foundation.
f. Private/business.
g. Other (describe).
(8) Do you have any other comments on the draft National Strategy?
(9) If there is a need to contact you to discuss your comments further, what is the best way to reach you (not required)?
Please note responses should not be more than 600 characters per question.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Treasury Direct Forms.
Written comments should be received on or before October 30, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Judi Owens, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-5318, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Judi Owens, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-5318, (304) 480-8150.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 98-52, Cash or Deferred Arrangements; Nondiscrimination, and existing notice of proposed rulemaking, REG-108639-99, Retirement Plans; Cash or Deferred Arrangements Under Section 401(k) and Matching Contributions or Employee Contributions Under Section 401(m)(§§ 1.401(k)-3(d) and 1.401(m)-3(e).
Written comments should be received on or before November 2, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the notice and regulation should be directed to Elaine Christophe, (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury.
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, the FDIC, and the OTS (the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of a proposal to revise the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for banks, the Thrift Financial Report (TFR) for savings associations, the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002), and the Report of Assets and Liabilities of a Non-U.S. Branch that is Managed or Controlled by a U.S. Branch or Agency of a Foreign (Non-U.S.) Bank (FFIEC 002S), all of which are currently approved collections of information. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval. The agencies will then submit the revisions to OMB for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2010.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
For further information about the revisions discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency clearance officers whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the Call Report, FFIEC 002, and FFIEC 002S forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site (
The agencies are proposing to revise the Call Report, the TFR, the FFIEC 002, and the FFIEC 002S, which are currently approved collections of information.
1.
OCC:
The estimated time per response for the Call Report is an average that varies by agency because of differences in the composition of the institutions under each agency's supervision (
2.
3.
The agencies are proposing to add two items to the schedules in the Call Report, the TFR, and the FFIEC 002 for collecting data related to deposit insurance assessments and to revise the instructions for an existing item in these schedules effective December 31, 2010. These changes respond to amendments made to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) by Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) pertaining to the insurance of transaction accounts.
In October 2008, the FDIC Board of Directors adopted the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) program as one of two components of a Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) following a determination of systemic risk by the Secretary of the Treasury (after consultation with the President) that was supported by recommendations from the FDIC and the Board.(1) Under the TAG program the FDIC guarantees all funds held at participating insured depository institutions (beyond the maximum deposit insurance limit) in qualifying noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, which include certain interest-bearing NOW accounts.
(1) To administer the TLGP, the FDIC Board approved an interim rule on October 23, 2008, an amendment to the interim rule on November 4, 2008, and a final rule on November 21, 2008. See 73 FR 64179, October 29, 2008; 73 FR 66160, November 7, 2008; and 73 FR 72244, November 26, 2008, respectively.
The TAG program originally was set to expire on December 31, 2009, but it was extended through June 30, 2010, with certain modifications to the program, and then extended for another six months through December 31, 2010, with the possibility of an additional 12-month extension, through December 31, 2011.(2)
(2) See 74 FR 45093, September 1, 2009; 75 FR 20257, April 19, 2010; and 75 FR 36506, June 28, 2010.
Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the FDI Act with respect to the insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. These amendments take effect December 31, 2010, and require the FDIC to “fully insure the net amount that any depositor at an insured depository institution maintains in a noninterest-bearing transaction account,” thereby in effect replacing the FDIC's TAG program. Section 343 includes a definition of “noninterest-bearing transaction account” that differs from the definition of this term in the FDIC's TAG program regulations.(3) In addition, the full insurance coverage of these accounts applies to all insured depository institutions, not just those institutions that elected to obtain insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts through the FDIC's TAG program. Under Section 343, the full insurance coverage of
(3) As defined in Section 343, a “noninterest-bearing transaction account” is an account “(I) with respect to which interest is neither accrued nor paid; (II) on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone or other electronic media transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third parties or others; and (III) on which the insured depository institution does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.” In contrast, under the FDIC's TAG program, the term “noninterest-bearing transaction account” includes not only those accounts within the scope of Section 343 but also accounts commonly known as Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (or functionally equivalent accounts) and negotiable order of withdrawal accounts with interest rates no higher than 0.25 percent for which the institution at which the account is held has committed to maintain the interest rate at or below 0.25 percent.
As a result of this statutory change in deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, the agencies are proposing to add two items to the schedules in the Call Report, the TFR, and the FFIEC 002 in which data are collected for deposit insurance assessment purposes (Schedule RC-O, Schedule DI, and Schedule O, respectively) effective December 31, 2010. As of that report date, all insured depository institutions, including those institutions that had not elected to participate in the FDIC's TAG program, would begin to report the quarter-end amount and number of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, not as defined in the FDIC's TAG program regulations) of more than $250,000. These data are needed in order for the FDIC to estimate the quarter-end amount of insured deposits for reserve ratio calculation purposes(4) and to determine the appropriate level of the Deposit Insurance Fund's contingent loss reserve for anticipated failures of insured depository institutions. Unless the full insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts under Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act is extended, the two proposed new items would be collected only through the December 31, 2012, report date.
(4) The Deposit Insurance Fund's reserve ratio is the fund's balance divided by estimated insured deposits.
Institutions participating in the FDIC's TAG program should note that, for purposes of determining their TAG program assessments for the fourth calendar quarter of 2010 (which will be payable on March 30, 2011), they must complete the existing TAG program data items—Call Report Schedule RC-0, Memorandum items 4.a and 4.b; TFR Schedule DI, items D1570 and D1575; or FFIEC 002 Schedule 0, Memorandum items 4.a and 4.b, as appropriate—for the final time in their reports for December 31, 2010. These items capture the average daily amount and average daily number for the quarter of qualifying noninterest-bearing transaction accounts of more than $250,000 as defined in the FDIC's TAG program regulations.(5)
(5) The reporting of these existing TAG program items as quarterly averages, rather than as quarter-end amounts, is subject to OMB approval. See 75 FR 45201, August 2, 2010.
As a result of the full insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act effective December 31, 2010, the agencies are also proposing to revise the instructions for reporting estimated uninsured deposits in Call Report Schedule RC-O, Memorandum item 2; TFR Schedule DI, item D1210; and FFIEC 002 Schedule O, Memorandum item 2. These items are required to be completed by institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets. At present, balances in TAG program qualifying noninterest-bearing transaction accounts of more than $250,000 are treated as uninsured deposits for purposes of reporting estimated uninsured deposits because the TAG program was instituted as a component of the TLGP, which resulted from a systemic risk determination. Thus, TAG program insurance coverage and assessments are separate from the regular deposit insurance program administered by the FDIC. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the extension of full insurance coverage to noninterest-bearing transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions falls within the FDIC's regular deposit insurance program. Therefore, in response to this statutory change in insurance coverage, the instructions for reporting estimated uninsured deposits in Call Report Schedule RC-0, Memorandum item 2; TFR Schedule DI, item D1210; and FFIEC 002 Schedule O, Memorandum item 2, would be revised to indicate that balances of more than $250,000 in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act) should be treated as insured, rather than uninsured, deposits. Unless the full insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts under Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act is extended, this instructional revision would be in effect only through the December 31, 2012, report date.
(a) Whether the proposed revisions to the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Interim Final Rules, Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Written comments should be received on or before November 2, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Elaine Christophe, (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Interim Final Rules, Affordable Care Act Internal Claims and Appeals and External review Disclosures.
Written comments should be received on or before November 2, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Elaine Christophe, (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form-8947, Report of Covered Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Importers.
Written comments should be received on or before November 2, 2010 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Gerald Shields, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Elaine Christophe, (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on September 14-15, 2010, in Room 250, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1575 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC. On September 14, the session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On September 15, the session will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 12 noon. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
The meeting will feature presentations and discussions on VA's geriatrics and extended care programs, aging research activities, update on VA's geriatric workforce (to include training, recruitment and retention approaches), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) strategic planning activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts regarding dementia and program advances in palliative care, and performance and oversight of the VA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Marcia Holt-Delaney, Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (114), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting should contact Mrs. Holt-Delaney at (202) 461-6769 or e-mail at
By Direction of the Secretary:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Rita, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (