Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Jet Route J-93 in California between the Julian VHF Omnidrectional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC), and the ASUTA intersection on the United States/Mexican border. The FAA is realigning the jet route due to the relocation of the Penasco VOR, located in Mexico. This action ensures the efficient use of our National Airspace System.
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 5, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On October 28, 2010, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Jet Route J-93 in California, between the Julian VORTAC and the ASUTA intersection along the United States/Mexican Border, realigning the route with the revised location of the Penasco VOR located in Mexico.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Jet Route J-93 in California.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” 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 amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
From the INT of the United States/Mexican Border and the Julian, CA, 122° radial via Julian; Paradise, CA; INT Paradise 290° and Los Angeles, CA, 083° radials; to Los Angeles.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends two VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway legal descriptions in the State of Hawaii. The FAA is taking this action to remove exclusions to restricted airspace areas that have been removed from the National Airspace System (NAS).
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 10, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA Honolulu Control Facility conducted a review of the facility airspace areas and found that two Federal Airways, V-2 and V-21, contained exclusions to restricted airspace that was removed from the NAS several years ago. Accordingly, since this is an administrative change and does not involve a change in the boundaries, altitudes or operating procedures of this airspace, notice and public procedure under Title 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending two VOR Federal Airways, V-2 and V-21, located in the State of Hawaii by removing all references to Restricted Area R-3104A and R-3104B from the legal descriptions.
Hawaiian VOR Federal Airways are listed in paragraph 6010(c) of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Federal airways listed in this document will be revised subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends two VOR Federal airways in Hawaii.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” 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 amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Honolulu, HI, via Lanai, HI; INT Lanai 106° and Upolu Point, HI, 305° radials; Upolu Point (4 miles N and 3 miles S of centerline); INT Upolu Point 093° and Hilo, HI, 336° radials; Hilo.
From Honolulu, HI, via INT Honolulu 182° and Lanai, HI, 289° radials; Lanai; INT Lanai 106° and Hilo, HI, 033° radials; INT Upolu Point, HI, 093° and Hilo 078° radials; to INT Hilo 078° and long. 152°14′00″ W.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action makes a minor correction to a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, February 17, 2011. The Director of the Federal
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
In a final rule published in the
The FAA's Aeronautical Products office correctly charted the airspace and requested the correction be made. Accordingly, since this is an administrative change, and does not involve a change in the dimensions, altitudes, or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the west by V-269; on the east by V-484; and on the south by V-32; excluding existing controlled airspace 8,500 feet MSL and above; excluding that airspace designated for Federal airways; excluding the portions within Restricted Area R-6404 and Lucin MOA during their published hours of designation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes and establishes high altitude Alaskan compulsory reporting points in the vicinity of the United States (U.S.) and Canadian border. Specifically, the FAA is removing BORAN and establishing the TOVAD reporting point.
Effective date 0901 UTC, May 5, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA was notified November 30, 2010, that Canadian Authorities had removed the BORAN intersection and established the TOVAD intersection as a compulsory reporting point on the U.S./Canada border effective November 18, 2010. This action is in response to those changes. Accordingly, since this is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, notice and public procedures under Title 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing the BORAN reporting point and establishing the TOVAD Compulsory Reporting Point on the U.S./Canadian border.
Alaskan High Altitude Reporting Points are listed in paragraph 7005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Reporting Points listed in this document will be revised subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends High Altitude Compulsory Reporting Points in Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting the regulation addressing the effective date of FAA determinations issued under 14 CFR part 77. The FAA amended this regulation by final rule published on July 21, 2010. The purpose of the final rule was to update the regulations governing objects that may affect the navigable airspace, to incorporate case law and legislative action, and to simplify the rule language. In one section of the regulations, we inadvertently state that the effective date of all determinations is 40 days from the date of issuance. However, only FAA determinations subject to the discretionary review process are effective 40 days from the date of issuance. All other FAA determinations are effective upon issuance. This document corrects that error.
Effective January 18, 2011.
Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Organization, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. (202) 267-8783; e-mail:
On July 21, 2010 (75 FR 42296), we published a final rule that updated the FAA's notice and obstruction standards requirements in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 77. These regulations had not been updated in many years, and we found it necessary to update them to incorporate case law and legislative action, and to simplify the rule language.
In the preamble discussion for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FAA proposed and subsequently adopted in the final rule that a Determination of Hazard or a Determination of No Hazard will become effective 40 days from the date of issuance, unless a petition for discretionary review is filed and received by the FAA within 30 days from the date of issuance. (
As written, this requirement incorrectly applies to all FAA determinations. The FAA's intent was to prevent a determination from becoming effective in the event that a petition for discretionary review was filed for a particular aeronautical study. Section 77.33(a) should have provided two effective dates. For determinations that are not subject to discretionary review, the effective date continues to be the date of issuance, which is consistent with the current rule. For determinations that are subject to the discretionary review process, these determinations will become effective 40 days from the date of issuance, unless a petition for discretionary review has been filed. Therefore, we find that paragraph (a) of this section must be corrected to provide the above two effective dates.
Accordingly, in the final rule, FR Doc. 2010-17767, published on July 21, 2010 (75 FR 42296), make the following corrections:
(a) The effective date of a determination not subject to discretionary review under 77.37(b) is the date of issuance. The effective date of all other determinations for a proposed or existing structure is 40 days from the date of issuance, provided a valid petition for review has not been received by the FAA. If a valid petition for review is filed, the determination will not become final, pending disposition of the petition.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to add one end-user, CSMC Technologies Corporation (CSMC), to
This rule is effective January 18, 2011. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AF07, by any of the following methods:
Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Consistent with U.S. Government policy to facilitate trade for civilian end-users in the PRC, BIS amended the EAR in a final rule on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646) by creating a new authorization for “validated end-users” (VEUs) located in eligible destinations to which eligible items may be exported, reexported, or transferred under a general authorization instead of a license, in conformance with section 748.15 of the EAR. VEUs may obtain eligible items that are on the Commerce Control List, set forth in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the EAR, without having to wait for their suppliers to obtain export licenses from BIS. Eligible items may include commodities, software, and technology, except those controlled for missile technology or crime control reasons.
Authorization VEU is a mechanism to facilitate increased high-technology exports to companies in eligible destinations that have a verifiable record of civilian end-uses for such items. The VEUs listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR were reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance with the provisions of section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to Part 748 of the EAR. In addition to U.S. exporters, Authorization VEU may be used by foreign reexporters and by persons transferring in-country, and it does not have an expiration date. As of the date of this rule, pursuant to section 748.15(b) of the EAR, VEUs are only located in the PRC and India.
This final rule amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR to designate CSMC Technologies Corporation (CSMC) as a validated end-user, to identify the eligible destinations of CSMC (referred to as “Facilities”), and to identify the items that may be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to CSMC's specified eligible facilities under Authorization VEU. The name and address of this newly approved VEU and the names and addresses of its eligible facilities are as follows:
Items classified under Export Control Classification Numbers 1C350.c.3, 1C350.c.11, 2B230.a, 2B230.b, 2B350.f, 2B350.g, 2B350.h, 3B001.c.1.a, 3B001.c.2.a, 3B001.e, 3C002.a, 3C004.
This final rule also amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR by revising the list of Advanced Micro Devices China, Inc.'s (AMD) eligible facilities. Specifically, this rule adds three new buildings to the facility authorization for Advanced Micro Devices (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (AMD Shanghai), which is one of AMD's three approved facilities. Accordingly, the address for AMD Shanghai has been amended by adding three new building numbers and the revised address will appear in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR. In addition, BIS is updating the description of items eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to AMD's approved facilities in order to provide clarification to persons shipping under Authorization VEU. This update makes AMD's VEU listing in the Code of Federal Regulations as specific as possible. The revisions to the authorization for validated end-user AMD are as follows:
Items classified under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 3D002, 3D003, 3E001 (limited to “technology” for items classified under 3C002 and 3C004 and “technology” for use during the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) process for items classified under ECCNs 3B001 and 3B002), 3E002 (limited to “technology” for use during the ITRS process for items classified under ECCNs 3B001 and 3B002), 3E003.e (limited to the “development” and “production” of integrated circuits for commercial applications), 4D001, 4D002, 4D003 and 4E001 (limited to the “development” of products under ECCN 4A003).
The approval of CSMC as a validated end-user and revision of AMD's VEU Authorization are expected to further facilitate exports to civilian end-users in the PRC, and to result in significant savings of time and resources for suppliers and the eligible facilities. Authorization VEU eliminates the burden on exporters and reexporters of preparing individual license applications, as exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of eligible items to these facilities may now be made under general authorization instead of under individual licenses. Under the VEU program, exporters and reexporters can supply VEUs in the PRC on a more timely basis, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of exporters, reexporters, and end-users in the PRC.
To ensure appropriate facilitation of exports and reexports, on-site reviews of validated end-users may be warranted pursuant to paragraph 748.15(f)(2) and section 7(iv) of Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR. If such reviews are warranted, BIS will inform the PRC Ministry of Commerce.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act (the Act) has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by the Notice of August 12, 2010 (75 FR 50681 (August 16, 2010)), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. This rule involves collections previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and for recordkeeping, reporting and review requirements in connection with Authorization VEU, which carries an estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission. This rule is expected to result in a decrease in license applications submitted to BIS. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond nor 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.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that the rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because such notice and comment here are unnecessary. In determining whether to grant VEU designations, a committee of U.S. Government agencies evaluates information about candidate companies and commitments made by candidate companies, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR Part 748, Supplement No. 8. The criteria for evaluation by the committee are set forth in 15 CFR section 748.15(a)(2).
The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (71 FR 38313, July 2, 2006, and 72 FR 33646, June 19, 2007). Given the similarities between the authorizations provided under the VEU program and export licenses (as discussed further below), the publication of this information does not establish new policy; in publishing this final rule, BIS is simply adding a VEU within the established regulatory framework of the VEU program. Further, this rule does not abridge the rights of the public or eliminate the public's option to export under any of the forms of authorization set forth in the EAR.
Publication of this rule in other than final form is unnecessary because the authorization granted in the rule is similar to that granted to exporters for individual licenses, which do not undergo public review. Individual license application applicants and VEU authorization applicants both provide the U.S. Government with confidential business information. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for VEU authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR section 748.15(a)(2). As with individual export licenses, an interagency committee, drawing on public and non-public sources, including licensing data, and measured against the VEU authorization criteria, vets VEU applications. The authorizations granted under the VEU program, and through individual export licenses, involve interagency deliberation according to set criteria. Given the thorough nature of the review, and in light of the parallels between this process and the non-public review of license applications, public comment on this authorization prior to publication is unnecessary. Moreover, as noted above, the criteria and process for authorizing VEUs were developed with public comments; allowing additional public comment on this individual VEU authorization, which was determined according to those criteria, is therefore unnecessary.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 748 of the EAR (15 CFR Parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is amending its rules to delegate authority to the Chief Accountant with respect to proposed rule changes of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board pursuant to Section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as follows: To publish notices of proposed rule changes filed by the PCAOB; to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change; and to temporarily suspend a proposed rule of the PCAOB. In addition, the Commission is amending its rules to delegate authority to the Chief Accountant to determine the appropriateness of extending the time periods specified in Section 19(b) and publish the reasons for such determination as well as to effect any such extension and to institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposal and to provide to the PCAOB notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration, and to find good cause to approve a proposal on an accelerated basis and to publish the reasons for such determination. This delegation is intended to conserve Commission resources and to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission's PCAOB proposed rule filing process.
Jeffrey S. Cohan, Senior Special Counsel, or John F. Offenbacher, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange
Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”),
This delegation is intended to conserve Commission resources and maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission's process for handling proposed rule changes submitted by the PCAOB. The Commission anticipates that the delegation of authority will help facilitate timely compliance with the amendments to Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the new statutory deadlines prescribed therein. Nevertheless, the Chief Accountant may submit matters to the Commission for its consideration, as he or she deems appropriate.
The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), that these amendments relate solely to agency organization, procedures, or practices, and do not relate to a substantive rule. Accordingly, notice, opportunity for public comment, and publication of the amendments prior to their effective date are unnecessary and these changes are effective on January 18, 2011.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 77d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202
The addition reads as follows:
(b)(1) Pursuant to section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7217, and section 19(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b), and applicable rules of the Commission, to publish notices of proposed rule changes filed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
(2) Pursuant to section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7217, and section 19(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b), and applicable rules of the Commission, to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change, and to find good cause to approve a proposed rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of publication of such proposed rule change and to publish the reasons for such finding. The Office of the Chief Accountant shall notify the Commission no less than five (5) business days before the Chief Accountant intends to exercise his or her authority to approve or disapprove a particular proposed rule change.
(3) Pursuant to section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7217, and section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A), to extend for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), the period during which the Commission must by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved and to determine whether such longer period is appropriate and publish the reasons for such determination.
(4) Pursuant to section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C.
(5) Pursuant to section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7217, and section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C), to temporarily suspend a rule of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
By the Commission.
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 for hemoglobin glutamer-200 from Biopure Corp. to OPK Biotech, LLC.
This rule is effective January 18, 2011.
Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8300, e-mail:
Biopure Corp., 11 Hurley St., Cambridge, MA 02141 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 141-067 for OXYGLOBIN (hemoglobin glutamer-200) to OPK Biotech, LLC, 11 and 39 Hurley St., Cambridge, MA 02141. There is no change in drug labeler code.
Following this change of sponsorship, Biopure Corp. is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. In addition, OPK Biotech, LLC, is not currently listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 is being amended to reflect these changes.
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.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
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 for a new animal drug application (NADA) for follicle stimulating hormone from Ausa International, Inc., to Therio, Inc.
This rule is effective January 18, 2011.
Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8300, e-mail:
Ausa International, Inc., Rt. 8, P.O. Box 324-12, Tyler, TX 75703 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 141-014 for SUPER-OV (follicle stimulating hormone) to Therio, Inc., 8801 Anderson Ave., Manhattan, KS 66503. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 522.1002 to reflect the transfer of ownership.
Following this change of sponsorship, Ausa International, Inc., is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 (21 CFR 510.600) is being amended to remove the entries for this firm.
In addition, Therio, Inc., is not currently listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 is being amended to add entries for this sponsor.
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.
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Final rule.
This document provides the final text of regulations governing the employee protection (or “whistleblower”) provisions of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, (“ERA”), implementing the statutory changes enacted into law on August 8, 2005, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The regulations also finalize changes to the procedures for handling retaliation complaints under Section 211 of the ERA and the six environmental whistleblower statutes that were designed to make them as consistent as possible with the more recently promulgated procedures for handling retaliation complaints under other whistleblower provisions administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
This final rule is effective on January 18, 2011.
Nilgun Tolek, Director, Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3610, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2199.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, was enacted on August 8, 2005. Among other provisions, this new law amended the employee protection provisions for nuclear whistleblowers under Section 211 of the ERA, 42 U.S.C. 5851; the statutory amendments affect only ERA whistleblower complaints. The changes to the regulations also affect the six environmental whistleblower statutes because the same procedures generally apply to each of the statutes covered in 29 CFR part 24. Because OSHA recognizes the importance of consistency in the procedures governing the whistleblower statutes that it administers, it has tried to standardize these regulations with other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA to the extent possible within the bounds of the statutory language. We have removed from this background section as unnecessary and confusing the statement in the interim final rule that the 2005 ERA amendments apply to claims filed on or after August 8, 2005; OSHA takes no position in these regulations on the applicability of the 2005 ERA amendments to complaints filed with the Department before August 8, 2005.
Section 629 of Public Law 109-58 (119 Stat. 785) amended Section 211 of the ERA, 42 U.S.C. 5851, by making the changes described below.
Section 211 of the ERA defined a covered “employer” to include: Licensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“Commission”); applicants for such licenses, and their contractors and subcontractors; contractors and subcontractors of the Department of Energy, except those involved in naval nuclear propulsion work under Executive Order 12344; licensees of an
The August 2005 amendments added a provision for
On August 10, 2007, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published in the
In response, two organizations—the Government Accountability Project (“GAP”) and the National Whistleblower Center (“NWC”)—and four individuals—William H. Ewing, Esq.; Richard R. Renner, Esq., Jason M. Zuckerman, Esq., and James F. Newport—filed comments with the agency within the public comment period. OSHA has reviewed and considered these comments and now adopts this final rule which has been revised in part to address problems perceived by the agency and the commenters.
Richard R. Renner, Jason M. Zuckerman, and William H. Ewing commented generally that they believe the interim final regulations frustrate the purposes of the statutes to protect the public from environmental and nuclear safety dangers. They further commented that the interim final rule will deter complainants who have filed complaints under Section 211 of the ERA from seeking
The provisions in the interim final rule governing the filing of actions for
The regulatory provisions in this part have been revised to be consistent with other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA to the extent possible within the bounds of the statutory language of the ERA and the six environmental statutes listed in section 24.100(a). The section numbers of these regulations also have been changed to correspond with the numbering under the regulations implementing other whistleblower statutes administered by OSHA. Although these regulations are intended to be consistent with the majority of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations, they refer to actions brought under the whistleblower provisions of the ERA and the six environmental statutes as actions alleging “retaliation” rather than “discrimination.” This change in terminology, which is not intended to have substantive effect, reflects that claims brought under these whistleblower provisions are prototypical retaliation claims. A retaliation claim is a specific type of discrimination claim that focuses on actions taken as a result of an employee's protected activity rather than as a result of an employee's characteristics (
Richard R. Renner and Jason Zuckerman commented that it would be helpful if the Department clarified in this Summary and Discussion of Regulatory Provisions that adverse actions in Title VII retaliation cases are not limited to tangible employment actions and that the burdens of proof in ERA cases, which were altered by statute in 1992, differ from the burdens of proof generally applicable to traditional discrimination cases. Renner and Zuckerman suggested that these principles can be clarified by including within the regulations definitions of “unfavorable personnel action,” “clear and convincing evidence,” and “contributing factor.” OSHA does not believe that these clarifications are necessary in the regulations. However, OSHA has included a discussion of these phrases in the preamble. Also, as explained in more detail below, for clarity and consistency, the final regulations use the phrase “adverse action” throughout, rather than the phrase “unfavorable personnel action.” In addition, both the preamble and the regulations clearly distinguish between the burdens of proof that apply under Section 211 of the ERA and the burdens of proof that apply under the six environmental whistleblower statutes.
This section (formerly section 24.1) describes the purpose of the regulations implementing the whistleblower provisions of seven statutes enforced by the Secretary of Labor and provides an overview of the procedures covered by the regulations. The section has been revised to refer to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, instead of the Clean Water Act. They are synonymous, but the Office of Administrative Law Judges and the Administrative Review Board (ARB) generally use Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and we do so here for the sake of consistency. In addition, the section has been renumbered to conform to the numbering system for other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA. Thus, for example, former section 24.1 becomes current section 24.100. No comments were received on this section.
This new section includes general definitions applicable to the whistleblower provisions of the seven statutes listed in section 24.100(a). This section does not include program-specific definitions, which may be
One comment was received regarding the definitions contained in section 24.101. GAP commented that the definition of “Respondent” should include individuals other than employers, because the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 U.S.C. 6971(a), provides that “[n]o person shall fire, or in any other way discriminate against * * * any employee” who has engaged in protected activity, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1367, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9610, have similar provisions. As GAP acknowledges in its comments, however, the ARB has held that notwithstanding the use of “person” in the FWPCA, SWDA, and CERCLA in place of “employer,” the statutes nevertheless require that the respondent have an employment relationship with the complainant or act in the capacity of an employer, that is, exercise control over the terms, conditions, or privileges of the complainant's employment.
This section (formerly section 24.2) describes the activities that are protected under the statutes covered by this part, and the conduct that is prohibited in response to any protected activities. The language generally has been revised to conform to the language in the majority of the other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA, to the extent possible within the bounds of the statutory language of the ERA and the six environmental statutes. The changes are not intended to be substantive. References to the statutes listed in section 24.100(a) have deleted the adjective “Federal” as unnecessary. Paragraph (e) has been moved from former section 24.9. We note that the ARB interprets the phrase “deliberate violations” for the purpose of denying protection to an employee as including an element of willfulness.
One comment was received regarding the obligations and prohibited acts contained in section 24.102. GAP commented that in section 24.102(a), the term “employer” is too restrictive with respect to the FWPCA, CERCLA, and SWDA. As discussed above, the ARB has held that the use of “person” in the FWPCA, SWDA, and CERCLA in place of “employer” still requires that the respondent have an employment relationship with the complainant or act in the capacity of an employer. Accordingly, OSHA does not believe that use of the term “employer” is too restrictive in section 24.102(a). We note that former section 24.2 also used the term “employer” in describing obligations and prohibited acts. GAP also commented that the phrase “or otherwise retaliate against” should be changed to the statutory language “or otherwise discriminate against” to be consistent with the statutes, and that the language in section 24.102(c) describing the prohibitions under the ERA also should be changed from “retaliate” to “discriminate,” because “ ‘[d]iscrimination’ and ‘retaliation’ are not synonyms.” According to GAP, the latter term “requires a showing of animus; the former only disparate treatment.” As noted in this preamble, the use of the term “retaliation” in lieu of “discrimination” in these regulations is not meant to have a substantive distinction. Rather, the change in nomenclature reflects that claims brought under these whistleblower provisions are prototypical retaliation claims. Use of the term “retaliation” does not preclude a complaint based on an allegation of “disparate treatment,” as suggested by GAP. A discrimination claim based on “disparate treatment” requires a showing of intent to discriminate.
This section (formerly section 24.3) has been revised to be consistent with the regulatory procedures implementing other whistleblower provisions administered by OSHA. Thus, the section heading has been changed from “Complaint” to “Filing of retaliation complaint.” Also, paragraph (c) has been changed to paragraph (b) and the heading has been changed from “Form of Complaint” to “Nature of filing.” Paragraph (d) has been changed to paragraph (c); and paragraph (b) has been changed to paragraph (d) and the language has been changed to conform with that appearing in most of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations. Finally, paragraph (e) “Relationship to section 11(c) complaints” has been added to explain the policy of the Secretary regarding the relationship between complaints filed under the statutes listed in section 24.100(a) and a complaint under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. No comments were received on this section.
The final regulation in paragraph (b) has been revised to provide that no particular form of complaint is required. Paragraph (b) specifies that a complaint may be made orally or in writing. It also states that when a complaint is made orally, OSHA will reduce the complaint to writing and that if a complainant is not able to file the complaint in English, the complaint may be filed in any language. These changes are consistent with decisions of the ARB, which have permitted oral complaints.
This section (formerly section 24.4) has been revised so that its language will conform more closely to the language of the majority of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations. Additionally, former paragraph (b) of section 24.5 has been revised and moved to this section, and former paragraph (d) of section 24.4 has been revised and moved to section 24.105, where it more appropriately appears under “Issuance of findings and orders.”
Paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 24.104 set forth the standards of causation that OSHA applies to cases under the six environmental whistleblower statutes and the ERA. When adjudicating whistleblower complaints under the six environmental whistleblower statutes, the Department has relied on standards derived from discrimination case law as set forth under
If the complainant demonstrates that the respondent acted at least in part for prohibited reasons, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have reached the same decision even in the absence of protected activity.
At the investigation stage, OSHA will dismiss the complaint unless the complainant makes a prima facie showing that protected activity was at least a motivating factor in the alleged adverse action. The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing as follows:
(i) The employee engaged in a protected activity;
(ii) The respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in the protected activity;
(iii) The employee suffered an adverse action; and
(iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.
The complainant will be considered to have met the required showing if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to give rise to an inference that the respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action. The required showing may be satisfied, for example, if the complainant shows that the adverse action took place shortly after the protected activity, giving rise to the inference that it was a motivating factor in the adverse action. OSHA will dismiss the complaint if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the respondent would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the complainant's protected activity.
The Department recognizes that after promulgation of the interim final rule, the Supreme Court issued
The Department does not believe that the Supreme Court's decision in
In addition, as the Court noted in
Finally, the Court in
The Department therefore believes that the application of a mixed-motive analysis to the environmental whistleblower statutes continues to be appropriate based on the ARB's longstanding decisions interpreting these statutes, is consistent with Congress' intent and is reasonable in the context of the remedial purposes of these laws to safeguard workers from retaliation for protected activity involving the public health and the environment.
Paragraph (f) of this section, which sets forth procedures that apply only in ERA cases, applies the ERA's statutory burdens of proof. Since the 1992 amendments to the ERA, its whistleblower provisions, in contrast to the other whistleblower provisions listed under section 24.100(a), have contained specific statutory standards for the dismissal and adjudication of complaints.
The ERA statutory burdens of proof do not address the evidentiary standard that applies to a complainant's proof that protected activity was a contributing factor in an adverse action. Adhering to traditional Title VII discrimination law, it is the Secretary's position that the complainant must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that his or her protected activity contributed to the adverse action; otherwise, the burden never shifts to the employer to establish its “clear and convincing evidence” defense.
The 1992 ERA amendments altered the employer's burden in traditional “mixed motive” cases; under the ERA, once the Secretary concludes that the employer acted for both prohibited and legitimate reasons, the employer can escape liability only by proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the protected activity. 42 U.S.C. 5851(b)(3)(D). The “clear and convincing evidence” standard is a higher burden of proof for employers than the former “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Commenting on section 24.104(c), Renner and Zuckerman commented that it is important for employee witnesses of respondents to have the option of meeting privately with the OSHA investigator because they may be reluctant to speak to investigators for fear of retaliation. While OSHA does not believe that any changes to its regulations are necessary, it is OSHA's policy to meet privately with non-management employees. The facts and circumstances of each case will be considered in determining whether an employee is a non-management employee. In addition, the whistleblower provisions of the six environmental statutes and the ERA protect management employees to the same extent that they protect non-management employees. Thus, where the complainant is a management employee, it is OSHA's policy to meet privately with the complainant.
GAP objected to OSHA's use in sections 24.104(d) and (e) of the terms “unfavorable personnel action” and “adverse personnel action,” because those terms suggest that only actions taken by an employer's personnel or human resources departments are actionable. OSHA does not believe that the reference to “personnel action” in sections 24.104(d) and (e) of the interim final rule suggested that only adverse actions taken by personnel or human resources departments are actionable. However, for clarity and consistency, the final regulatory text has been changed to use “adverse action” throughout.
GAP also commented with respect to section 24.104(e)(4) that to refuse to investigate or discontinue an investigation before all of the evidence is reviewed by OSHA is “inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the employee protection provision of the ERA,” and that only where there is no evidence of protected activity should an investigation be either not conducted or discontinued. Moreover, GAP commented that “[t]he regulations must specify that investigators pay particular attention to pretext in the form of misuse of policies or unequal enforcement of policies against those who engage in protected activity.” OSHA does not believe that these comments require revisions to the regulations. The language contained in section 24.104(e)(4) reflects the statutory language of the ERA.
NWC commented that these regulations should adopt the statutory ERA burdens of proof for complaints filed under the six environmental statutes, because since the 1992 ERA amendments, Congress has applied the ERA burdens of proof to other whistleblower statutes that it has enacted or amended, including the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSIA”), 49 U.S.C. 60129; SOX; the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”), 49 U.S.C. 42121; and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (“STAA”), 49 U.S.C. 31105. NWC commented in this regard that the burdens of proof currently applied to the six environmental whistleblower acts are not statutory, but are based on employment discrimination law (Title VII), and that using the ERA burdens of proof for the six environmental statutes would serve the interests of justice. However, absent specific statutory direction, OSHA does not believe it is appropriate to apply the ERA's burdens of proof to the six environmental statutes.
The procedures set forth in this section formerly appeared under a paragraph of section 24.4, the Investigations section. This new section was created for purposes of clarification and consistency with a majority of the other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA. The former regulations provided that the Assistant Secretary would issue a “Notice of Determination” at the conclusion of the investigation, or upon dismissal of a complaint. These regulations no longer use the term “Notice of Determination.” Instead, the regulations refer to the issuance of findings and orders, the nomenclature used in most of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations. This change in nomenclature is not intended to be substantive.
The 30-day timeframe for completion of the investigation has been retained because it is a statutory requirement under the majority of the whistleblower
With regard to this section, GAP, William H. Ewing, Richard R. Renner and Jason M. Zuckerman expressed approval for OSHA's decision to increase the time period for seeking a hearing from five business days to 30 days. In addition, GAP, Ewing, Renner, and Zuckerman commented that in section 24.105(b), the rule should specifically require service on the attorney of record for each party (if the party has counsel). Ewing, Renner, and Zuckerman commented that alternatively, the rule should allow objections within 30 days of the last date of service, when the party and his or her attorney are served at different times. Although it is already OSHA's policy to send its findings to the complainant and the respondent by certified mail with copies to their respective attorneys, OSHA has revised the regulations to require service on the attorney of record.
Formerly, the procedures for requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) were set forth under section 24.6. As indicated above, to be effective, objections to the findings of the Assistant Secretary must be in writing and must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, 800 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001 within 30 days of receipt of the findings. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication is considered the date of the filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. The filing of objections is also considered a request for a hearing before an ALJ. Although the parties are directed to serve a copy of their objections to the other parties of record, as well as the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room N-2716, Washington, DC 20210, the failure to serve copies of the objections to the other parties of record does not affect the ALJ's jurisdiction to hear and decide the merits of the case.
GAP commented that the language in section 24.106(a) needs to be clarified because it is unclear whether detailed objections, which are unnecessary since an administrative hearing is
This section has been revised to conform to the majority of the other whistleblower regulations promulgated by OSHA. The interim final rule adopted the rules of practice of the Office of Administrative Law Judges at 29 CFR part 18, subpart A. In order to assist in obtaining full development of the facts in whistleblower proceedings, however, the interim final rule provided that formal rules of evidence do not apply. The section specifically provides for consolidation of hearings if both the complainant and respondent object to the findings and/or order of the Assistant Secretary. Otherwise, this section no longer addresses procedural issues,
Former paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section have been moved to section 24.108.
Comments on section 24.107 were received from GAP, NWC, William H. Ewing, James F. Newport, Richard R. Renner, and Jason M. Zuckerman. GAP commented that this section should be rewritten to de-emphasize the importance of an expeditious hearing. According to GAP, limiting discovery injures complainants to a greater extent than respondents because the documents needed to prove their cases
The provisions and statements to which GAP, NWC, Ewing, Newport, Renner, and Zuckerman object were intended by OSHA to implement Congress's intent that administrative whistleblower hearings under the ERA proceed expeditiously.
NWC commented regarding the preamble's discussion of this section that OSHA should not permit an employee to enter into an agreement to delay filing a complaint in district court because the jurisdictional time period for filing such an action cannot be altered by regulation. Rather, NWC commented that OSHA should add to section 24.107 a procedure in cases where third-party witnesses refuse to testify that permits employees to seek stays of their administrative proceedings so that they may file district court complaints once the one-year “kick-out” period has passed. NWC believes that such a procedure would encourage third-party witnesses who cannot be compelled by subpoena to testify in a whistleblower case to voluntarily appear before an ALJ proceeding. While third-party witnesses may be more inclined to voluntarily testify at ALJ hearings as an alternative to being compelled to testify in district court pursuant to a subpoena, OSHA does not believe that a special regulatory procedure to enable complainants to seek stays prior to filing in district court is necessary; the regulations do not prohibit an employee from seeking a stay from an ALJ based on his or her intention to file a
Finally, James F. Newport commented that the new rule shifts the cost of attending hearings to the complainant by removing the requirement that the hearing be held within 75 miles of the complainant's residence (
This new section was added to conform these regulations to the majority of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations. As noted above, the substance of this section formerly was set forth under paragraphs (f) and (g) of section 24.6, the section covering hearings. No substantive changes are intended. Under the ERA and the environmental whistleblower statutes, OSHA does not ordinarily appear as a party in the proceeding. The Secretary has found that in most whistleblower cases, parties have been ably represented and the public interest has not required the Department's participation. Nevertheless, the Assistant Secretary, at his or her discretion, may participate as a party or amicus curiae at any time in the administrative proceedings. For example, the Assistant Secretary may exercise his or her discretion to prosecute the case in the administrative proceeding before an ALJ; petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision based on a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent, regardless of whether the Assistant Secretary participated before the ALJ; or participate as amicus curiae before the ALJ or in the ARB proceeding. Although we anticipate that ordinarily the Assistant Secretary will not participate, the Assistant Secretary may choose to
NWC commented that when a State agency is named as a party, OSHA should be required to intervene or participate as a party in the proceeding. In support of this comment, NWC stated that the public interest would be served if OSHA intervened in every case in which a State agency is a named respondent because Congress intended that the whistleblower provisions of the six environmental acts cover State agencies. Richard R. Renner and Jason M. Zuckerman commented that OSHA should consider intervening on behalf of complainants, especially where a complainant is
OSHA continues to believe that its participation as a routine matter in all whistleblower cases is neither necessary nor an effective use of its resources. Nevertheless, as noted above, it is OSHA's policy to consider participating in cases in which the Assistant Secretary considers the agency's participation to be in the interests of justice. The inability of complainants to pursue their own actions against State employers and their lack of representation by counsel are among the factors that OSHA considers when exercising its discretion to intervene as a party or as an
This section sets forth the content of the decision and order of the ALJ, and includes the standard for finding a violation under the environmental statutes and the ERA. The section further provides that the Assistant Secretary's determination to dismiss the complaint without an investigation or without a complete investigation pursuant to section 24.104 is not subject to review. Thus, paragraph (c) of section 24.109 clarifies that the Assistant Secretary's determinations on whether to proceed with an investigation under the ERA and whether to make particular investigative findings under any of the statutes subject to this part are discretionary decisions not subject to review by the ALJ. The ALJ hears cases
This section also has been revised to eliminate the requirement under the ERA for the ALJ to issue a preliminary order of reinstatement separate from the findings. The section clarifies that when an ALJ's decision finds that the complaint has merit and orders relief, the order will be effective immediately upon its receipt by the respondent, except for that part of the order awarding compensatory damages. Congress intended that whistleblowers under the ERA be reinstated and provided additional interim relief based upon the ALJ's order even while the decision is on review with the ARB. The previous regulations have caused confusing delays to the complainant's right to immediate reinstatement.
The substance of the rest of this section was formerly found in section 24.7. The requirement that the ALJ issue a decision within 20 days after the conclusion of the hearing has been eliminated because procedures for issuing decisions, including their timeliness, are addressed by the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges at 29 CFR 18.57.
GAP commented that the language in section 24.109(b) discussing the burdens of proof should be clarified. GAP commented that the regulation should be changed to state affirmatively with respect to the respondent's burden that “relief must be ordered unless” the respondent carries its burden of proof, rather than to state that “relief may not be ordered” if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence under the ERA, or by preponderance of the evidence under the environmental statutes, that it would have taken the same action in the absence of protected activity. The language used in the regulation, however, accurately reflects the statutory language in section 211 of the ERA and, consistent with that language, the regulation retains language indicating that relief may not be ordered if the respondent proves by a preponderance of the evidence under the environmental statutes that it would have taken the same action in the absence of protected activity.
The decision of the ALJ is the final decision of the Secretary if no timely petition for review is filed with the ARB. Upon the issuance of the ALJ's decision, the parties have 10 business days within which to petition the ARB for review of that decision, or it becomes the final decision of the Secretary and is not subject to judicial review. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt. The appeal provisions in this part have been revised, consistent with the majority of OSHA's other whistleblower regulations, to provide that an appeal to the ARB is no longer a matter of right but is accepted at the discretion of the ARB. Congress intended these whistleblower actions to be expedited and this change may assist in furthering that goal. The parties should identify in their petitions for review the legal conclusions and orders to which exception is taken, or the exceptions will ordinarily be deemed waived. The ARB has 30 days to decide whether to grant the petition for review. If the ARB does not grant the petition, the decision of the ALJ becomes the final decision of the Secretary. The ERA, CAA, SDWA, and TSCA contain a 90-day timeframe for issuing final agency decisions. Notwithstanding this short timeframe, the Secretary believes that it is appropriate to give the ARB 30 days in which to decide whether to grant review; as stated above, the Secretary believes that in amending the ERA in August 2005, Congress recognized that
This section also provides that in the exceptional case, the ARB may grant a motion to stay an ALJ's order of relief under the ERA, which otherwise will be effective while review is conducted by the ARB. The Secretary believes that a stay of an ALJ's order of relief under the ERA only would be appropriate where the respondent can establish the necessary criteria for equitable injunctive relief,
Comments on section 24.110 were received by NWC, William H. Ewing, Richard R. Renner, and Jason M. Zuckerman. NWC commented that the 10-day period for filing objections is too short and that parties should be given between 30 and 60 days to petition for review, depending on the level of specificity required in the petition. Ewing, Renner, and Zuckerman also commented that the time period for petitioning for review by the ARB was too short and suggested a 30-day period to petition for review. In addition, Ewing, Renner, and Zuckerman suggested that rather than provide that exceptions not raised in the petition for review ordinarily will be waived, the regulations should permit parties to supplement the reasons for seeking review when filing their opening briefs. They commented that to the extent that the ARB needs to determine whether there are issues meriting review, the regulations can require that a party file a petition that identifies good grounds for review, and permit the party to raise additional assignments of error in the brief.
OSHA believes that 10 business days, which also is the time frame under AIR21 (
NWC commented that these regulations should revert to the previous practice that required the ARB to review the entire record on appeal
Finally, OSHA is changing the regulation at section 24.110(b) to correct the inadvertently erroneous statement that when the ARB denies a petition for review of an ALJ's decision, judicial review is not available. Although no comments were received regarding this error, OSHA is amending the rule to clarify that judicial review is available in cases where the ARB denies review of an ALJ decision for which appropriate review was sought.
This section provides for procedures and time periods for withdrawal of complaints, the withdrawal of findings by the Assistant Secretary, and the withdrawal of objections to findings. It also provides for approval of settlements at the investigative and adjudicative stages of the case. The regulations reflect that settlement agreements under the statutory provisions of the ERA, CAA, SDWA, and TSCA must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary to ensure that they are just and reasonable and in the public interest.
One comment was received regarding section 24.111. NWC commented that the section should be dropped and that the former practice of liberally permitting employees to withdraw claims, without prejudice, should be continued, especially under the six environmental acts, in which employees are required to file claims within 30 days. NWC commented that any restriction on the right to freely withdraw claims without prejudice will chill an employee's willingness to file a claim and punish employees who simply needed to protect their procedural rights. OSHA does not believe that section 24.111 hinders a complainant's ability to withdraw his or her complaint prior to the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order. However, when OSHA is aware that a withdrawal is requested after a settlement has been reached between the complainant and the respondent, the Assistant Secretary's approval is necessary to ensure that the settlement is just, reasonable, and in the public interest. This policy, which is required by statute in most instances, recognizes that:
The Department of Labor does not simply provide a forum for private parties to litigate their private employment discrimination suits. Protected whistleblowing under the ERA may expose not just private harms but health and safety hazards to the public. The Secretary represents the public interest by assuring that settlements adequately protect whistleblowers.
Significant revisions are being made to paragraph (c), which addresses situations in which parties seek to withdraw either objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order or petitions for review of ALJ decisions. Paragraph (c) provides that a party may withdraw its objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order at any time before the findings and preliminary order become final by filing a written withdrawal with the ALJ. Similarly, if a case is on review with the ARB, a party may withdraw its petition for review of an ALJ's decision at any time before that decision becomes final by filing a written withdrawal with the ARB. The ALJ or the ARB, depending on where the case is pending, will determine whether to approve the withdrawal of the objections or the petition for review. Paragraph (c) clarifies that if the ALJ approves a request to withdraw objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order, and there are no other pending objections, the Assistant Secretary's findings and preliminary order will become the final order of the Secretary. Likewise, if the ARB approves a request to withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ decision, and there are no other pending petitions for review of that decision, the ALJ's decision will become the final order of the Secretary. Finally, paragraph (c) provides that if objections or a petition for review are withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d).
This section describes the statutory provisions for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary and requires, in cases where judicial review is sought, the ARB to submit the record of proceedings to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court. Paragraph (d) reflects that original jurisdiction for judicial review of a decision issued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act is with the district courts rather than the appellate courts.
This section describes the Secretary's power under several of the statutes listed in section 24.100(a) to obtain judicial enforcement of orders and the terms of a settlement agreement. It also provides for enforcement of orders of the Secretary by the person on whose behalf the order was issued under the ERA and the CAA. No comments were received on this section.
This section sets forth the ERA provision allowing complainants to bring an action in district court for
Two comments were received regarding section 24.114. NWC commented that because the rules concerning issue and claim preclusion only apply to an agency's final order and an ALJ's decision is not a final order, the Department should not advise Federal courts or parties that res judicata and/or collateral estoppel principles may apply. NWC further commented that because once an employee exhausts his or her administrative remedies, the Department cannot legally implement a rule restricting an employee's right to file in Federal court, it should not urge a Federal court to remand a case back to the Department. NWC suggested that a potential waste of resources is not at issue because the discovery and hearing testimony obtained during an administrative proceeding may be used in the Federal court proceeding.
In response to these comments, OSHA has reconsidered the statements made in the interim final rule. OSHA recognizes that there is no statutory basis for including preclusion principles in these regulations, and that the ERA does not delegate authority to the Secretary to regulate litigation in the Federal district courts.
Also on further consideration, the Secretary does not believe that it is reasonable to construe the statute to permit a complainant to initiate an action in Federal court
Finally, GAP commented that OSHA's requirement under section 24.114(b) that a complainant file a notice with the agency of his or her intention to seek relief in district court within 15 days of filing his or her
Although the 15-day notice provision is not required by statute, OSHA believes that this notice provision falls within the scope of these procedural rules.
This section provides that in circumstances not contemplated by these rules or for good cause the ALJ or the ARB may, upon application and notice to the parties, waive any rule as justice or the administration of the statutes listed in section 24.100(a) requires. No comments were received on this section.
The notice that employers are required to post under Section 211(i) of the ERA has been revised to reflect the 2005 amendments. Specifically, the notice now reflects that the definition of “employer” has been expanded and that the employee has a right to file a complaint in district court if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within one year of the filing of the complaint and the delay is not due to the bad faith of the employee. As noted above, we also have substituted the term “retaliation” for “discrimination.” The notice has also been revised to clarify that a complaint may be filed orally or in writing and that if a complainant is not able to file the complaint in English, the complaint may be filed in any language.
One comment was received regarding Appendix A. GAP commented that the notice should be clarified to state that an employee is protected for raising concerns about a suspected violation of regulations or orders issued by the NRC or DOE. OSHA does not believe that changes to this notice are required because the protected activity listed on the notice applies the language used in the statute. Nevertheless, OSHA notes that the Secretary has held that the reporting of possible violations of NRC regulations is protected activity under the ERA.
This rule contains a reporting provision (filing a retaliation complaint, section 24.103) which was previously reviewed and approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and assigned OMB control number 1218-0236 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) do not apply to “interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This is a rule of agency procedure and practice within the meaning of that section. Therefore, publication in the
Furthermore, because this rule is procedural rather than substantive, the normal requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that a rule be effective 30 days after publication in the
The Department has concluded that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 because it is not 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 Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis has been prepared.
Because this rulemaking is procedural in nature it is not expected to have a significant economic impact; therefore no statement is required under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Furthermore, because this is a rule of agency procedure or practice, it is not a “rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C)) and does not require congressional review. Finally, this rule does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government” and therefore is not subject to Executive Order 13132 (Federalism).
The Department has determined that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation primarily implements procedures necessitated by statutory amendments enacted by Congress. Additionally, the regulatory revisions are necessary for the sake of consistency with the regulatory provisions governing procedures under the other whistleblower statutes administered by the Secretary. Furthermore, no certification to this effect is required and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required because no proposed rule has been issued.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Environmental protection, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, part 24 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2622; 33 U.S.C. 1367; 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i)BVG, 5851, 6971, 7622, 9610; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007, 72 FR 31160 (June 5, 2007); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2010 (Jan. 15, 2010), 75 FR 3924-01 (Jan. 25, 2010).
(a) This part implements procedures under the employee protection (or “whistleblower”) provisions for which the Secretary of Labor has been given responsibility pursuant to the following Federal statutes: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9610.
(b) This part establishes procedures pursuant to the Federal statutory provisions listed in paragraph (a) of this section for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints made by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf. These rules, together with those rules codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures for submission of complaints under the Federal statutory provisions listed in paragraph (a) of this section, investigations, issuance of findings, objections to findings, litigation before administrative law judges (“ALJ”), issuance of decisions and orders, post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements.
(a) No employer subject to the provisions of any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a), or to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011
(b) It is a violation for any employer to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, discipline, or in any other manner retaliate against any employee because the employee has:
(1) Commenced or caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced, a proceeding under one of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a) or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under such statute;
(2) Testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or
(3) Assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate, in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the purposes of such statute.
(c) Under the Energy Reorganization Act, and by interpretation of the Secretary under any of the other statutes listed in § 24.100(a), it is a violation for any employer to intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any other manner retaliate against any employee because the employee has:
(1) Notified the employer of an alleged violation of such statute or the AEA of 1954;
(2) Refused to engage in any practice made unlawful by such statute or the AEA of 1954, if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer; or
(3) Testified or is about to testify before Congress or at any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of such statute or the AEA of 1954.
(d)(1) Every employer subject to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, shall prominently post and keep posted in any place of employment to which the whistleblower provisions of the Act apply, a fully legible copy of the notice prepared by OSHA, printed as appendix A to this part, or a notice approved by the Assistant Secretary that contains substantially the same provisions and explains the whistleblower provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part. Copies of the notice prepared by OSHA may be obtained from the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, from local OSHA offices, or from OSHA's Web site at
(2) Where the notice required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section has not been posted, the requirement in § 24.103(d)(2) that a complaint be filed with the Assistant Secretary within 180
(e) This part shall have no application to any employee who, acting without direction from his or her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a) or the AEA of 1954.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Under the Energy Reorganization Act, within 180 days after an alleged violation of the Act occurs (
(e)
(a) Upon receipt of a complaint in the investigating office, the Assistant Secretary will notify the respondent of the filing of the complaint by providing the respondent (or the respondent's legal counsel if respondent is represented by counsel) with a copy of the complaint, redacted, if necessary, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a,
(b) Within 20 days of receipt of the notice of the filing of the complaint provided under paragraph (a) of this section, the respondent may submit to the Assistant Secretary a written statement and any affidavits or documents substantiating its position. Within the same 20 days, the respondent may request a meeting with the Assistant Secretary to present its position.
(c) Throughout the investigation, the agency will provide to the complainant (or the complainant's legal counsel if complainant is represented by counsel) a copy of all of respondent's submissions to the agency that are responsive to the complainant's whistleblower complaint. Before providing such materials to the complainant, the agency will redact them, if necessary, in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a,
(d) Investigations will be conducted in a manner that protects the confidentiality of any person who provides information on a confidential basis, other than the complainant, in accordance with part 70 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(e)
(1) A complaint of alleged violation will be dismissed unless the complainant has made a prima facie showing that protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.
(2) The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing as follows:
(i) The employee engaged in a protected activity;
(ii) The respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in the protected activity;
(iii) The employee suffered an adverse action; and
(iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.
(3) The complainant will be considered to have met the required showing if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to give rise to an inference that the respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.
(4) The complaint will be dismissed if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the respondent would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the complainant's protected activity.
(f)
(1) A complaint of alleged violation will be dismissed unless the complainant has made a prima facie showing that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.
(2) The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing as follows:
(i) The employee engaged in a protected activity;
(ii) The respondent knew or suspected, actually or constructively, that the employee engaged in the protected activity;
(iii) The employee suffered an adverse action; and
(iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.
(3) For purposes of determining whether to investigate, the complainant will be considered to have met the required burden if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet the required showing,
(4) Notwithstanding a finding that a complainant has made a prima facie showing, as required by this section, an investigation of the complaint will not be conducted or will be discontinued if the respondent, pursuant to the procedures provided in this paragraph, demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the complainant's protected behavior or conduct.
(5) If the respondent fails to make a timely response or fails to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the behavior protected by the Act, the Assistant Secretary will proceed with the investigation. The investigation will proceed whenever it is necessary or appropriate to confirm or verify the information provided by the respondent.
(a) After considering all the relevant information collected during the investigation, the Assistant Secretary will issue, within 30 days of filing of the complaint, written findings as to whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has retaliated against the complainant in violation of any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a).
(1) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, he or she shall accompany the findings with an order providing relief to the complainant. The order shall include, where appropriate, a requirement that the respondent abate the violation; reinstate the complainant to his or her former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions and privileges of the complainant's employment; pay compensatory damages; and, under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, pay exemplary damages, where appropriate. At the complainant's request the order shall also assess against the respondent the complainant's costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) reasonably incurred in connection with the filing of the complaint.
(2) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that a violation has not occurred, the Assistant Secretary will notify the parties of that finding.
(b) The findings and order will be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all parties of record (and each party's legal counsel if the party is represented by counsel). The findings and order will inform the parties of their right to file objections and to request a hearing and provide the address of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The Assistant Secretary will file a copy of the original complaint and a copy of the findings and order with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor.
(c) The findings and order will be effective 30 days after receipt by the respondent (or the respondent's legal counsel if the respondent is represented by counsel) or on the compliance date set forth in the order, whichever is later, unless an objection and/or a request for a hearing has been filed as provided at § 24.106.
(a) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and order must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and order pursuant to paragraph (b) of § 24.105. The objection and/or request for a hearing must be in writing and state whether the objection is to the findings and/or the order. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, 800 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001, and copies of the objections must be mailed at the same time to the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
(b) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the order will be stayed. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the order, the findings and order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
(a) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure and the rules of evidence for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at part 18 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly
(c) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated, and a single hearing will be conducted.
(a)(1) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, he or she may participate as a party or participate as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an administrative law judge, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.
(2) Copies of documents in all cases, whether or not the Assistant Secretary is participating in the proceeding, must be sent to the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
(b) The Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Energy, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceedings, at the respective agency's discretion. At the request of the interested Federal agency, copies of all pleadings in a case must be sent to the Federal agency, whether or not the agency is participating in the proceeding.
(a) The decision of the ALJ will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order pertaining to the remedies provided in paragraph (c) of this section, as appropriate.
(b)(1) In cases arising under the ERA, a determination that a violation has occurred may only be made if the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint. If the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint, relief may not be ordered if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity.
(2) In cases arising under the six environmental statutes listed in § 24.100(a), a determination that a violation has occurred may only be made if the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint. If the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint, relief may not be ordered if the respondent demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected activity.
(c) Neither the Assistant Secretary's determination to dismiss a complaint without completing an investigation pursuant to § 24.104(e) nor the Assistant Secretary's determination to proceed with an investigation is subject to review by the ALJ, and a complaint may not be remanded for the completion of an investigation or for additional findings on the basis that a determination to dismiss was made in error. Rather, if there otherwise is jurisdiction, the ALJ will hear the case on the merits or dispose of the matter without a hearing if the facts and circumstances warrant.
(d)(1) If the ALJ concludes that the respondent has violated the law, the order shall direct the respondent to take appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that employment, and compensatory damages. In cases arising under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act, exemplary damages may also be awarded when appropriate. At the request of the complainant, the ALJ shall assess against the respondent, all costs and expenses (including attorney fees) reasonably incurred.
(2) In cases brought under the Energy Reorganization Act, when an ALJ issues a decision that the complaint has merit and orders the relief prescribed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the relief ordered, with the exception of compensatory damages, shall be effective immediately upon receipt, whether or not a petition for review is filed with the ARB.
(3) If the ALJ determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint.
(e) The decision will be served upon all parties to the proceeding, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards. Any ALJ's decision issued under any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a) will be effective 10 business days after the date of the decision unless a timely petition for review has been filed with the ARB. An ALJ's order issued under the Energy Reorganization Act will be effective immediately upon receipt, except for that portion of the order awarding any compensatory damages.
(a) Any party desiring to seek review, including judicial review, of a decision of the ALJ must file a written petition for review with the ARB, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210, which has been delegated the authority to act for the Secretary and issue final decisions under this part. The decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to this section, a timely petition for review is filed with the ARB and the ARB accepts the case for review. The parties should identify in their petitions for review the legal conclusions or orders to which they object, or the objections will ordinarily be deemed waived. A petition must be filed within 10 business days of the date of the decision of the ALJ. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication will be considered to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt. The petition must be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge at the time it is filed with the ARB. Copies of the petition for review and all briefs must be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
(b) If a timely petition for review is filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and the ARB, within 30 days of the filing of the petition, issues an order notifying the parties that the case has been accepted for review, the decision of the ALJ will be inoperative unless and until the ARB issues an order adopting the decision, except that an order by an ALJ issued under the Energy Reorganization Act, other than that portion of the order awarding
(c) The final decision of the ARB will be issued within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. The decision will be served upon all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge by mail. The final decision will also be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, even if the Assistant Secretary is not a party.
(d) If the ARB concludes that the respondent has violated the law, the final order will order the respondent to take appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former position, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, and compensatory damages. In cases arising under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act, exemplary damages may also be awarded when appropriate. At the request of the complainant, the ARB will assess against the respondent all costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) reasonably incurred.
(e) If the ARB determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint.
(a) At any time prior to the filing of objections to the findings and/or order, a complainant may withdraw his or her complaint under any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a) by filing a written withdrawal with the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary will then determine whether to approve the withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary will notify the respondent of the approval of any withdrawal. If the complaint is withdrawn because of settlement under the Energy Reorganization Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or the Toxic Substances Control Act, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. Parties to settlements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act are encouraged to submit their settlements for approval. After the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, a complainant may not withdraw his or her complaint.
(b) The Assistant Secretary may withdraw his or her findings and/or order, at any time before the expiration of the 30-day objection period described in § 24.106, provided that no objection has yet been filed, and substitute new findings and/or a new order. The date of the receipt of the substituted findings and/or order will begin a new 30-day objection period.
(c) At any time before the Assistant Secretary's findings or order become final, a party may withdraw its objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings or order by filing a written withdrawal with the ALJ. If a case is on review with the ARB, a party may withdraw its petition for review of an ALJ's decision at any time before that decision becomes final by filing a written withdrawal with the ARB. The ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will determine whether to approve the withdrawal of the objections or the petition for review. If the ALJ approves a request to withdraw objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings or order, and there are no other pending objections, the Assistant Secretary's findings and order will become the final order of the Secretary. If the ARB approves a request to withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ decision, and there are no other pending petitions for review of that decision, the ALJ's decision will become the final order of the Secretary. If the objections are withdrawn because of settlement under the Energy Reorganization Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or the Toxic Substances Control Act, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(d)(1)
(2)
(e) Any settlement approved by the Assistant Secretary, the administrative law judge, or the ARB will constitute the final order of the Secretary and may be enforced pursuant to § 24.113.
(a) Except as provided under subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, within 60 days after the issuance by the ARB of a final order of the Secretary under § 24.110, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation. A final order of the ARB is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
(b) Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, within 120 days after the issuance by the ARB of a final order of the Secretary under § 24.110, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
(c) Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, within 90 days after the issuance by the ARB of a final order of the Secretary under § 24.110, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
(d) Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, after the issuance by
(e) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the administrative law judge, will be transmitted by the ARB to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of the court.
Whenever any person has failed to comply with an order by an ALJ issued under the Energy Reorganization Act, with the exception of any award of compensatory damages, or with a final order of the Secretary, including final orders approving settlement agreements as provided under § 24.111(d), the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred. Whenever any person has failed to comply with an order by an ALJ issued under the Energy Reorganization Act, with the exception of any award of compensatory damages, or with a final order of the Secretary under either the Energy Reorganization Act or the Clean Air Act, the person on whose behalf the order was issued also may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred.
(a) If there is no final order of the Secretary, one year has passed since the filing of a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for
(b) Fifteen days in advance of filing a complaint in Federal court, a complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending upon where the proceeding is pending, a notice of his or her intention to file such complaint. The notice must be served on all parties to the proceeding. A copy of the notice must be served on the Regional Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. The complainant shall file and serve a copy of the district court complaint on the above as soon as possible after the district court complaint has been filed with the court.
In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of this part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue any orders that justice or the administration of any of the statutes listed in § 24.100(a) requires.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District is temporarily staying (suspending) reporting requirements under the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) established by 33 CFR 165.921 for barges loaded with certain dangerous cargoes (CDC barges) in that portion of the Illinois Waterway System located in the Ninth Coast Guard District. During this suspension, the Coast Guard will analyze future reporting needs and evaluate possible changes in CDC reporting requirements. A final rule will either lift the suspension and restore the obligation of the affected public to comply with the existing reporting requirements, modify those requirements, or repeal the RNA. This suspension of the CDC reporting requirements in no way relieves towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges in the RNA from their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement reporting obligations currently in effect under other regulations or placed into effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.
Effective midnight January 15, 2011, 33 CFR 165.921(d)-(h) are stayed until midnight January 15, 2013.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0003 and are available online by going to
If you have questions about this temporary rule, call or e-mail LCDR Ted Fowles, Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6010, 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The contract for the current CDC barge reporting system at the Inland River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC) was extended to January 2011. In late December 2010 it was determined that the IRVMC reporting requirements would be suspended for a two-year period beginning at midnight January 15, 2011. As of January 16, 2011, the Coast Guard will have no way to receive and process reports. The short time span between late December and January 15 makes it impracticable to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) about suspension of the reporting requirements of 33 CFR 165.921 or to take public comments on the same. We believe prior notice and comment is unnecessary because we expect the affected public will have no objection to the temporary suspension of regulatory requirements. Prior notice and comment is also contrary to the public interest because there is no public purpose served by continuing to require reports when there is no mechanism for receiving or processing those reports.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a substantive rule that relieves a restriction may be made effective less than 30 days after publication. This temporary final rule, suspending the reporting requirements and thereby relieving the regulatory restriction on towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers provided by 33 CFR 165.921, takes effect at midnight on January 15, 2011, less than 30 days after publication.
The legal basis for this rulemaking is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas, under 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; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. An RNA is a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established, to control vessel traffic in a place determined to have hazardous conditions. 33 CFR 165.10; Commandant Instruction Manual M16704.3A, 1-6.
The purpose of this temporary final rule is to suspend the reporting requirements for CDC barges imposed by the RNA created in 33 CFR 165.921. This temporary rule relieves the towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from the reporting requirements for a two-year period.
During the suspension of reporting requirements, towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges will be relieved of their obligation to report their CDCs under 33 CFR 165.921(d)-(h). This suspension in no way relieves towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement reporting obligations currently in effect under other regulations or placed into effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.
We developed this temporary final rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule is temporary and limited in nature by suspending CDC barge reporting requirements during a two-year period, creating no undue delay to vessel traffic in the regulated area.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some which may be small entities: owners or operators of CDC barges intending to transit that portion of the Illinois Waterway System located in the Ninth Coast Guard District during this two-year period. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on those entities or a substantial number of any small entities for the following reason. This rule suspends reporting requirements for two years.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves a two-year suspension of the reporting requirements in an RNA for CDC barges.
This temporary rule suspends the reporting requirements established for CDC barges transiting that portion of the Illinois Waterway System located in the Ninth Coast Guard District. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Enforcement of Regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 daily from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on January 18-22, 2011; January 24-26, 2011; January 31, 2011; February 1-5, 2011; February 7-12, 2011; and on February 14-19, 2011. This enforcement action will also occur from 7 a.m. on January 27, 2011 through 7 a.m. on January 29, 2011. This action is necessary to protect the waterways, waterway users, and vessels from hazards associated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' operational and safety testing of the dispersal barrier IIB, which helps control the spread of aquatic nuisance species that have the potential of devastating the waters of the Great Lakes.
During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.T09.0166 will be enforced from 7 a.m. on January 18, 2011 through 5 p.m. on February 19, 2011.
If you have questions on this notice, call or e-mail CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth Coast Guard District, telephone 216-902-6045, e-mail address
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR § 165.T09-0166, on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 daily from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on January 18-22, 2011; January 24-26, 2011; January 31, 2011; February 1-5, 2011; February 7-12, 2011; and on February 14-19, 2011. This enforcement action will also occur from 7 a.m. on January 27, 2011 until 7 a.m. on January 29, 2011.
This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dispersal barrier IIB operational testing poses risks to life and property. The combination of vessel traffic and electric current in the water makes the controlling of vessels through the impacted portion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal necessary to prevent injury and property loss.
In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.T09-0166 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision adds the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and related reference conditions and updates the list of appendices under “Documents Incorporated by Reference.” Virginia's SIP revision for the NAAQS for ozone is consistent with the 8-hour Federal standard. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on March 21, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by February 17, 2011. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0881 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by e-mail at
On September 27, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision amends the existing SIP to add the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and related reference conditions.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies that EPA must reevaluate the appropriateness of each of the NAAQS every five years. As part of the process, EPA reviewed the latest health-based research and determined that a revised NAAQS for ozone was necessary to protect public health. EPA revised the 8-hour standard to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased protection for children and other “at risk” populations against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects. EPA promulgated this more stringent NAAQS for ozone on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436).
On September 27, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of an amendment which includes the revised ambient air quality standard for ozone, and related reference conditions. Virginia's revision incorporates the Federal 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the Code of Virginia (9VAC5 Chapter 30). In addition, the list of appendices to 40 CFR Part 51 is being updated under documents incorporated by reference (9VAC5-20-21).
The following are the specific sections that are being modified or added:
• 9VAC5-20-21: Documents incorporated by reference (modified).
• 9VAC5-30-55: Ozone (8-hour, 0.08 ppm) (modified).
• 9VAC5-30-56: Ozone (8-hour, 0.075 ppm) (added).
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides for, subject to certain conditions, an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a State agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a State audit privilege and immunity law can affect only State enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the State plan, independently of any State enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, State audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA is approving Virginia's SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and related reference conditions, as well as the updated list of appendices to 40 CFR part 51 under “Documents Incorporated by Reference.” EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct Final rule; amendments.
The EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. The final rules were published on September 9, 2010. This direct final action amends certain regulatory text to clarify compliance dates and clarifies that the previously issued emission limits that were changed in the September 9, 2010, action remain in effect until sources are required to comply with the revised limits. We are also correcting two minor typographical errors in the regulatory text to the September 9, 2010 action.
The direct final rule is effective on March 21, 2011, without further notice, unless EPA receives significant adverse written comment by February 17, 2011, or if a public hearing is requested by February 2, 2011. If significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Keith Barnett; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02); Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address:
On September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54970), EPA issued final amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Review of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. EPA subsequently determined that the final rule amendments were unclear in certain areas. First, compliance dates are unclear for some sources. Second, the final rule amendments did not make clear that emission limits currently in effect for existing sources remain in effect until the compliance date of the September 9, 2010, emission standards. Third, we inadvertently omitted a required rule reference in an incorporation by reference provision. Finally, this direct final rule will correct a typographical error in Table 1 of § 63.1343(b). This action makes these clarifications and corrects these errors.
We are issuing the amendments as a direct final rule, without a prior proposal, because we view the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
This direct final rule changes the following provisions. In § 63.1351(b) we establish a compliance date for existing sources of three years from publication of the final rule in the
In establishing the September 9, 2010, standards for existing cement kilns, it was not our intention to remove the existing emissions limits for these kilns adopted by EPA in 1999 and 2006. No such change was proposed, discussed, or contemplated by EPA or by any commenter. However, due to a drafting error, these provisions were inadvertently deleted. In this action we are restoring the kiln, clinker cooler, and raw material dryer emissions limits as they existed prior to the September 9, 2010, rule amendments. This includes both the new and existing source emissions limits that existed prior to September 9, 2010. Kilns that are now defined as existing sources for the mercury and THC limits promulgated on September 9, 2010, will
In the Incorporation by Reference section of Part 60 subpart A, we inadvertently omitted a reference to § 60.257(b)(3), which was previously incorporated in paragraph § 60.17(h)(4). In this notice, we are adding this reference to that paragraph.
Finally, on Table 1 of § 63.1343 entry 16 in the column titled, “And if it is located,” we failed to include the words “At a major source” in entry 16. We are adding this language to the table.
Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action adds clarifications and corrections the final standards. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010) under the provisions of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has no more than 750 employees depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of this direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it does not add any additional regulatory requirements.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This direct final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This final action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on them.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final rules.
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing the regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
This direct final rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The final rule imposes no new requirements on the one Tribally owned facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This action does not involve changes to the technical standards related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629) (February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The direct final rule does not involve special consideration of environmental justice-related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not change any regulatory requirements. This action merely corrects and clarifies existing requirements.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for § 60.56c(b)(4) of subpart Ec, § 60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of subpart F, § 60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, §§ 60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2) of subpart Ja, § 60.257(b)(3) of Subpart Y, tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and § 60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(b)(1) * * *
(e) Emissions limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any source defined as an existing source in § 63.1351, and that was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2 to this section until September 9, 2013.
(d) * * *
(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow if applicable). During each quarter of source operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow).
(a) The compliance date for any affected existing source subject to any rule requirements that were in effect before December 20, 2006, is:
(1) June 14, 2002, for sources that commenced construction before or on March 24, 1998, or
(2) June 14, 1999 or startup for sources that commenced construction after March 24, 1998.
(b) The compliance date for any affected existing source subject to any rule requirements that became effective on December 20, 2006, is:
(1) December 21, 2009, for sources that commenced construction after December 2, 2005 and before or on December 20, 2006, or
(2) Startup for sources that commenced construction after December 20, 2006.
(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the requirements that became effective on November 8, 2010 will be September 9, 2013.
(d) The compliance date for new sources is November 9, 2010 or startup, whichever is later.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents.
These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting to determine the clearance and any wire bundle damage between wire bundle W443 and the left forward rudder quadrant, followed by adjusting the minimum clearance between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant, and repairing any wire bundle damage. This proposed AD results from reports of contact between wire bundle W443 and the left forward rudder quadrant. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant. Damage to the wire bundle could result in uncommanded stabilizer trim and autopilot disconnects due to shorted wires from contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant, potentially affecting the capability of the flight crew during high work load and consequently reducing control of the airplane. Restricted free movement of the rudder quadrant at full right rudder travel would reduce controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dean Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6409; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of interference between the left forward rudder quadrant and wire bundle W443 during full right rudder travel. This condition was found on an airplane during a pre-flight check when a pilot reported interference during full-right rudder travel. Twenty airplanes out of 32 that were inspected were found to have non-conforming installations for wire bundle W443, which increase the likelihood for interference during full right rudder movement. Investigation showed that while the interference condition was not present on the 20 airplanes, the wire bundle was installed with too much slack between clamps. Restricted control surface movement can occur from insufficient clearance between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant, and if the wire bundle is damaged, uncommanded stabilizer or autopilot disconnects could occur due to shorted wires from contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant, potentially affecting the capability of the flight crew during high work load and consequently reducing control of the airplane. Restricted free movement of the rudder quadrant at full right rudder travel, if not corrected, would reduce controllability of the airplane.
We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for a detailed inspection of wire bundle W443 for damage and repairing any damage, and measuring and adjusting the minimum clearance
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 870 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by March 4, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
(e) This AD results from reports of contact between wire bundle W443 and the left forward rudder quadrant. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant. Damage to the wire bundle could result in uncommanded stabilizer trim and autopilot disconnects due to shorted wires from contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant, potentially affecting the capability of the flight crew during high work load and consequently reducing control of the airplane. Restricted free movement of the rudder quadrant at full right rudder travel would reduce controllability of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of wire bundle W443 for damage and measure for sufficient clearance in accordance with Part 1 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010. If the wire bundle is undamaged, and sufficient clearance exists, no further action is required by this AD.
(h) If the clearance of wire bundle W443 in the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD is found to be insufficient, before further flight adjust the wire bundle clearance in accordance with Part 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010.
(i) If wire bundle W443 is found to be damaged in the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight repair the damaged wire bundle and adjust the wire bundle clearance in accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010.
(j) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, dated March 15, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dean Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6409; fax (425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to:
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the specified Eurocopter model helicopters. This proposed AD would require an initial and recurring inspections of the inner angles and flanges of the 9-degree frame on the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) sides for a crack. If a crack is found, this proposed AD would require, before further flight, repairing the frame. This proposed AD is prompted by the discovery of a crack in the 9-degree frame of a Eurocopter Model AS-365N2 helicopter. These cracks could also develop on the other specified model helicopters because they contain the same 9-degree frame. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect a crack in the 9-degree frame to prevent loss of structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2011.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4005, telephone (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3710, or at
You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at
Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5130, fax (817) 222-5961.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the caption
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency AD No. 2010-0064-E, dated April 1, 2010, which supersedes EASA Emergency AD No. 2009-0125-E, dated June 12, 2009, and the correction dated June 15, 2009, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified model helicopters. EASA advises that during a major inspection a crack was found in the 9-degree frame of an AS-365N2 helicopter, which had logged a total of 10,786 flight hours. The crack was located 230 millimeters above the cabin floor and had grown over a large section of the 9-degree frame on the RH side. EASA states that analysis shows that the time required for initiation of a crack in this area varies according to the weight and balance data of the different aircraft versions.
Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 1, dated March 31, 2010, containing the following three numbers: No. 05.00.57 for FAA type-certificated Model SA-365N, N1 and AS-365N2 and N3 helicopters and for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model AS365F, Fs, Fi, and K helicopters; No. 05.00.25 for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model AS565AA, MA, MB, SA, SB, and UB helicopters; and No. 05.39 for FAA type-certificated Model SA-366G1 helicopters and for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model SA366GA helicopters. The EASB specifies checking at regular intervals for a crack
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in their AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. This proposed AD would require an initial and recurring inspections of the inner angles and flanges of the 9-degree frame on the RH and LH sides for a crack. If a crack is found, this proposed AD would require, before further flight, repairing the frame.
We refer to “flight hours” as “hours time-in-service.” We do not refer to the EASB for accomplishment instructions. We do not require contacting the manufacturer for approved repair instructions. We do not allow flight with a known crack. Therefore, we do not revise our required action based on the length and specific location of the crack on the 9-degree frame. We refer to the 9-degree frame rather than the No. 9 frame.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 19 helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work hours for about 12 inspections a year per helicopter. It would take about 24 hours to repair a helicopter frame. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $3,350. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $68,920 for the fleet, assuming 2 helicopters require repair each year.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD) to read as follows:
To detect a crack in the 9-degree frame to prevent loss of structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:
(a) On or before the affected model helicopters reach the hours time-in-service (TIS) listed in Table 1 of this AD or within 10 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, unless accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, using a 10X or higher magnifying glass, inspect the inner angles and flanges of the 9-degree fuselage frame on the right hand and left hand sides for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 and as shown in Figure 2 of this AD.
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2010 (EASB), containing the following 3 numbers: No. 05.00.57 for FAA type-certificated Model SA-365N and N1 and AS-365N2 and N3 helicopters and for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model AS365F, Fs, Fi, and K helicopters; No. 05.00.25 for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model AS565AA, MA, MB, SA, SB, and UB helicopters; and No. 05.39 for FAA type-certificated Model SA-366G1 helicopters and for military, not FAA type-certificated, Model SA366GA helicopters. This EASB is not incorporated by reference but contains additional information about the subject of this AD. Actions previously done by following the procedures of this EASB are considered acceptable for complying with the corresponding actions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.
(b) If you find a crack, before further flight, repair the frame. Repairing a frame does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
(c) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas, 76137; telephone: (817) 222-5130 fax: 817-222-5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(d) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 5311: Fuselage Main, Frame.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2010-0064-E, dated April 1, 2010.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD would require installing foreign object debris (FOD) rubber shields over the primary and secondary external power connectors for certain airplanes, and wrapping fire-resistant silicone tape around the hydraulic tube for certain other airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a fire in the main equipment center due to failure of an external power connector, which caused high-temperature arcing and subsequent splatter of molten copper on an adjacent hydraulic tube, creating a hole in the tube and spraying hydraulic fluid into the power connector, resulting in a fire. In addition there were several reports of overheating or arcing of external power connectors, and one report of a fire due to arcing caused by FOD. We are proposing this AD to prevent FOD from entering the primary and secondary external power connectors, which could result in overheating or arcing and consequent fire in the main equipment center.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590; e-mail:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of a fire in the main equipment center due to failure of an external power connector, which caused high-temperature arcing and subsequent splatter of molten copper on an adjacent hydraulic tube, creating a hole in the tube and spraying hydraulic fluid into the power connector, resulting in a fire. In addition there were several reports of overheating or arcing of external power connectors, and one report of a fire due to arcing caused by FOD. During one incident a fire occurred on an airplane in the factory at the secondary external power connector location. Investigation revealed that the overheating and arcing events were caused by FOD; during a maintenance check a washer was found inside the external power connector. FOD in the primary and secondary external power connectors could result in overheating or arcing and consequent fire in the main equipment center.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007 (for Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER airplanes); and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010 (for Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER airplanes that require rubber FOD shields).
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007, describes procedures for wrapping self-fusing fire-resistant silicone tape around the alternate extension hydraulic tube section of the nose landing gear adjacent to the P30 panel.
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010, describes procedures for installing new FOD rubber shields over the primary and secondary external power connectors at approximately station 350 in the main equipment center.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010, does not provide a compliance time for installing new FOD rubber shields; however, this proposed AD requires that installation be done within 36 months after the effective date of this AD. We considered the manufacturer's
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 126 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) We must receive comments by March 4, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category.
(d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 29: Hydraulic power; and 24: Electrical power.
(e) This AD was prompted by a report of a fire in the main equipment center due to failure of an external power connector, which caused high-temperature arcing and subsequent splatter of molten copper on an adjacent hydraulic tube, creating a hole in the tube and spraying hydraulic fluid into the power connector, resulting in a fire. In addition there were several reports of overheating or arcing of external power connectors, and one report of a fire due to arcing caused by foreign object damage (FOD). We are issuing this AD to prevent FOD from entering the primary and secondary external power connectors, which could result in overheating or arcing, and consequent fire in the main equipment center.
(f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010: Install FOD rubber shields over the primary and secondary external power connectors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007: Wrap fire-resistant silicone tape around the hydraulic tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007.
(h) Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007, does not identify the dimensions of the electrical tape which is installed on the hydraulic tube; those dimensions should be measured in inches.
(i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, dated July 12, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
(k) For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590; e-mail:
(l) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Model 757 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting certain power feeder wire bundles for damage, inspecting the support clamps for these wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would require additional inspections for certain airplanes. This proposed AD results from a report that a power feeder wire bundle chafed against the number six auxiliary slat track, causing electrical wires in the bundle to arc, which damaged both the auxiliary slat track and power feeder wires. We are proposing this AD to prevent arcing that could be a possible ignition source for leaked flammable fluids, which could result in a fire. Arcing could also result in a loss of power from the generator connected to the power feeder wire bundle, and consequent loss of systems, which could reduce controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6441; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 18, 2007, we issued AD 2007-03-01, Amendment 39-14912 (72 FR 3939, January 29, 2007), for certain Model 757 airplanes. That AD requires inspecting certain power feeder wire bundles for damage, inspecting the support clamps for those wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and performing corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from a report that a power feeder wire bundle chafed against the number six auxiliary slat track, causing electrical wires in the bundle to arc, which damaged both the auxiliary slat track and power feeder wires. We issued that AD to prevent arcing that could be a possible ignition source for leaked flammable fluids, which could result in a fire. Arcing could also result in a loss of power from the generator connected to the power feeder wire bundle, and consequent loss of systems, which could reduce controllability of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2007-03-01, we have learned that Boeing inadvertently identified certain airplanes with incorrect group numbers in Boeing
We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2006; Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008; and Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes). Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2006, corrects a compliance recommendation and adds more part number data applicable to the spacer. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008, corrects a part number and adds AD data. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009, contains a change in the airplane group and configuration data, adds maintenance zones, and adds another optional fastener to plug the hole in the bracket. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009, states that additional work is required for airplanes that have been moved from Group 2 to Group 1, Configuration 2. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009, states that these airplanes require a general visual inspection to make sure they have support clamps for the power feeder wire bundles W3312 and W3412 at front spar station 148.90 and clamps installed on the lower brackets on the left wings as shown in Figure 3 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009.
We have also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2006; Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008; and Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes). Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 3, dated October 3, 2006, corrects a compliance recommendation and adds more part number data applicable to the spacer.
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008, regrouped certain airplanes from Group 1 to Group 2. For this group of newly moved airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008, regrouped airplanes having variable numbers NL101-NL104, NL141, and NL601-NL607 from Group 1 to Group 2 and added wire bundle W5784 and W5786 data. The airplanes moved to Group 2 require additional work: Doing a general visual inspection for damage (including but not limited to chafing) of wire bundles W5784 and W5786, doing a general visual inspection of the support clamps for those power feeder wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and doing corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include repairing damage of the power feeder wire bundles, installing in the correct hole of the attach bracket any support clamp found installed elsewhere, installing a spacer if one is not already installed, and installing a rivet to plug the open hole in the attach bracket.
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009, adds affected maintenance zones and an optional rivet to plug the open hole in the bracket.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2007-03-01 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We have removed the “Service Bulletin Reference” paragraph from this NPRM. (That paragraph was identified as paragraph (f) in AD 2007-03-01). Instead, we have provided the full service bulletin citations throughout this NPRM.
There are approximately 902 Model 757 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 631 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14912 (72 FR 3939, January 29, 2007) and adding the following new AD:
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 4, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-03-01, Amendment 39-14912.
(c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009.
(2) Model 757-300 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: Electrical power.
(e) This AD results from a report that a power feeder wire bundle chafed against the number six auxiliary slat track, causing electrical wires in the bundle to arc, which damaged both the auxiliary slat track and power feeder wires. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent arcing that could be a possible ignition source for leaked flammable fluids, which could result in a fire. Arcing could also result in a loss of power from the generator connected to the power feeder wire bundle, and consequent loss of systems, which could reduce controllability of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) For Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes; and for Model 757-300 series airplanes identified as Group 1 airplanes in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009: Within 24 months after March 5, 2007 (the effective date for AD 2007-03-01), perform a general visual inspection for damage (including but not limited to chafing) of power feeder wire bundles W3312 and W3412 at front spar station 148.90 in the left and right wings, and a general visual inspection of the support clamps for those power feeder wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions. Do these actions by doing all of the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes); may be used.
(h) Inspections and corrective actions done before March 5, 2007, in accordance with the service information listed in Table 2 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) For Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes on which inspections have been done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with any service bulletin specified in Table 3 of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine that the clamp is installed on the lower bracket on the left wing as shown in Figure 3 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009. If any clamp is missing, before further flight, install a clamp on the lower bracket on the left wing, in accordance with Figure 3 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0105, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009.
(j) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection for damage (including, but not limited to chafing) of power feeder wire bundles W5784 and W5786 at front spar station 148.90 in the left and right wings, and a general visual inspection of the support clamps for those power feeder wire bundles to determine whether the clamps are properly installed, and, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 5, dated July 30, 2009.
(k) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-24-0106, Revision 4, dated January 4, 2008, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(l) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information listed in Table 4 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, provided that power feeder wire bundles W5784 and W5786 were inspected and all applicable correction actions were done.
(m) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information listed in Table 5 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(n) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, provided that the generator served by the power feeder wire bundles specified in paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, is disconnected.
(o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6441; fax (425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to:
(2) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-03-01, Amendment 39-14912, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(3) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-146097-09) that was published in the
Kathryn Holman, (202) 622-3840 (not a toll-free number).
The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under sections 6049 and 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-146097-09) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of publichearing (REG-146097-09), which was the subject of FR Doc. 2011-82, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 1105, column 3, in the preamble, under the caption
2. On page 1107, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “Commentsand Public Hearing”, fourth paragraph of the column, second line, the language “for April 28, 2011, beginning at 10 a.m.” is corrected to read “for April 27, 2011, beginning at 10 a.m.”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains a proposed regulation relating to the payment of rewards under section 7623(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and awards under section 7623(b). The guidance is necessary to clarify the definition of proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds under section 7623. This regulation provides needed guidance to the general public as well as officers and employees of the IRS who review claims under section 7623.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 18, 2011.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-131151-10), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-131151-10), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulation, Kirsten N. Witter, at (202) 927-0900; concerning submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, Richard A. Hurst at
Section 7623(a) provides the Secretary with the authority to pay such sums as he deems necessary from proceeds of amounts collected based on information provided to the Secretary when the information relates to the detection of underpayments of tax or the detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws or conniving at the same. Section 7623(b) provides the Secretary with the authority to pay awards to individuals if the Secretary proceeds with an administrative or judicial action described in section 7623(a) that results in collected proceeds based on information provided by the individuals. Section 301.7623-1(a) currently provides that proceeds of amounts (other than interest) collected by reason of the information provided include both amounts collected because of the information provided and amounts collected prior to receipt of the information if the information leads to the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid. 63 FR 44777.
Section 301.7623-1(a) was promulgated prior to amendments of section 7623 as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, division A, section 406, Public Law 109-432, 120 Stat. 2958. The amendments designated the existing section 7623 as section 7623(a). As originally enacted, section 7623 provided that rewards shall be paid “from the proceeds of amounts (other than interest) collected by reason of the information provided z5 * * * ” The 2006 amendments to section 7623 struck the “other than interest” language. The amendments also added section 7623(b), which provides that in certain cases individuals shall receive an award of at least 15% but not more than 30% of the collected proceeds resulting from the action with which the Secretary proceeded based on information brought to the attention of the Secretary by the individual. The 2006 amendments to section 7623 also created the IRS Whistleblower Office, which is responsible for administering a whistleblower program within the IRS.
This regulation clarifies the definitions of proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds for purposes of section 7623 and that the provisions of Treas. Reg. § 301.7623-1(a) concerning refund prevention claims are applicable to claims under section 7623(a) and (b). In clarifying the definitions of proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds, this regulation provides that the reduction of an overpayment credit balance is also considered proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds under section 7623.
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
Before this proposed regulation is adopted as a final regulation, consideration will be given to any electronic or written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be published in the
The principal author of this regulation is Kirsten N. Witter, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (General Legal Services).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 301.7623-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7623. * * *
(a)
(2)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) on September 16, 2009, as supplemented with a technical analysis submitted for parallel-processing by DNREC on December 9, 2010, to address significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another State with respect to the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before February 17, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1027 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to disapprove a revision to the Delaware SIP submitted by DNREC on September 16, 2009, as supplemented with a technical analysis submitted by DNREC for parallel-processing on December 9, 2010, to satisfy the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to interstate transport in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2006 PM
It should be noted that this proposed rulemaking action addresses only those portions of Delaware's September 16, 2009 submittal which address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another State with respect to the 2006 PM
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the 24-hour average PM
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On September 25, 2009, EPA issued its “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM
As identified in EPA's 2009 Guidance, the “good neighbor” provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State
In its 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from States pertaining to the “significant contribution” and “interfere with maintenance” requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) must contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA further indicated that the State's submission must explain whether or not emissions from the State have this impact and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated that the State's conclusion must be supported by an adequate technical analysis. EPA recommended the various types of information that could be relevant to support the State SIP submission, such as information concerning emissions in the State, meteorological conditions in the State and the potentially impacted States, monitored ambient concentrations in the State, and air quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA indicated that States should address the “interfere with maintenance” requirement independently, which requires an evaluation of impacts on areas of other States that are meeting the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (
EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in their entirety.
In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, on August 2, 2010, EPA proposed a new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the “Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone” (hereafter the Transport Rule).
The State of Delaware had not expected to be subject to or covered by the proposed Transport Rule FIP. The State's expectation that it would not be covered was based on its periodic emission inventories (PEI) for PM
On October 1, 2010, DNREC submitted timely, extensive comments to the rulemaking docket of the proposed Transport Rule FIP (
In order to meet the “three-years from promulgation due date” of September 16, 2009 for submittal of the infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 2006 PM
A. 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation,
B. 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, Control of NO
C. 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions.
Each of the above regulations imposes a level of control based upon Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and significantly reduces emissions from Delaware's largest Electric Generating Units (EGUs), industrial boilers, and peaking units. These regulations have been approved by the EPA as revisions to Delaware's SIP.
Both Delaware's entire September 16, 2009 SIP submittal and the entire December 9, 2010 supplement to the September 16, 2009 submittal are included in the rulemaking docket for today's proposed action (
On September 16, 2009, the State of Delaware submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CAA, pursuant to the 2006 PM
Delaware has determined that it has complied with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45210), EPA proposed a Transport Rule FIP that would, if finalized as proposed, identify the emission reductions needed in 32 States in the eastern United States to prohibit air pollutant emissions from sources within a State from significantly contributing to nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. The proposed Transport Rule would replace CAIR and would address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 PM
Delaware's December 9, 2010 supplemental technical analysis in support of its September 16, 2009 SIP revision includes information and data to support its assertion that the 2005 base year emission inventories that EPA used in its analysis of Delaware's contribution to downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas were flawed. Delaware asserts that the emissions inventories used by EPA were significantly higher than those Delaware submitted to EPA in its 2005 PEI. Delaware also asserts that EPA failed to consider emission reductions required by a number of Delaware rules that have been approved by EPA into the State SIP. In its supplemental technical analysis, Delaware contends, therefore, that EPA's projections of Delaware's 2012 emissions are inflated. If correct data had been used, Delaware asserts, the methodology used by EPA in the proposed Transport Rule FIP to identify States with emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM
As stated previously, DNREC's October 1, 2010 comments on the proposed Transport Rule FIP, including its documentation of the corrections that it contends should be made to the 2005 emission inventories and the 2012 projection inventories for all sectors of PM
EPA is considering the comments it received on the August 2, 2010 proposed Transport Rule FIP including those from the State of Delaware. EPA is in the process performing additional modeling and making technical adjustments to its analyses pursuant to the comments received before promulgating the final Transport Rule FIP. Final determinations regarding which States are covered by the Transport Rule FIP and what reductions are necessary in the covered States will be made in the final Transport Rule FIP. Today's rulemaking proposes to approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove Delaware's September 16, 2009 SIP submittal as supplemented on December 9, 2010. The final action on this SIP revision will take into consideration the results of the additional modeling performed and technical adjustments made by EPA pursuant to the comments received on the proposed Transport Rule FIP. Should EPA's updated modeling and the technical adjustments to our analyses lead us to conclude that the State of Delaware should not be subject to or covered by the final Transport Rule FIP, it is our intention to take final action to approve Delaware's September 16, 2009 SIP as supplemented on December 9, 2010. Should EPA's updated modeling and technical adjustments to our analyses for the Transport Rule lead us to conclude that even after consideration of all comments submitted by DNREC, the State of Delaware significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 PM
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Comments may be submitted as explained in the
EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to disapprove the portion of Delaware's SIP revision submitted on September 16, 2009 as supplemented on December 9, 2010 pursuant to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 PM
As stated previously, if in the course of reviewing and preparing responses to the comments submitted on the proposed Transport Rule including those from DNREC, EPA's additional modeling and the adjustments made to its technical analyses indicate that the State of Delaware should not be subject to or covered by the final Transport Rule FIP, it is EPA's intention to take final action to approve DNREC's September 16, 2009 SIP submission for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that
Any full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. If EPA were to conclude that the Delaware SIP revision discussed in this notice should be disapproved, the Transport Rule, when final, would be the FIP that EPA would intend to implement for the State.
Under the CAA, 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 act on State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed action under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply proposes to approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (
This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” “Policies that have Federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action.
This proposed action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to disapprove would 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
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) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action on Delaware's September 16, 2009 SIP submission, as supplemented on December 9, 2010, to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of adding the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), related reference conditions, and updating the list of appendices under “Documents Incorporated by Reference.” In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by February 17, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0881 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Adoption of 8-hour Ozone Standard and Related Reference Conditions, and Update of Appendices,” that is located in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is taking action on amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. The final rules were published on September 9, 2010. This action amends certain text in the final rules to clarify compliance dates and to restore the previously issued emission limits that we changed in the September 9, 2010 action. We are also correcting two minor typographical errors.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2011. If any one contacts EPA by February 2, 2011 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on February 7, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address:
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by February 2, 2011, a public hearing will be held on February 7, 2011. To request a public hearing contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policy and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number 919-541-0832, e-mail address:
If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 or at a nearby location.
A direct final rule identical to the proposal is published in the Rules and Regulations section of today's
If we receive significant adverse comments, we will withdraw only those provisions on which we received those comments. We will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action adds clarifications and corrections to the final standards. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010) under the provisions of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has no more than 750 employees depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it does not add any additional regulatory requirements.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on them.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule imposes no new requirements on the one Tribally owned facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (
This action does not involve changes to the technical standards related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not involve special consideration of environmental justice-related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not change any regulatory requirements, it merely corrects and clarifies existing requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on our August 18, 2009, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (
We will consider public comments received on or before February 17, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will post all comments on
Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6713. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We intend that any final action resulting from this revised proposed rule will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our amended proposed designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander that was published in the
Therefore, during this reopened comment period we request comments or information from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested party on: (1) The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander that was published in the
(1) The proposed critical habitat designation (which comprises a single critical habitat unit), as revised in this
(2) The reasons we should or should not designate the revised proposed habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
(3) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of California tiger salamander habitat, including areas that provide habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander that we did not discuss in this revised proposed critical habitat rule;
(b) Areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species which may require special management considerations or protection, that we should include in the designation and reason(s) why (
(c) Areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the species, why the areas are essential, and whether they should be included in the designation.
(4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander that would help us further refine the boundaries of critical habitat.
(5) Information that may assist us in clarifying the primary constituent elements.
(6) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the area proposed as critical habitat, as well as their possible effects on the revised proposed critical habitat.
(7) How the revised proposed critical habitat boundaries could be refined to more closely circumscribe the areas identified as containing the features essential to the species' conservation. In particular, we are interested in specific information on the southeasterly portion of the revised critical habitat that is east of Petaluma Hill Road and south of Martinez Drive, and that is delineated as a “no effect” area in Enclosure 1 (California Department of Fish and Game 2008) of the “Programmatic Biological Opinion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects that May Affect California Tiger Salamander and Three Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California” (Corps File Number 223420N) (Service 2007). To date, there have been no known detections of the salamander in this area. However, satellite imagery of the area suggests that PCEs are present within the area. In addition, the area is contiguous with other portions of the revised proposed critical habitat where breeding salamanders have been located since the development of the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy).
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other impacts of designating particular areas as critical habitat, and, in particular, any impacts on small entities (
(9) Whether any specific areas being proposed as critical habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(10) Information on any Tribal lands that occur in areas being proposed as critical habitat, including whether these lands are held in fee or trust.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
(12) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of the proposed designation of critical habitat.
(13) Information on the extent to which the description of potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (74 FR 41662; August 18, 2009) during the initial comment period from August 18, 2009, to October 19, 2009, please do not resubmit them. These comments are included in the public record for this rulemaking and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas within the proposed critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this revised proposed rule, the DEA associated with this revised proposed critical habitat designation, and the amended required determinations by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used to prepare this notice, will be available for public inspection at
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this revised proposed rule. Information on the taxonomy, distribution, life history, biology, and other information about the California tiger salamander is included in the Background section of the final rule to list the California tiger salamander as a threatened species,
We now propose revisions to the proposed critical habitat unit for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander (
On August 4, 2004, we listed the Central California population of the California tiger salamander as a threatened DPS (69 FR 47211). At that time, we reclassified the California tiger salamander as threatened throughout its range, removing the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations as separately listed DPSs (69 FR 47241).
On August 18, 2005, as a result of litigation regarding the August 4, 2004, final rule (69 FR 47211) on the reclassification of the California tiger salamander DPSs (
With respect to critical habitat, on October 13, 2004, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (
On February 29, 2008, we received a notice of intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity that challenged the Service's final designation of critical habitat, claiming that it was not based on the best available scientific information. On May 5, 2009, the Court approved a stipulated settlement agreement where the Service agreed to publish a revised proposed rule within 90 days that encompassed the same geographic area as the August 2005 proposal. The proposed rule, published on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), complies with the May 5, 2009, stipulated agreement.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
In this notice, we are revising the proposed Unit 1 (Santa Rosa Plain Unit), as described in the August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44301), and August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), proposed rules. In the August 2, 2005, proposed critical habitat rule, we identified the historic and potential range of the species in Sonoma County, utilizing historic information and all known breeding and adult locality data available at that time. Subsequently, the November 17, 2005, proposed revised rule (70 FR 69717) limited the proposed critical habitat to areas containing essential physical and biological features that were located within 0.7 mile (mi) (1.1 kilometers (km)) of known breeding sites, thereby focusing the proposed critical habitat designation on providing sufficient breeding habitat and upland habitat to maintain and sustain existing salamanders in documented breeding sites. The November 2005 proposed revision did not include other areas within the Santa Rosa Plain that contained the essential physical and biological features. Based on the May 5, 2009, stipulated settlement described above, we published a proposed critical habitat rule on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), that encompassed the same geographic areas as the original August 2, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 44301).
The purpose of this revision to the proposed critical habitat is to better delineate the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that meet the definition of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander in Sonoma County. In general, this revision involves adjusting the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat Unit 1 to better reflect the occupied and potential range of the species as reflected in the Conservation Strategy mapping criteria (Conservation Strategy Team 2005a, Appendix E), that was developed subsequent to the
As a result of this revision, the area proposed for critical habitat in Unit 1 is 50,855 ac (20,580 ha), rather than the 74,223 ac (30,037 ha) identified in the August 18, 2009, proposed rule. The revised unit is now bordered on the west by the generalized eastern boundary of the 100-year Laguna de Santa Rosa floodplain, on the south by Pepper Road (northwest of Petaluma), on the east by the foothills of the Sonoma Mountains, and on the north by Windsor Creek. The northern boundary of the revised proposed critical habitat and the non-developed portions of the eastern boundary remain very close to the previously proposed boundaries. Other boundary adjustments are described below. A small addition to the southeastern edge of Unit 1 is within the geographic range occupied by the species at the time of listing and contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. A revised map for the proposed critical habitat unit in Sonoma County is included in this notice.
The framers of the Conservation Strategy generally did not consider areas within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain as areas suitable to support salamander breeding because seasonal pools within the 100-year floodplain are subject to flooding from perennial sources (such as the Laguna de Santa Rosa), and provide a high likelihood of supporting salamander predators in pools within the floodplain. In the Conservation Strategy, periodically flooded uplands within the 100-year floodplain may be considered salamander habitat if located near predator-free breeding pools (Conservation Strategy Team 2005a, Appendix E). Occurrence information from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2010) indicates that, despite intensive focus on the salamander within the Santa Rosa Plain, to date no occurrences have been identified within the 100-year floodplain. The fact that this species has not been located within the floodplain may be due to the lack of suitable upland habitat within the floodplain during the wet season (Conservation Strategy Team 2005b, Appendix L). The Service, therefore, has determined that most of the 100-year floodplain lacks the physical and biological features and is not essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander.
To revise the proposed critical habitat boundary along the floodplain, we used a process that generalizes the floodplain boundary in order to smooth complex lines, removing the bulk of the floodplain from proposed critical habitat while retaining smaller areas along the eastern border of the floodplain. A segment of the 100-year floodplain that is located between the Stony Point Conservation Area (near Wilfred Avenue) and the Northwest Cotati Conservation Area (near Nahmens Road) is retained within the revised proposed critical habitat to reduce fragmentation of the northern and southern breeding concentrations within the unit by allowing for potential dispersal and genetic exchange. This retained segment is further bounded by Llano Road on the west and the western edge of the urban growth boundary of Cotati, California (near the northern terminus of Helman Lane), on the east.
Additionally, this revised proposed critical habitat unit no longer includes several areas of small remnant open parcels that occur between the eastern periphery of suburban Sebastopol and the western edge of the 100-year floodplain. We do not consider these areas essential for the conservation of the species because the undeveloped lands are small in size, are isolated from each other by development, are isolated by the 100-year floodplain and the Laguna de Santa Rosa from breeding habitat on the eastern side of the floodplain, are not known to be occupied, and do not contain the PCEs in the correct quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for the conservation of the species.
This revised proposed critical habitat designation no longer includes the urbanized centers of Santa Rosa, Bennett Valley, Rohnert Park, and Cotati. These urban centers consist almost exclusively of hardened, developed landscapes. The remnant natural habitat within these areas is limited to small, isolated parcels within a matrix of urban development. These areas have been removed in this revised proposal because developed areas (lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures) lack the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species according to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. We also do not consider the remnant natural habitat within these city centers as essential for the conservation of the salamander. However, areas on the periphery of urban areas remain within the revised proposed critical habitat boundary. The scale of the map we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations is not sufficient to reflect the exclusion of developed lands, while retaining open lands that provide the features essential to the conservation of the species.
Any such developed lands that have been left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this revised proposed rule are excluded by text and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat because they either do not contain the physical or biological features essential to the species or are not considered essential for the species. Therefore, when the critical habitat is finalized, a Federal action involving these undesignated lands would not trigger a section 7 consultation, nor, with respect to critical habitat, would it require an analysis to determine adverse modification in these undesignated areas, unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in the adjacent designated critical habitat.
In the southernmost region of the Santa Rosa Plain, the critical habitat unit boundary has been revised as follows. In the vicinity of Lichau Creek and Railroad Avenue, additional acreage reflects new information on the presence of salamander breeding within the area. The area south of Pepper Road, along both sides of U.S. Highway 101, is not included in the revised proposed critical habitat because we do not currently consider this area to be essential to the conservation of the species. This area has been fragmented by industrial and residential development and roadways, including the major north-south interstate highway, U.S. Highway 101. More than 20 percent of the open land generally south of Pepper Road and west of U.S. Highway 101 is delineated as 100-year floodplain for the Petaluma River. As discussed above, we generally do not consider lands within the 100-year floodplain to contain suitable breeding habitat for the salamander. Suitable upland habitat may also be lacking during the wet season (Conservation Strategy Team 2005b, Appendix L). The floodplain fragments the remaining undeveloped land in this area. Although there is an anecdotal report from the 1990s of a California tiger salamander observation along Rainsville Road, we are not aware of confirmed observations of the California tiger salamander within this area.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan.
In the December 14, 2005, final rule (70 FR 74138), we evaluated those lands determined to have essential features, in order to ascertain if any specific areas were appropriate for exemption or exclusion from critical habitat under sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act. On the basis of that evaluation, we determined that the benefits of excluding lands under appropriate management for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander outweighed the benefits of their inclusion within critical habitat. Consequently, we excluded the entire proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based in part on the expectation that the Conservation Strategy would be implemented. We determined that the Conservation Strategy would provide conservation benefits that would be superior to a critical habitat designation. We also determined that critical habitat designation might hinder the progress of the Conservation Strategy by discouraging the involvement of local jurisdictions and private landowners, without providing any counterbalancing, proactive conservation benefit. However, at that time, we acknowledged the potential for revisiting the critical habitat designation should changed circumstances occur, such as unsuccessful finalization or implementation of the Conservation Strategy.
The Conservation Strategy Implementation Plan has not been developed or implemented by local agencies during the period since the publication of the December 14, 2005, final critical habitat rule (70 FR 74138). Therefore, at this time, we do not believe that the Conservation Strategy provides a sufficient basis for exclusion of the unit from critical habitat designation. Any exclusion of critical habitat based on potential economic costs will be presented in the final rule.
We are not proposing to exclude any areas from critical habitat at this time. In the final rule, we may consider exclusion of all or some of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria of California's 254-ac (103-ha) parcel of Tribal trust land that currently overlaps with proposed critical habitat. This potential exclusion would occur under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and by taking into consideration Secretarial Order 3206 involving American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We prepared a DEA (IEC 2010) to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with this revised proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander.
The DEA (made available with the publication of this notice) estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of this revised proposed critical habitat (IEC 2010). The economic analysis presented in the DEA uses the historical record to inform its assessment of potential future impacts of critical habitat. The analysis forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur after the revised proposed rule is finalized. The DEA identifies economic impacts to the following activities as a result of the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander: (1) Commercial and residential development, (2) transportation projects, and (3) utility and pipeline construction and maintenance activities. In addition, the DEA identifies potential economic impacts to agriculture and mitigation banks, but concludes that these activities are not likely to incur measurable economic impacts due to the designation of critical habitat. To provide an understanding of the potential economic impacts, this analysis determines the scope and scale of economic activities within the revised proposed critical habitat; identifies threats to California tiger salamander habitat associated with these economic activities; identifies conservation measures that may be implemented to avoid or minimize these threats; and to the extent feasible, quantifies the economic costs of these measures.
The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the revised proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections that are already in place for the species (such as protections under the Act and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the critical habitat designation for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks retrospectively at
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander over the next 25 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 25-year timeframe. The DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing.
The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources required to accomplish species and habitat protection. The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on agriculture and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the critical habitat designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from listing and other conservation efforts for the California tiger salamander. The DEA quantifies baseline costs due to the administrative cost of section 7 consultations. Additional baseline impacts stem from conservation measures applied to avoid jeopardy and take of California tiger salamanders as well as other conservation measures unrelated to the designation of critical habitat. Potential baseline impacts to development stem from two main sources: (1) Minimization and mitigation measures applied as part of the section 404 permit process pursuant to the Clean Water Act; and (2) measures taken to avoid jeopardy of the California tiger salamander as part of section 7 consultation. Mitigation requirements are defined by the Service in its Programmatic consultation with the Corps (Service 2007) and are considered baseline costs. Approximately 80 percent of future development projects are expected to require mitigation. Mitigation credits sold recently range from $100,000 to $130,000 per acre in this area.
The DEA revealed that all incremental impacts stem entirely from the administrative costs of section 7 consultation on commercial and residential development projects, and on transportation and utility activities. Significant uncertainty exists regarding whether the Service will require additional conservation measures specifically to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat in future section 7 consultations, and what such measures might entail. As a result, the analysis does not forecast incremental impacts due to such measures. The DEA estimates total potential incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 25 years (2011 to 2035) to be approximately $465,000 ($39,900 annualized) in present value terms applying a 7 percent discount rate (IEC 2010, p. ES-4), and $685,000 ($39,300 annualized) in present value terms applying a 3 percent discount rate (IEC 2010, Appendix B). Impacts associated with section 7 consultations on development projects total $441,000 ($37,900 annualized), applying a 7 percent discount rate, and make up the largest portion of post-designation incremental impacts, accounting for 95 percent of the forecast incremental impacts. Incremental impacts to transportation represent the next largest source of incremental impacts, and total $22,500 (applying a 7 percent discount rate), which represents 5 percent of total incremental impacts. The present value administrative cost of impacts associated with utility activities is $1,290 (applying a 7 percent discount rate), and represents less than 1 percent of the overall incremental impacts.
The greatest incremental impacts are forecast to occur within the Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) ($209,000 present value impacts discounted at 7 percent), and make up 45 percent of the overall incremental impacts. The second largest incremental impacts are predicted to occur within the Windsor UGB, with present value impacts at $136,000 (applying a 7 percent discount rate) comprising 29 percent of the overall incremental impacts. Incremental impacts to Petaluma, which are forecast to incur the least amount of incremental impacts, are estimated at $10,100 of present value impacts (discounted at 7 percent), and make up 2 percent of the overall incremental impacts. Only a small portion of the Petaluma UGB intersects with the revised proposed critical habitat. The DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat designation is available for review and comment (
In our proposed rule published in the
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. Private developers may be considered small entities if their annual income is not greater than $33.5 million. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's operations.
To determine if the revised proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander would affect a substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected by particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. Additionally, even in the absence of a Federal nexus, indirect incremental impacts may result if, for example, a city requests project modifications via the city's review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), due to the designation of critical habitat. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process on the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander, because it is listed as endangered under the Act.
In the DEA, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from the implementation of conservation actions related to the revised proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander. This analysis is based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 4 of the DEA. The SBREFA analysis evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to several categories, including: (1) Residential and commercial development, (2) transportation activities, (3) utility activities, and (4) incremental administrative costs (IEC 2010, Appendix A). The DEA concludes that the proposed rulemaking may affect small entities (IEC 2010, Appendix A).
Incremental impacts from the administrative costs of section 7 consultations on critical habitat associated with residential and commercial development are expected for small entities. There are 1,911 businesses involved in development activities within Sonoma County and, of these, 1,896 are considered small businesses. Therefore, approximately 99 percent of all building construction companies in Sonoma County qualify as small entities. Because information on specific third parties that may be involved in future development consultations is lacking, the analysis conservatively assumes that all of the entities involved in future consultation efforts are small land subdivision companies. Because the DEA calculates impacts to small businesses at the County-wide scale, it likely overestimates the impacts associated with this revised proposed critical habitat, which only covers a portion of the County.
The DEA assumes annual revenues of up to $33.5 million per small entity, and annualized impacts may be borne by all small land subdivision companies. Annualized impacts to the construction industry ($6,630 applying a 7 percent discount rate) are estimated to be significantly less than the annual revenues that could be generated by a single small building construction entity. If all impacts are borne by one single small construction company, the estimated annualized impact would represent less than 0.1 percent of the maximum total annual revenues (IEC 2010, Appendix A). No other incremental impacts attributed to transportation or utility activities are expected to be borne by entities that meet the definition of small entities (IEC 2010, Appendix A). Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we have considered whether the revised proposed critical habitat would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the revised proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the DEA finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis (IEC 2010, Appendix A). The DEA concludes that incremental impacts to utilities are limited to the administrative cost of intra-Service consultation associated with a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which does not involve third parties. Any other impacts are expected to occur as a result of the listing of the California tiger salamander, regardless of the designation of critical habitat. Therefore, the rule will not affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Designation of critical habitat is not expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production or distribution), and a
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in California is the only Tribe that may be affected by this proposed revised critical habitat rule. Approximately 254 ac (103 ha) of Tribal lands could be designated. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office has entered into discussion with the Tribe regarding the proposed revised designation in preparation of this revised rule. We will be contacting the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and requesting comments regarding the status of the California tiger salamander on lands under Tribal ownership and management.
A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and in this document is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 74 FR 41662, August 18, 2009, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. The entry for “Salamander, California tiger” under “AMPHIBIANS” in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at § 17.11(h) is revised to read as follows:
(h) * * *
3. Critical habitat for the California tiger salamander (
(d)
California Tiger Salamander (
California Tiger Salamander (
(53) * * *
(i) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade (
(56) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS proposes to approve and implement changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) for the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC or Commission) regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC. This includes Tribal regulations and the sport fishery allocations and management measures for Area 2A. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide greater angler opportunity where available, and to protect overfished groundfish species from being incidentally caught in the halibut fisheries.
Comments on the proposed changes to the Plan and on the proposed domestic Area 2A halibut management
Copies of the Plan and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from William Stelle, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of the Plan, including proposed changes for 2011 are also available at the NMFS Northwest Region Web site:
You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA25, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
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.
Sarah Williams, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA 98115. By phone at 206-526-4646 or fax at 206-526-6736.
The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982, at 16 U.S.C. 773c, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada (Halibut Convention). It requires the Secretary to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c of the Halibut Act authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC. Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) developed a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-treaty harvesters and among non-treaty commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A.
In 1995, NMFS implemented the Pacific Council-recommended long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). In each of the intervening years between 1995 and the present, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to Washington treaty Indian Tribes in Subarea 2A-1 and 65 percent to non-Tribal fisheries in Area 2A.
The allocation to non-Tribal fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation and an incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30' N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30' N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the primary limited entry longline sablefish fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into six geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits.
The Area 2A TAC will be set by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 25-28, 2011, in Victoria, B.C. Following the annual meeting the IPHC publishes the final TAC on their Web site and produces a news release. Through this proposed rule, NMFS requests public comments on the Pacific Council's recommended modifications to the Plan, codified regulations and the proposed domestic fishing regulations by February 2, 2011. This allows the public the opportunity to consider the final Area 2A TAC before submitting comments on the proposed rule. The States of Washington and Oregon will conduct public workshops shortly after the IPHC meeting to obtain input on the sport season dates. After the final Area 2A TAC is known and after NMFS reviews public comments and comments from the States, NMFS will issue a final rule for Areas 2A, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, Pacific halibut fisheries concurrent with its publication of the IPHC regulations for the 2011 Pacific halibut fisheries. A 15-day public comment period is necessary to incorporate the final U.S. domestic regulations into the IPHC regulations in order to have the combined regulations in place as close to March 1 as possible. The regulations need to be in effect in early March because under the 2010 regulations most commercial fishing seasons started on March 6, and this date may need to be changed by the 2011 regulations to be consistent with the IPHC's decisions at its annual meeting in January. This rule cannot be published earlier because the preliminary TAC amounts are announced at the IPHCs interim meeting which is scheduled for early December of each year. The 2011 commercial season starting date(s) need to be published soon after the IPHC meeting to notify the public of that date so the industry can plan for the season.
Combining the IPHC regulations with the domestic regulations for Washington, Oregon, California in the final rule is in the best interest of the public because it results in publication of all the halibut regulations in one
This proposed rule would also remove from the codified halibut regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 the coordinates and references for the 30 and 100 fathom depth contours and instead direct readers to the pacific coast groundfish regulations for these coordinates and references. The coordinates in the halibut regulations were intended to be the same as those in the groundfish regulations, but the groundfish regulations are updated
Preliminary estimates of the 2011 Area 2A TAC are similar to the 2010 TAC. The preliminary IPHC TAC recommendation for area 2A is less than 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), which results in a Washington sport allocation that is less than 214,110 lb (97.1 mt). According to the catch sharing plan, incidental halibut retention would not be allowed in the primary directed sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA, in 2011 under the current preliminary IPHC TAC recommendation. While the preliminary TAC recommendation for area 2A may change following the IPHC annual meeting, it is not anticipated that the TAC will change enough to allow for incidental halibut retention in the primary sablefish fishery.
Each year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Tribes with treaty fishing rights for halibut consider whether changes to the Plan are needed or desired by their fishery participants. Fishery managers from the States hold public meetings before both the September and November Pacific Council meetings to get public input on revisions to the Plan. At the September 2010 Pacific Council meeting, ODFW recommended several changes to the Plan. WDFW and the Tribes did not recommend any changes to the Plan. Following the meeting, ODFW again reviewed their proposal with the public and drafted their recommended revisions for review and recommendation by the Pacific Council.
At its November 2-9, 2010 meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, the Pacific Council considered the results of State-sponsored workshops on the proposed changes to the Plan and codified regulations, and made its final recommendations for modifications to the Plan and to the implementing regulations. The following proposed changes include the Council's recommendations and one NMFS correction to its codified regulations:
1. In the Plan section (f)(1)(v), adjust the Oregon Central Coast subarea spring and summer fishery subquota percentages. For the spring fishery adjust the allocation from 69% to 67% of the subarea quota, for the summer fishery adjust the allocation from 23% to 25% of the subarea quota. The goal of these changes is to provide as many fishing days as possible during the summer season when participation is at its highest. The summer fishery was open only three days in 2010.
2. In the Plan section (e)(2), specify that the definitions of closed areas set forth in the groundfish regulations will apply to the non-Indian directed halibut commercial fishery.
3. In the Plan sections (e) and (f) update all references to groundfish regulation coordinates and direct readers to groundfish regulations for depth contour coordinates.
4. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 in paragraph (e), replace the description of the groundfish RCA with specific reference to the closed areas and depth contours in the groundfish regulations.
5. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 remove paragraphs (f) and (g), which list the coordinates for the 30-fm and 100-fm lines, and replace this information with references to the coordinates for the 30-fm and 100-fm lines in the groundfish regulations.
6. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 update all references to the groundfish regulations to reflect changes made as a result of the groundfish regulation restructure occurring through the Trawl Individual Quota program.
7. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.64 add “receipt and possession” to the list of management measures that treaty Indian fishers must comply with. This change is necessary to make the codified regulations consistent with the IPHC regulations. Receipt and possession management measures have not changed, this requirement was inadvertently removed from the codified regulations and this change corrects that error.
NMFS is proposing to approve the Pacific Council recommendations and to implement the changes described above. A version of the Plan including these changes can be found at
NMFS is proposing sport fishery management measures that are necessary to implement the Plan in 2011. The annual domestic management measures are published each year through a final rule. For the 2010 fishing season the final rule was published on March 18, 2010, (75 FR 13024) and the following section numbers refer to sections within that final rule. The final 2011 TAC for Area 2A will be determined by the IPHC at its annual meeting on January 25-28, 2011, in Victoria, BC. Because the final 2011 TAC has not yet been determined, these proposed sport fishery management measures use the IPHC staff's preliminary 2011 Area 2A TAC recommendation of 860,000 lb (390.1 mt) which is higher than the 2010 TAC of 810,000 lb (367.4 mt). Where season dates are not indicated, those dates will be provided in the final rule, following determination of the 2011 TAC and consultation with the States and the public. In Section 8 of the annual domestic management measures, “Fishing Periods”, paragraph (2) is proposed to read as follows:
(1) * * *
(2) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed fishery shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on (
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS. In Area 2A incidental catch of halibut in the primary sablefish fishery is not authorized in 2010.
(4) * * *
(5) * * *
In section 26 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut,” paragraph 1(a)-(b) will be updated with 2011 total allowable catch limits in the final rule. In section 26 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut” paragraph (8) is proposed to read as follows:
(8) * * *
(a) The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting
(i) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is (
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.), is 104,985 lb (47.6 mt).
(i) The fishing seasons are:
(A) Commencing on May 12 and continuing 2 days a week (Thursday and Saturday) until 104,985 lb (47.6 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until May 29.
(B) If sufficient quota remains the fishery will reopen on June 2 in the entire north coast subarea, continuing 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday) until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. When there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the entire north coast subarea for another day, then the nearshore areas described below will reopen for 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday), until the overall quota of 104,985 lb (47.6 mt) is estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. After May 29, any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed after May 29 unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. The nearshore areas for Washington's North Coast fishery are defined as follows:
(
(
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at § 660.70(a).
(c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), is 39,694 lb (18 mt).
(i) This subarea is divided between the all-waters fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):
(1) 47°31.70′ N.lat., 124°37.03′ W. long.;
(2) 47°25.67′ N. lat., 124°34.79′ W. long.;
(3) 47°12.82′ N. lat., 124°29.12′ W. long.;
(4) 46°58.00′ N. lat., 124°24.24′ W. long.
The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 37,694 lb (17.09 mt) for the primary fishery and 2,000 lb (0.9 mt) for the nearshore fishery. The primary fishery commences on May 1 and continues 2 days a week (Sunday and Tuesday) until May 17. Beginning on May 22 the primary fishery will be open 1 day per week (Sunday). Beginning on May 29 the primary fishery will be open 2 days per week (Sunday and Tuesday) until the quota for the south coast subarea primary fishery is taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. The fishing season in the nearshore area commences on May 1 and continues seven days per week. Subsequent to closure of the primary fishery the nearshore fishery is open seven days per week, until 39,694 lb (18 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360, Subpart G.
(iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR § 660.70(d). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR § 660.70(e).
(d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.), is 14,227 lb (6.5 mt).
(i) The fishing season commences on May 5, and continues 3 days a week (Thursday, Friday and Saturday) until 9,959 lb (4.5 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission or until July 16, whichever is earlier. The fishery will reopen on August 5 and continue 3 days a week (Friday through Sunday) until 4,268 lb (1.9 mt) have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, when halibut are on board the vessel.
(e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.), is 163,027 lb (73.9 mt).
(i) The fishing seasons are:
(A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences May 1 and continues 7 days a week through October 31, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery (13,042 lb (5.9 mt)) or any in-season revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined at § 660.71(k).
(B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open on (
(C) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open on (
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.
(iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish and Pacific cod, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, if halibut are on board the vessel.
(iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.
(v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(f).
(f) The area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40.50′ N. lat.) and off the California coast is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of 5,316 lb (2.4 mt).
(i) The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue 7 days a week until October 31.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) provides the Secretary of Commerce with the general responsibility to carry out the Convention between Canada and the United States for the management of Pacific halibut, including the authority to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and Halibut Act. This final rule is consistent with the Secretary of Commerce's authority under the Halibut Act.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has prepared an RIR/IRFA on the proposed changes to the Plan, the codified regulations and the annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures. Copies of these documents are available from NMFS (
A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For wholesale businesses, a small business is one that employs not more than 100 people. For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $6.5
In 2010, 565 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut. IPHC issues licenses for: The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A (192 licenses in 2010), including licenses issued to retain halibut caught incidentally in the primary sablefish fishery; incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (233 licenses in 2010); and the charterboat fleet (140 licenses in 2010). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. Individual recreational anglers and private boats are the only sectors that are not required to have an IPHC license to retain halibut.
The IRFA analyzed the impacts of the changes to the Plan and regulations. For the 2011 fishing year the proposed changes to the Plan, which allocates the catch of Pacific halibut among users in Washington, Oregon and California, and the Federal regulations, would:
1. In Plan section (f)(1)(v), adjust the Oregon Central Coast subarea spring and summer fishery subquota percentages. For the spring fishery adjust the allocation from 69% to 67% of the subarea quota, for the summer fishery adjust the allocation from 23% to 25% of the subarea quota. The goal of these changes is to provide as many fishing days as possible during the summer season when participation is at its highest. The summer fishery was open only three days in 2010.
2. In Plan section (e)(2), specify that the definitions of closed areas set forth in the groundfish regulations will apply to the non-Indian directed halibut commercial fishery.
3. In Plan sections (e) and (f) update all references to groundfish regulation coordinates and direct readers to groundfish regulations for depth contour coordinates
4. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 in paragraph (e), replace the description of the groundfish RCA with specific reference to the closed areas and depth contours in the groundfish regulations.
5. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 remove paragraphs (f) and (g), which list the coordinates for the 30-fm and 100-fm lines, and replace this information with references to the coordinates for the 30-fm and 100-fm lines in the groundfish regulations.
6. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.63 update all references to the groundfish regulations to reflect changes made as a result of the groundfish regulation restructure occurring through the Trawl Individual Quota program.
7. In the codified regulations at 50 CFR 300.64 add “receipt and possession” to the list of management measures that treaty Indian fishers must comply with. This change is necessary to make the codified regulations consistent with the IPHC regulations. Receipt and possession management measures have not changed, this requirement was inadvertently removed from the codified regulations and this change corrects that error.
Because there is no new analysis or information available, the RIR/IRFA relies on the analysis in the 2009 RIR, which used information from the Pacific Fishery Management Council's DEIS on the 2009-2010 Groundfish Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures to make income impact projections of the TAC on coastal communities. Using available analysis from the DEIS, the 2009 RIR estimated that the 2008 combined economic impact of commercial, recreational, and Tribal fisheries generated about $8.8 million in income impacts to the coastal Tribal and non-Tribal communities. Income impacts are the amount of employee salaries and benefits, business owner (proprietor) income and property-related income (rents, dividends, interest, royalties,
The changes to the Plan and regulations do not include any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. These changes will not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other laws or regulations. These changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are not expected to meet any of the RFA tests of having a “significant” economic impact on a “substantial number” of small entities because the changes will not affect overall allocations. They are designed to provide the best fishing opportunities within the overall TAC. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared an IRFA. Through this proposed rule, NMFS requests comments on these conclusions.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian Tribes over shared Federal and Tribal fishery resources. Section 302(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian Tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho.
The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 13 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the Tribes' usual and accustomed (U and A) fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 300.64). Each of the treaty Tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, Tribal allocations and regulations, including the proposed changes to the Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected Tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with Tribal consensus.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
2. In § 300.63, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), and (e), are revised to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The sport fishery under section 26 of the annual domestic management measures and IPHC regulations;
(ii) The commercial directed fishery for halibut during the fishing period(s) established in section 8 of the annual domestic management measures and IPHC regulations and/or the incidental retention of halibut during the primary sablefish fishery described at 50 CFR 660.231; or
(e) Area 2A Non-Treaty Commercial Fishery Closed Areas.
(1) Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the directed commercial fishery for halibut in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area, known as the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), that extends along the coast from the U.S./Canada border south to 40°10′ N. lat. Between the U.S./Canada border and 46°16′ N. lat., the eastern boundary of the RCA, is the shoreline. Between 46°16′ N. lat. and 43°00′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along an eastern boundary by a line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 30-fm (55-m) boundary are listed at 50 CFR 660.71(e). Between 43°00′ N. lat. and 42°00′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along an eastern boundary by a line approximating the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 20-fm (37-m) boundary are listed at 50 CFR 660.71(b). Between 42°00′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along an eastern boundary by the 20-fm (37-m) depth contour. Between the U.S./Canada border and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along a western boundary approximating the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour. Coordinates for the 100-fm (183-m) boundary are listed at 50 CFR 660.73(a).
(2) Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington, in Area 2a are required to fish outside of a closed area. Under Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.230, fishing with limited entry fixed gear is prohibited within the North Coast Commercial Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with limited entry fixed gear within the North Coast Commercial YRCA. The North Coast Commercial YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast, overlapping the northern part of the North Coast Recreational YRCA, and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the North Coast Commercial YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.70(b).
(3) Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area. Under the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.330(10), fishing with salmon troll gear is prohibited within the Salmon Troll YRCA. It is unlawful for commercial salmon troll vessels to take and retain, possess or land fish within the Salmon Troll YRCA. The Salmon Troll YRCA is an area off the northern Washington coast and is defined by straight lines connecting latitude and longitude coordinates. Coordinates for the Salmon Troll YRCA are specified in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.70(c), and in salmon regulations at 50 CFR 660.405.
4. In § 300.64, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
(d) Commercial fishing for halibut by treaty Indians shall comply with the Commission's management measures governing size limits, careful release of halibut, logs, receipt and possession and fishing gear (published pursuant to § 300.62), except that the 72-hour fishing restriction preceding the opening of a halibut fishing period shall not apply to treaty Indian fishing.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agencyinforms potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Six Rivers National Forest (Six Rivers NF) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose the impacts associated with the following proposed actions:
1. Fuel reduction would occur and be located along corridors primarily on strategically placed ridges, along highly traveled roads and within isolated stands near private property. Treatment would consist of thinning trees less than 8″ diameter breast-height (DBH) and removing brush within treatment areas. Commercial biomass would be a by-product of this treatment. Fuel treatments would augment on-going road brush treatment projects funded by the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) located in the northwest corner of the project area.
2. All previously managed plantations would be treated, either with commercial thinning or timber stand improvements (TSI). Both treatments are designed to reduce stand density, decrease competition and improve growing space for residual trees. Commercially thinned plantations would consist of thinning trees greater than 8″ DBH. Plantations without a commercial saw-log component (TSI) would consist of thinning trees less than 8″ DBH and reducing brush. Commercial biomass would be a by-product of TSI treatments.
3. Off-site ponderosa pine plantations would be thinned to promote growth of naturally occurring tree species.
4. Douglas-fir/tanoak plantations would be thinned, and most of the planted pine within these plantations would be removed, while a portion of the hardwood component would be maintained.
5. Pure stands of Douglas-fir would be thinned to increase growing space for overstocked early seral stands. Stands that once contained a significant black oak component would be thinned to encourage black oak regeneration.
6. Douglas-fir and white fir stands with viable oak and pine would be thinned to reduce overall stand density, and trees that compete with healthy hardwoods and pines would be removed to increase their viability and promote their regeneration.
7. All treatments would maintain tree species mix of hardwoods and conifers.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 3, 2011. The draft environmental impact statement is expected August 2011 and the final environmental impact statement is expected November 2011.
Send written comments to Buck Mountain Project Team, Mad River Ranger District, 741 State Highway 36, Bridgeville, CA 95526. Comments may also be sent via facsimile to (707) 574-6273. Electronic comments, in acceptable plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf), or Word (.doc) may be submitted to
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.
The Forest Service is proposing the Buck Mountain Vegetation and Fuel Management Project to accelerate late-successional forest characteristics, reduce excessive fuel loading, and improve and restore forest ecosystem health. The Buck Mountain planning area encompasses approximately 14,396 acres, of which 10,058 acres are National Forest System (NFS) lands. The project would treat approximately 2,062 acres of NFS lands. Treatment would consist of: (1) Commercially harvesting timber stands under 130 years old, through thinning on approximately 613 acres of natural stands, 389 acres of plantations and 44 acres of oak restoration; (2) non-commercial timber stand improvement on 788 acres of previously managed stands; and (3) stand alone fuels treatments on 1,228 acres, primarily located along strategically located roads and ridge tops.
The proposed project would take place within the Upper Van Duzen watershed on NFS lands administered by the Mad River Ranger District in Humboldt County and Trinity County, California. The legal location includes portions of the following townships: Township 1 North, Range 5 East; Township 1 North, Range 6 East; Township 1 South, Range 6 East; and Township 1 South, Range 5 East, Humboldt Baseline and Meridian.
(1) The majority of the Buck Mountain Planning Area occurs within the Eel River Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). A Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA, 1999) determined that this area of the LSR was deficient in late-successional habitat. Portions of the LSR were previously privately owned and heavily harvested. Extensive stands of plantations exist that do not provide suitable habitat for late successional species such as the northern spotted owl. The LSRA identified this area as needing density management and fuel reduction treatments to develop and protect late-successional habitat. Management opportunities exist in conifer stands that are in the tanoak, Douglas-fir and white fir series that are either old plantations or natural stands that are less than 130 years old. They are characterized generally as overstocked with high fuel loadings.
(2) The majority of the planning area occurs within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas for the communities of Mad River and Dinsmore as well as residences along the Van Duzen River in Trinity County and Humboldt County.
(3) Oak woodland communities historically comprised a much greater percentage of the landscape than today. In 1855 approximately 36% of the North Fork of the Eel River watershed, a component of LSR 307, was composed of oak woodland communities, and currently it is about 6%. Evidence within the Buck Mountain Planning Area suggests a similar decline in oak woodland communities. Oak communities have greater native grass and forbs species diversity than adjacent conifer forests and provide greater forage habitat for deer populations than adjacent vegetation communities. Additionally, grasses and forbs mature later in the summer beneath oak communities, which can extend the availability of forage and reduce the rate of spread of wildfire.
(4) The Van Duzen River Watershed Analysis (Van Duzen River WA, 1998) had determined that current road densities were too high within the Van Duzen watershed and the Eel River LSR. The LSR as a whole had been evaluated to have 3.1 miles of roads per square mile. Road density within the project area on Federal lands is even higher, at 3.6 miles per square mile. Reducing the road density within the project area would reduce sediment levels and benefit aquatic habitats. Decommissioning (should opportunities exist) would help accomplish this.
The Mad River Ranger District is managed under the Six Rivers National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The National Forest Service portion of the planning area has two management area allocations:
The LRMP requires consultation with potentially affected Native American Tribes as part of the Forest's Native American trust responsibilities. Consultation was initiated with the Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, the Table Bluff Reservation-Wiyot Tribes and the Round Valley Indian Tribes in the late fall of 2009. There were no concerns expressed. The Forest Tribal Relations Specialist will complete Tribal consultation beyond the initiation phase.
Consultation with the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) is required because of the proposed cutting of trees greater than 20” DBH in this planning area. Early consultation has been initiated by the REO. The REO LSR working group agreed with the rationale for exceeding the 20” DBH cut limit, and a finalized formal exemption is pending. It would be granted prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) once the LSR working group determined that implementing the project's silviculture prescriptions would meet the objectives of Late Successional Reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan.
The Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the United States Fish
The Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding any proposal that may affect a Federally listed threatened or endangered marine species. We will work closely with this agency through the fisheries biologist to fulfill consultation requirements for listed and proposed species.
The Clean Water Act requires Forest level consultation with the North Coast California Water Quality Control Board (NCCWQCB) to assure that basin plan standards for water quality are met by the proposal. This consultation will begin soon after preliminary Best Management Practices and project design features have been identified.
Silvicultural prescriptions for the proposed treatment units in stands no older than 80 years conform to the criteria documented in the Forest-wide LSR Assessment. The Regional Ecosystem Office LSRA memorandum dated March 3, 2000 sanctioned proposed treatments of stands between 80 and 130 years old within LSRs on the Six Rivers NF, but it would require a non-significant Forest Plan amendment.
The REO acknowledged the case-by-case need to exceed the 20” DBH diameter cut limit requirement that would be needed to be met for the project to be exempt from further REO review. The proposal includes treatment of stands that would require the cutting of trees greater than 20” DBH to effectively meet LSR objectives. This proposal warranted consultation with the REO. A tentative verbal agreement has been issued allowing the proposal to proceed. A written memorandum sanctioning the proposal will be drafted once the preferred alternative is issued and issued before the ROD is signed.
There is a need in the Buck Mountain Planning Area to manage vegetation and fuel in select conifer stands, oak woodlands and shrub fields for the purpose of achieving the following objectives:
• Accelerate the development of late-successional habitat characteristics in plantations and in early to mid-mature natural stands (up to 130 years old).
• Improve the health of conifer and oak woodland communities, increase their resiliency to wildfires and disease outbreaks, restore species diversity and reduce stand densities in overstocked stands.
• Minimize wildfire threat to local communities in strategic locations, along travel routes and near private residential property by reducing fuel buildup in stands in the WUI where stand conditions have high amounts of surface and ladder fuels.
In fulfilling the objectives listed above, there are opportunities to provide commodities in the form of timber, biomass, and fuelwood. All commercial activities and by-products would be incidental in achieving the desired outcomes stated in the purpose and need. There is also an opportunity to reduce open road densities in the planning area for watershed and late-successional habitat health.
To meet the purpose and need, the Six Rivers National Forest proposes to manage vegetation and treat fuel loadings on approximately 3,062 acres of National Forest System lands administered by the Mad River Ranger District. Potential treatment opportunities include the following:
• 1,046 acres of commercial harvest in plantations, natural stands up to 130 years old and oak woodlands. Silvicultural treatments would include commercial thinning, oak release, and thinning/sanitation cutting. Ground skidding, skyline cable, and helicopter logging methods may be employed, as dictated by cost efficiency and resource protection needs. Potential harvest yield is about 4.5 to 5.5 MMBF.
Activities associated with commercial harvesting include use of existing roads, skid trails, and landings, activity fuel treatments, and road maintenance/minor reconstruction along haul routes. New skid trails and landings would be needed in some areas to facilitate harvest activities. Harvest activity fuel treatments may involve a combination of mechanical techniques (biomass utilization, chipping, yarding tops, machine piling/burning), manual techniques (hand piling/burning and lop/scatter to 18” or less depth), and prescribed burning.
Approximately 6.0 miles of temporary road may be needed to perform these treatments. Approximately 3.8 miles would use existing road beds (old logging roads and illegal woodcutting roads). Approximately 2.2 miles would be newly constructed temporary roads. No new system road construction is anticipated. Temporary roads would be decommissioned after project completion.
• 788 acres of timber stand improvement (TSI) in plantations and young natural stands. Silvicultural treatments include non-commercial thinning and release and commercial biomass utilization. As with commercial harvesting, activity fuel treatments would also be prescribed.
• 46 acres of stand-alone fuel reduction in early to mid-mature seral natural stands. Prescribed treatments include small tree cutting, mastication, road-side chipping, prescribed fire, hand piling, biomass/fuelwood utilization, raking/windrowing, lop and scatter to 18” or less depth and machine piling.
• 1,182 acres of fuelbreak construction along strategic travel routes and ridges. Prescribed treatments within 300 feet on either side of selected roads, which are outside of commercial harvest, TSI, and stand-alone fuel reduction units, may include one or several of the following: Small tree cutting, mastication, roadside chipping, prescribed burning (underburning and jackpot burning), hand piling/burning, lop/scatter to 18” or less depth and machine piling.
• Hauling of commercial timber products on State Highway 36, County Roads 511 and 512 and Forest Service System roads within the planning area. Felling and removal, where appropriate, of hazard trees along haul routes.
• Decommissioning of non-essential existing roads outside of the proposed treatment areas may be included in the design of this project to reduce road density as part of the restoration of late-successional habitat and watershed conditions.
Most of the project area is located within a LSR. Proposed fuel and harvest units were chosen based on criteria that would meet two objectives of LSRs: (1) Protecting existing and potential late-successional habitat from catastrophic loss due to wildfire or disease and/or bug outbreak from overstocked stand conditions, and (2) Accelerating development of late-successional habitat. The proposed action is designed to meet the project's purpose and need while satisfying the standards and guidelines of the LRMP. The Buck Mountain Vegetation and Fuel Management Project would treat vegetation in the following ways:
• Fuel reduction would be located along corridors primarily on strategically placed ridges, along highly traveled roads and within isolated
• All previously managed plantations would be treated, either with commercial thinning or timber stand improvements (TSI). Both treatments are designed to reduce stand density, decrease competition and improve growing space for residual trees. Commercially thinned plantations would consist of thinning trees greater than 8″ DBH. Plantations without a commercial saw-log component (TSI) would consist of thinning trees less than 8″ DBH and reducing brush. Commercial biomass would be a by-product of TSI treatments.
• Off-site ponderosa pine plantations would be thinned to promote growth of naturally occurring tree species.
• Douglas-fir/tanoak plantations would be thinned, and most of the planted pine within these plantations would be removed, while a portion of the hardwood component would be maintained.
• Pure stands of Douglas-fir would be thinned to increase growing space for overstocked early seral stands. Stands that once contained a significant black oak component would be thinned to encourage black oak regeneration.
• Douglas-fir and white fir stands with viable oak and pine would be thinned to reduce overall stand density, and trees that compete with healthy hardwoods and pines would be removed to increase their viability and promote their regeneration.
All treatments would maintain tree species mix of hardwoods and conifers.
Maps and tables detailing the proposed action can be found at
In addition, maps will be available for viewing at:
Mad River Ranger District, 741 Highway 36 (28 miles east of Bridgeville), Bridgeville, CA 95526; phone: 707-574-6233.
Thomas Hudson, District Ranger, Mad River Ranger District, 741 Highway 36, Bridgeville, CA 95526.
The responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215.
Forest Service, USDA.
Corrected Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis. The original notice was published on July 7, 2006.
The Fishlake National Forest (FNF) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the potential effects of a proposal to make lands administered by the FNF available for oil and gas leasing, and to determine what lease stipulations would apply to those lands. The proposal also includes amending the FNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to update management direction for minerals management, specifically oil and gas. The scope of the analysis is forest-wide. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was first published for this proposal on July 7, 2006, Volume 71, No. 130, pages 38602-38604. Due to the length of time that has passed since the first NOI was published, the FNF is publishing this Corrected NOI.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis were received during the initial scoping period in 2006, and are being considered in the preparation of this EIS. New or additional comments should be received within 30 days from the publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to Shelly Dyke, Team Leader, Fishlake National Forest, 115 E. 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701; phone (801) 597-7633; fax (435) 896-0374; e-mail:
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however those who submit comments anonymously would not be considered to have standing in the process. Those who commented during the initial scoping period need not resubmit comments, unless there are additional comments they wish to make.
John Zappell, Public Affairs Officer at (435) 896-1070.
Agency regulations at 36 CFR 228.102 require the Forest Service to analyze lands under their jurisdiction that have not already been analyzed for oil and gas leasing. None of the lands administered by the FNF have previously been analyzed for oil and gas leasing. In analyzing lands for oil and gas leasing, the Forest Service must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (FOOGLRA) of 1987 establishes consent authority to the Forest Service for leasing, prior to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offering National Forest System lands for lease. The BLM Utah State Office has received several Expressions of Interest (EOI) for leasing portions of the FNF. In order to facilitate the BLM processing and responding to those EOIs, the FNF must first complete a leasing analysis to
The purpose of this leasing analysis is to identify which lands would be available and approved for oil and gas leasing, to determine what standard or special lease stipulations would apply to which pieces of land for resource protection, to project the type and amount of post-leasing activity that would be reasonably foreseeable, and to analyze the potential impacts of reasonably foreseeable post-leasing activity.
The proposed action is to make all lands administered by the FNF available for lease. The following areas would be leased with the No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation: All Research Natural Areas; Quitchupah Canyon Cultural Area; Areas with slopes greater than 35 percent; North Horn sediment areas greater than 25 percent slope; Habitat within one mile of known threatened, endangered, or proposed (TEP) plants; Habitat of TEP species covered under a conservation agreement or recovery plan; Areas within 300 feet of riparian areas, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, perennial streams, and springs; Municipal water source protection areas; Bald eagle winter concentration areas; Sage grouse leks and nesting habitat; Known colonies of pygmy rabbits; Key habitats for boreal toad; Developed recreation sites; Areas with a Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; Forest Service administrative sites and facilities; National Recreation Trails; Inventoried Roadless Areas as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
The following areas would be leased with a Timing Limitation (TL) stipulation: Sage grouse brood-rearing areas (May 1 to July 5); Goshawk nesting and nest replacement areas (March 1 to September 30); Big game wintering areas (January 1 to April 15); Big game calving and fawning areas (May 1 to July 5).
The following areas would be leased with the Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation:
Unstable lands; Sensitive plant habitat within one mile of known sites; Campground water systems; Goshawk post-fledging areas; Raptor nest areas; High scenic integrity areas (including areas seen from Capital Reef National Park and Fremont Indian State Park); Areas with a Semi-Primitive Non-motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; Air quality non-attainment areas; Cultural resource areas.
All other areas would be leased with standard lease terms and conditions. Lease notices (LN) would be included in leases to inform prospective bidders of restrictions required by law or regulation.
In addition to the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative will be analyzed in detail. Under this alternative oil and gas leasing would occur under current management direction. Other alternatives could include a range of more restrictive lease stipulations placed on more acreage, and/or fewer acres approved for lease availability.
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency. The USDI Bureau of Land Management, and the State of Utah are cooperating agencies.
The responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of the Fishlake National Forest.
The Forest Supervisor of the Fishlake National Forest will decide which lands administered by the FNF will be administratively available for oil and gas leasing, and what stipulations would be applied to future leases. The Forest Supervisor will also decide whether to approve a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to update management direction for leasable minerals. This decision will not result in ground-disturbing activities such as exploration, drilling, or field development. Any ground disturbing activity that may be proposed subsequent to leasing would require further site-specific review and environmental analysis prior to approval as outlined in current Federal regulations (36 CFR 228.107).
The initial scoping period started when the NOI was published in 2006. There is an opportunity to submit additional comments not already submitted, for 30 days after publication of this Corrected NOI.
A series of public meetings were held in July and August, 2006. No additional public meetings are planned at this time. The proposal has been listed on the FNF Schedule of Proposed Actions since 2006.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ontonagon Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Ewen, Michigan. The Committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose is to review and make recommendations on Title II Projects submitted by the public.
The meeting will be held on February 11, 2011, and will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EST).
The meeting will be held at the Ewen-Trout Creek High School, 14312 Airport Road, Ewen, Michigan. Written comments should be sent to Lisa Klaus, Ottawa National Forest, E6248 U.S. Hwy. 2, Ironwood, MI 49938. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Ottawa National Forest, E6248 U.S. Hwy. 2, Ironwood, MI 49938.
Lisa Klaus, RAC coordinator, USDA, Ottawa National Forest, E6248 U.S. Hwy. 2, Ironwood, MI, (906) 932-1330, ext. 328; e-mail
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
This meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review and approval of previous meeting minutes. (2) Review and approval of Operating Guidelines and Title II Project Evaluation Criteria. (3) Review and make recommendations for
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Meeting.
The Humboldt Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Eureka, California. The committee meeting is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting will be held February 1, 2011, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Six Rivers National Forest Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501.
Adam Dellinger, Committee Coordinator, at (707) 441-3569; e-mail
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda includes a public comment period and a review of all Title II project proposals received to date.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 12 p.m. (MST) on Saturday, February 5, 2011, at Holland Hart LLP, 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450, Cheyenne, WY 82003.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide orientation and ethics training for new members and brief the committee on civil rights issues in the State. A briefing will be conducted by a representative of the Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver. The committee will discuss recent Commission and regional activities, and plan future activities that include addressing the state of civil rights in Wyoming.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office by March 5, 2011. The address is 999-18th Street, Suite 1380S, Denver, CO 80202. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Malee Craft, Regional Director, at (303) 866-1040 or by e-mail to:
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its preliminary results of the 2007-2008 deferred and 2008-2009 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (“FMTCs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on July 14, 2010.
Lilit Astvatsatrian or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
On July 14, 2010, the Department published its preliminary results.
We have conducted these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213.
The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
(1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
(2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: Those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.011, 9401.71.0030, 9401.71.0031, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0046, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 9403.60.8040, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Based on a request by RPA International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC (collectively, “RPA”), the Department ruled on January 13, 2003, that RPA's poly-fold metal folding chairs are within the scope of the order because they are identical in all material respects to the merchandise described in the petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of the Secretary.
On May 5, 2003, in response to a request by Staples, the Office Superstore Inc. (“Staples”), the Department issued a scope ruling that the chair component of Staples' “Complete Office-To-Go,” a folding chair with a tubular steel frame and a seat and back of plastic, with measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5 inches, is covered by the scope of the order because it is identical in all material respects to the scope description in the order, but that the table component, with measurements of: Width (table top): 43 inches; depth (table top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875 inches, has legs that fold as a unit and meets the requirements for an exemption from the scope of the order.
On September 7, 2004, the Department found that table styles 4600 and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd. are within the scope of the order because these products have all of the components that constitute a folding metal table as described in the scope.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “butterfly” chairs are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order because they do not meet the physical description of merchandise covered by the scope of the order as they do not have cross braces affixed to the front and/or rear legs, and the seat and back is one piece of cloth that is not affixed to the frame with screws, rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding metal chairs imported by Korhani of America Inc. are within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the imported chair has a wooden seat, which is padded with foam and covered with fabric or polyvinyl chloride, attached to the tubular steel seat frame with screws, and has cross-braces affixed to its legs.
On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “moon chairs” are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order because moon chairs have different physical characteristics, different uses, and are advertised differently than chairs covered by the scope of the order.
On October 4, 2007, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that International E-Z Up Inc.'s (“E-Z Up”) Instant Work Bench is not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order because its legs and weight do not match the description of the folding metal tables in the scope of the order.
On April 18, 2008, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that the VIKA Twofold 2-in-1 Workbench/
On May 6, 2009, the Department issued a final determination of circumvention, determining that imports from the PRC of folding metal tables with legs connected by cross-bars, so that the legs fold in sets, and otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise, are circumventing the order and are properly considered to be within the class or kind of merchandise subject to the order on FMTCs from the PRC.
On May 22, 2009, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding metal chairs that have legs that are not connected with cross-bars are within the scope of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC.
On October 27, 2009, the Department issued a scope ruling that Lifetime Products, Inc.'s (“Lifetime”) fold-in-half adjustable height tables are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order because Lifetime's tables essentially share the physical characteristics of banquet tables, which are expressly excluded from the scope of the order and, therefore, are outside the scope of the order.
On July 27, 2010, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that the bistro set imported by Academy Sports & Outdoors, consisting of two chairs and a table, are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order because they constitute lawn furniture, which is expressly excluded from the scope of the order.
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in these reviews are addressed in the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2007-2008 Deferred Administrative Review and the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China” (January 10, 2010) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which are hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that 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 and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room 7046 in the main Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for Feili in both the 2007-2008 deferred and 2008-2009 reviews, and for New-Tec in the 2008-2009 review. We have revised the calculation of normal value to reflect a change in the wage rate from $1.23 to $1.22 for both reviews.
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the POR:
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of these reviews. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to these reviews. Where appropriate, we calculated an
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the 2008-2009 administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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) For Feili and New-Tec, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
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 the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice of the final results of this administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Jerry Huang or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4047 and (202) 482-0116 respectively.
On July 14, 2010, the Department published the
As part of the
On October 26, 2010, the Department issued a memorandum regarding the Department's proposed industry-specific wage rate methodology for the final results and invited interested parties to comment. On November 5, 2010, Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai filed comments on the Department's wage rate methodology. On November 10, 2010, DAK Americas LLC (“Petitioner”) filed rebuttal comments.
The Department did not hold a public hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), as any hearing request made by interested parties was withdrawn.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these reviews are addressed in the “Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 2008/2009 Administrative Review,” which is dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice (“Decision Memo”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the Department's Web site at
The period of review (“POR”) is June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009.
The merchandise covered by the order is synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets,
The following products are excluded from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture of carpeting; and (3) low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 5503.20.0015).
Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from parties regarding our
Pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we have calculated a revised hourly wage rate to use in valuing Ningbo Dafa and Cixi Santai's reported labor.
In our
In the
In the
The dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer)
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a particular company is
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Wild Horizons LTD, 59 Cotham Hill, Cotham, Bristol, BS6 6JR, United Kingdom, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography of bottlenose dolphins (
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before February 17, 2011.
The application 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;
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by e-mail to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Kristy Beard, (301)713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Wild Horizons LTD requests a two-year photography permit to film bottlenose dolphin strand feeding events in the estuaries and creeks of Bull Creek and around Hilton Head, South Carolina. Filmmakers plan to use two filming platforms: An inflatable 21ft boat and a helicopter. Up to 2,500 dolphins annually may be approached and filmed. Filming would occur over three to four week session and would be completed by August 2012. Footage would be used to create a 7-part television series,
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR Steering Committee meeting.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet via conference call to discuss the SEDAR process.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., EST.
The meeting will be held via conference call. Listening stations are available at the following locations: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive #201, North Charleston, SC 29405; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; and Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.
John Carmichael, Science and Statistics Program Manager, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520.
The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks. The SEDAR Steering Committee provides oversight of the SEDAR process, establishes assessment priorities, and provides coordination of assessment and management activities. During this conference call the Steering Committee will discuss operational changes proposed for the SEDAR process, including the timing of workshops and the types of assessments conducted.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (
Wednesday, January 19, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the public.
The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to NanoDynamics Life Sciences, Inc. a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 5,492,696: Controlled Release Microstructures, Navy Case No. 76,896.//U.S. Patent No. 5,651,976: Controlled Release of Active Agents using Inorganic Tubules, Navy Case No. 76,652.//U.S. Patent No. 5,705,191: Sustained Delivery of Active Compounds from Tubules, with Rational Control, Navy Case No. 77,037.//U.S. Patent No. 6,280,759: Method of Controlled Release and Controlled Release Microstructures, Navy Case No. 78,215 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof in the field of use of metal related industry and a co-exclusive license to practice the field of use of building materials. The field of use of building materials means the use of Halloysite Microtubles for the elution from them of any and all biocidal substances into building materials including, but not limited to: Grouts, cements, parging materials, stuccos, mortars, wallboards; cellulose-based materials (such as particleboard, paneling, medium density fiberboard (MDF) paneling, plywood, lumber, chipboard, and ceiling tile); caulks, sealants and adhesives; high pressure laminates; wall, counter top and floor coverings or components thereof; ceramics, cultured marbles, tiles; non-cellulose (
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than February 2, 2011.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, e-mail:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of Education.
Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that on March 31, 2010, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of
You may obtain a copy of the full text of the arbitration panel decision from Suzette E. Haynes, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5022, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an accessible format (
Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the
Daniel Czubak (Complainant) alleged violations by the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services, the State licensing agency (SLA), under the Act and implementing regulations at 34 CFR part 395. The allegations pertained to his operation of a vending facility comprised of vending machines at the Shapiro Developmental Center (SDC) from November 2005 until February 2009 when his vending operator's agreement at the SDC was terminated by the SLA.
The Complainant began operation of the vending facility at SDC when granted a Temporary Income Opportunity in 2005. Later, after being the successful bidder and signing a vending operator's agreement in May 2006, he continued operating the facility until February 2009.
Appended to the May 2006 vending operator's agreement was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated April 2004 between the SLA and the SDC. As a part of the MOU, the SDC required that the SLA ensure that the vendor operating the vending machines would make monthly commission payments to the SDC in the amount of $3,699.00 based upon the following: (a) Current vending machines at the SDC, (b) current prices established for items sold in the vending machines, and (c) the current amount of sales from the vending operation. This formula and the commission amount were based on a report from the private commercial operator, who previously operated the vending machines and made monthly commission payments to SDC based on a percentage of its vending sales.
Additionally, the MOU limited the ability of the vendor to change prices on vended products without prior concurrence by the SDC. Moreover, the MOU stipulated that price changes could only reflect the increased cost of products provided for the vending facility. The MOU also stated that the SLA or the vendor would pay any and all claims, losses, liabilities, or other expenses, including repair expenses arising from the operation of the vending machine facility.
The vending facility operator's agreement signed by the Complainant in May 2006 required Complainant to comply with the MOU between the SLA and the SDC, including the amount of commissions to be paid to the SDC.
In mid-2007, after operating the vending machine facility for almost a year, the Complainant began having problems paying the commission to the SDC. The Complainant alleged that the resident population at the SDC had declined considerably since he began managing the facility. At the same time, the Complainant alleged that his costs for goods and supplies had increased.
On September 1, 2007, an agreement was reached between the SLA, the SDC, and the Complainant to reduce his monthly commission payments to $2,500 with the SLA paying the $1,199 difference to the SDC. From September 2007 through March 2008, the SLA made the payments of $1,199 to the SDC out of Vocational Rehabilitation, Section 110 (VR 110) funds until the SLA was advised by the U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, that VR 110 funds could not be used for vendor commission payments.
Thus, beginning April 2008, the Complainant was again required to make the $3,699 monthly payment to the SDC. In early September 2008, the director at the SDC sent a formal request to the SLA asking that the Complainant be removed, citing a combination of factors, including late commission payments, bounced checks, spoiled food, and safety-related operational problems based upon complaints that the director had received. The SLA contacted the director at the SDC and he withdrew his request for the Complainant's removal with the stipulation that the Complainant would be more closely supervised and that he would become current with his commission payments. However, after October 2008, the Complainant ceased making commission payments to the SDC.
Subsequently, both the Complainant and the Illinois Committee of Blind Vendors (ICBV) filed a complaint with the SLA alleging that staff of the Business Enterprise Program for the Blind (BEPB) entered into an illegal agreement with the Department of Mental Health regarding vending services at the SDC. The Complainant alleged that the SLA agreement with the Department of Mental Health had severely affected the Complainant's ability to earn a living. On November 12, 2008, a hearing on this matter was held.
On December 30, 2008, the hearing officer denied both the Complainant and ICBV's complaint stating that neither party had met the burden of proof required to show that BEPB's actions were not in accordance with State laws, regulations, or policy, were inappropriate, or violated any rights of the Complainant. On December 31, 2008, the SLA adopted the hearing officer's decision as final agency action. It was this decision that the Complainant sought review on appeal by a Federal arbitration panel.
After hearing testimony and reviewing all of the evidence, the panel majority ruled that the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services' determination that a blind vendor could be required to make monthly commission payments to the SDC regarding the vending machine facility was appropriate.
However, the panel majority concluded that the commission was too high, the manner in which the commission was calculated and assessed was inconsistent with the manner in which commission amounts being charged to blind vendors at other State facilities were being calculated and assessed, and that the commission payments were based on the private vendor's monthly payments without regard for the Complainant's seasonal costs or changes in the cost of purchasing products. Accordingly, the panel majority ruled that the SLA's actions were not in accordance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act, implementing regulations, and State laws, rules, and regulations.
Thus, the panel majority awarded the Complainant $22,589 in compensatory damages for overpayment of commissions to the SDC, plus $7,000 in partial compensation for attorney fees for a total award amount of $29,589. The panel also retained jurisdiction for 60 days from the date of the final decision and award to monitor compliance with the terms of the decision.
One panel member dissented from the panel majority's decision stating that the commission structure as a whole and the way the commission payments were determined did not violate the Act, implementing regulations, and State law, rules, and regulations. With regard to the remedy, the dissenter concluded that there is no authority for the arbitration panel to order any payments to the Complainant.
The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (the Commission). The Commission was organized pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 9 a.m.-4 p.m.; Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Washington Marriott Metro Center,775 12th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20005.Telephone: (202) 737-2200.
Timothy A. Frazier, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-4243 or facsimile (202) 586-0544; e-mail
This is the sixth full Commission meeting. Previous meetings were held in March, May, July, September, and November 2010. Webcasts of the previous meetings along with meeting transcripts and presentation are available at
Those not able to attend the meeting or having insufficient time to address the subcommittee are invited to send a written statement to Timothy A. Frazier, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, e-mail to
Additionally, the meeting will be available via live video Web cast. The link will be available at
Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the European Atomic Energy Community and the United States of America.
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 2,536 g of U.S.-origin uranium (11 g U-235) and 27 g of plutonium contained in eight spent fuel rod segments from Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Ltd in Oarai-machi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan, to Studsvik Nuclear AB in Nyköping, Sweden. The material, which is currently located at Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Ltd, will be transferred to Studsvik Nuclear AB for: (a) Pre-irradiation experiment of the spent fuel rods irradiated in a nuclear power plant in Japan by Studsvik Nuclear AB in Sweden, (b) irradiation experiment of those fuel rods by Institutt for Energiteknikk OECD Halden Reactor Project in Norway, and (c) post-irradiation experiment of those fuel rods by Studsvik Nuclear AB in Sweden. The material was originally obtained by Nippon Nuclear Fuel Development Co., Ltd from Martin Marietta Energy Systems pursuant to export licenses XSNM02314 and XSNM02734.
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than February 2, 2011.
For the Department of Energy.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. A copy of the license application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
l. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
m.
Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
n. We notice that we intend to waive scoping and shorten the filing and comment date on final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-consultation period for the application and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping.
o.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. FERC Contact: Mr. Christopher Chaney, (202) 502-6778,
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “PROTEST,” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the 1,020-kilowatt Natural Dam Hydroelectric Project, located on the Oswegatchie River in St. Lawrence County, New York, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet.
For further information, contact John Baummer at (202) 502-6837.
Take notice that on January 10, 2011, Barry Lawson Williams submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, part 45 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 18 CFR part 45 (2010) and 18 CFR 385.204 (2010).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 6, 2011, Enogex LLD (Enogex) filed a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) applicable to intrastate transportation services. Enogex states that the revisions are solely to reflect the revised fuel tracker mechanism accepted by the Commission in Docket No. PR10-52-000 as more fully described in the filing.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 10, 2011, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (National Fuel) filed a request for an extension consistent with the Commission's revised policy of periodic review from a triennial to a five
Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Extension of Scoping Comment Period.
Western Area Power Administration (Western) published separate Notices of Intent to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for the Hyde County Wind Energy Center Project and the Crowned Ridge Wind Energy Center Project in the
The public scoping period commenced with the publication of the
Oral or written comments on the scope of either proposed project may be mailed or e-mailed to Matt Marsh, Upper Great Plains Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 35800, Billings, MT 59107-5800, e-mail
For additional information on the proposed projects, the EIS process, or to receive a copy of either Draft EIS when they are published, contact Matt Marsh at the address above. For general information on the DOE's NEPA review process, contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756, facsimile (202) 586-7031.
NextEra Energy Resources (NextEra) applied to interconnect its proposed 150-megawatt (MW) Hyde County Wind Energy Center Project, located in Hyde County, South Dakota, with the Western's existing Fort Thompson Substation in Buffalo County, South Dakota. NextEra has also applied to interconnect its proposed 150-MW Crowned Ridge Wind Energy Center Project with Western's existing Watertown Substation in Codington County, South Dakota. The proposed Project would be located in Codington and Grant counties, South Dakota. Western is preparing separate EISs on the proposals to interconnect the projects in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021); and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
Separate Notices of Intent were published in the
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 21, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0777, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Betsy A. Metcalf, Enforcement Targeting & Data Division, Office of Compliance, (2222A), 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-OECA-2010-0777, 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,
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
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
1. The reporting of North American Industrial Code System (NAICS) codes, instead of Standard Industrial Codes (SIC), in AFS to better align with existing State/EPA data standards. Previous AFS reporting requirements included reporting of either the SIC or NAICS code. Technical assistance for population of NAICS codes will be made available to delegated agencies upon request.
2. Change to reporting Nonattainment Indicators from current values of moderate, extreme and serious to one of three values: A=Attainment, N=Nonattainment, and U=Unclassified. This change is needed to enable AFS to continue supporting management of attainment and nonattainment area data in the manner in which it is classified by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. EPA can assist with initial population of new indicators in AFS.
EPA anticipates that operational and maintenance costs will increase due to modest inflationary pressures that increase hourly resource costs for management, professional, and related occupational groups. The labor rates used in the ICR estimates will be taken from the Department of Labor Employment Compensation and Costs (ECEC) Web site. These changes will be reflected in the final supporting statement for this ICR. Additionally, the number of respondents will be corrected to reflect 99 respondents, an increase from 93 in the previous ICR resulting in an overall increase in hours and resources for reporting.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will be submitted by EPA to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of the availability of funds.
EPA's Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR) plans to make available approximately $8 million to supplementally fund Revolving Loan Fund capitalization grants previously awarded competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3). Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilots awarded under section 104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have not transitioned to section 104(k)(3) grants are not eligible to apply for these funds. EPA will consider awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who have demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making at least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(4)(A)(ii).
The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by February 17, 2011. Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF supplemental funding is described below and additional information may be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.
This action is effective January 18, 2011.
A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator (
Megan Quinn, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-2773 or the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize Federal financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a provision for the EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any year after the year for which the initial grant is made
(I) The number of sites and number of communities that are addressed by the revolving loan fund;
(II) The demand for funding by eligible entities that have not previously received a grant under this subsection;
(III) The demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and provide funds on a continuing basis; and
(IV) Such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers appropriate to carry out this subsection.
In order to be considered for supplemental funding, RLF recipients must have made at least one loan or subgrant prior to applying for this supplemental funding. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have significantly depleted existing available funds; demonstrated a need for supplemental funding based on, among other factors, the number of sites that will be addressed; demonstrated the ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started and completed expeditiously (
Federal Election Commission.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particularemployee.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Notice and request for comment.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through January 31, 2014, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2011.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form, by following the instructions in the Request for Comments to 30-Day Notice part of the
Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Allyson Himelfarb, Investigator, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-286, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2505.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
On September 16, 2010, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, (the Pre-Sale Availability Rule), 16 CFR 702. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule (OMB Control No. 3084-0112). All comments should be filed as prescribed below, and must be received on or before February 17, 2011.
The Pre-Sale Availability Rule is one of three rules
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``Pre-Sale Availability Rule: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403'' to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC Web site, at (
Please also note that because your comments will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that it does not include any sensitive personal information, such as any individual's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other State identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. It is also your own responsibility to ensure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential * * *,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). No comment, whether it contains such material or not, will be given confidential treatment unless the comment has been filed with the FTC Secretary; the comment is accompanied by a written confidentiality request that complies fully with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c);
Because postal mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, please submit your comments in electronic form or send them by courier or overnight service. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it at
A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Pre-Sale Availability Rule: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403'' reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
Comments on any proposed recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements that are subject to Paperwork Reduction Act review by the OMB should additionally be submitted via facsimile to OMB at (202) 395-5167 and addressed as follows: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Facsimile
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before the deadline specified above in the
In its 2007 submission to OMB, FTC staff estimated that the information collection burden of making the disclosures required by the Pre-Sale Availability Rule was approximately 2,328,000 hours per year. Although there has been no change in the Rule's information collection requirements since 2007, staff has adjusted its previous estimate of the number of manufacturers subject to the Rule based on recent Census data. From that, staff now estimates that there are approximately 478 large manufacturers and 15,444 small manufacturers subject to the Rule. In addition, recent Census data suggests that there are an estimated 6,892 large retailers and 452,553 small retailers impacted by the Rule.
In its 2007 submission to OMB, staff took note that some online retailers had begun to make warranty information directly available on their Web sites, thereby reducing their paperwork burden under the Rule. As e-commerce continues to grow, it is likely that even more retailers are posting warranty information online than they were in 2007. Nevertheless, because the staff assumes that only a small percentage of retailers would be significantly less burdened by posting warranty information online—namely, retailers with a large Internet presence or whose inventory is mainly composed of warranted products
Staff also estimates that more manufacturers are beginning to provide retailers with warranty information in electronic form in fulfilling their obligations under the Rule. Therefore, staff finds it necessary at this time to adjust the hour burden for manufacturers as it did with retailers in its previous submission to OMB. Applying a 20% reduction to its previous estimates, the staff now assumes that large manufacturers spend an average of 42 hours per year and that small manufacturers spend an average of 10 hours per year to comply with the Rule.
Thus, the total annual burden for all covered entities is approximately 2,490,124 hours (2,315,608 hours for retailers + 174,516 hours for manufacturers).
The work required to comply with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule entails a mix of clerical work and work performed by sales associates. Staff estimates that half of the total burden hours would likely be performed by sales associates. At the manufacturing level, this work would entail ensuring that the written warranty accompanies every consumer product or that the required warranty information otherwise gets to the retailer. At the retail level, this work would entail ensuring that the written warranty is made available to the consumer prior to sale. The remaining half of the work required to comply with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule is clerical in nature, e.g., shipping or otherwise providing copies of manufacturer warranties to retailers and retailer maintenance of them. Applying a sales associate wage rate of $22/hour to half of the burden hours and a clerical wage rate of $16/hour to half of the burden hours, the total annual labor cost burden is approximately $47,312,356 (1,245,062 hours × $22 per hour) + (1,245,062 hours × $16 per hour).
The vast majority of retailers and warrantors already have developed systems to provide the information the Rule requires. Compliance by retailers typically entails keeping warranties on file, in binders or otherwise, and posting an inexpensive sign indicating warranty availability. Manufacturer compliance entails providing retailers with a copy of the warranties included with their products.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2011.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to “Tested Green, File No. 102 3064” to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment—including
Because comments will be made public, they should not include any sensitive personal information, such as an individual's Social Security Number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, comments should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential * * *,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by using the following Web link:
A comment filed in paper form should include the “Tested Green, File No. 102 3064” reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Elsie B. Kappler (202-326-2466), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 11, 2011), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order from Nonprofit Management LLC and Jeremy Ryan Claeys, also doing business as Tested Green (``respondents'').
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves the advertising, marketing, and sale of environmental certifications. From approximately February 2009 to April 2010, respondents marketed the Tested Green certification using their Web site,
The Commission alleges that the Tested Green certification constituted an express or implied representation that the products, services, programs, or entities bearing the certification had been independently and objectively evaluated based on their environmental attributes or benefits, when, in fact, they had not. Additionally, by furnishing businesses with the certification and the tools to advertise it, respondents provided such businesses with the
The Commission also alleges that by stating that the NGBA and the NAGC endorsed Tested Green, respondents represented expressly or impliedly that they were independent from these organizations, when, in fact, they own and operate NGBA and NAGC. Therefore, respondents' statement of endorsement by NGBA and NAGC was false and misleading, in violation of Section 5. Similarly, in light of respondents' express and implied representation that these organizations were independent, respondents' failure to disclose their relationship to NGBA and NAGC was deceptive, in violation of Section 5.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits respondents from misrepresenting: (1) The fact that, or degree to which, they have, or a third party has, evaluated a product, package, service, practice, or program based on its environmental benefits or attributes; (2) that respondents have, or a third party has, the appropriate expertise to evaluate the environmental benefits or attributes of a product, package, service, practice, or program; (3) the number of certifications issued by respondents; and (4) that a product, package, certification, service, practice, or program is endorsed by an independent person or organization.
Part II of the proposed order bars respondents, in connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any product, package, certification, service, practice, or program, from providing others with the means and instrumentalities to make, expressly or impliedly, any false or misleading statement.
Part III of the proposed order bars respondents from making any representation, expressly or by implication, about any user or endorser of a product, package, certification, service, practice, or program, unless they clearly and prominently disclose a material connection with such user or endorser, where one exists.
Parts IV through VIII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part IV requires respondents to retain documents relating to their compliance with the order. Part V requires dissemination of the order to all current and future principals, officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part VI ensures notification to the FTC of changes in respondent Nonprofit Management's corporate status. Part VII mandates that respondent Claeys notify the FTC of any changes in his business affiliations or employment. Part VIII mandates that respondents submit a report to the Commission detailing their compliance with the order. Part IX provides that the order expires after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting is open to the public. Pre-registration is required for both public attendance and comment. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should either e-mail
The meeting will be held on February 16, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EDT, and February 17, 2011 from 8:30 am to 4 p.m., EDT.
Department of Health and Human Services; Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; Fax: (202) 260-1165; e-mail:
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.
Topics to be discussed at the meeting include the National Vaccine Plan, Influenza 2010-2011 Season, H1N1 Vaccine Safety, and other related issues. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Web site:
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of Meetings and request for comments.
This notice announces the forthcoming subcommittee meetings of a Federal advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
• Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m./EDT;
• Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m./EDT;
• Early April, 2011, date and time TBD.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Judy Sparrow at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Barriers to Meaningful Use in Medicaid.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 21, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by e-mail at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by e-mail at
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, Title XIII of Division A and Title IV of Division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5), provides for financial incentives for Medicaid providers to adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record (EHR) technologies. To ensure that eligible professionals (EPs) are able to qualify for and access these incentives, AHRQ proposes a two-year project with the objective of understanding the barriers that Medicaid health providers encounter along the way to achieving the meaningful use of EHRs. This proposed information collection will allow AHRQ to synthesize knowledge regarding the barriers that BPs encounter when attempting to achieve meaningful use and translate that knowledge to develop technical assistance and support implementation and use of EHRs.
Further, health care providers who serve Medicaid beneficiaries are serving many of AHRQ's priority populations: Inner city; rural; low income; minority; women; children; elderly; and those with special health care needs. The project is designed to solicit actionable recommendations on what activities can best help Medicaid providers take advantage of incentive payments, achieve meaningful use, and ultimately use health IT to improve health care for the Medicaid population. The information gathered under this project will also be used to inform the development of the Stage 2 and 3 Meaningful Use criteria.
In order to gather, analyze, and synthesize information on the barriers to the meaningful use criteria experienced by Medicaid providers this research has the following goals:
(1) Identify the barriers to eligibility for the incentive payments; barriers to adoption, implementation, or upgrading of ERR systems; and barriers to achieving meaningful use.
(2) Develop actionable recommendations to overcoming the barriers identified in #1 above, including, but not limited to, technical assistance that could be made available to Medicaid providers.
(3) Provide data to inform the meaningful use objectives being developed by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for Stages 2 and 3 of the EHR Incentive Program.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, RTI International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research to advance both training for health care practitioners in the use of information systems and the use of computer-based health records. 42 U.S.C. 299b-3(a)(2) and (6).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
(1) A screening questionnaire will be used to identify eligible participants, as part of the sampling procedure for the focus groups. Appended to the screening questionnaire is a series of questions for individuals who have agreed to participate in the focus groups, in order to collect descriptive and demographic information prior to the focus group session, and as part of the analysis plan.
(2) Nine focus groups will include 6-11 EPs per group, containing a mix of pediatricians, other physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives. Focus groups with community health center (CHC) and rural health center (RHC)-based providers will also include physician assistants and administrators. Four of the focus groups will include providers in private practice (excluding dentists), an additional four will include providers working in CHCs or RHCs, and the final group will be comprised of private practice dentists. Private practice dentists are being considered separately due to the fact that their practice patterns are likely to vary substantially from those of primary care physicians and non-physician providers. The purpose of these focus groups is to gather information about adoption issues (factors in the decision to adopt an EHR), implementation issues (organizational or environmental factors that facilitate EHR implementation and training), upgrade issues (challenges to transitioning to certified EHRs), and challenges to achieving meaningful use of ERRS as defined for Stage 1 in the final rule for the Medicare and Medicaid ERR Incentive Program (75 FR 44314) (particular functions that are problematic, the source of the challenge). Responses will also address topics related to participants' knowledge of the ERR incentive program and other factors that may facilitate EHR use. The focus group moderator will use a moderator's guide to guide discussion. Show cards will provide key reminders of content for discussion.
The information will be used to develop actionable recommendations to overcoming barriers to meaningful use of EHRs for Medicaid providers, including but not limited to technical assistance that could be made available to Medicaid providers. Furthermore, the data gathered through this research will inform the meaningful use objectives being developed by CMS for Stages 2 and 3 of the EHR Incentive Program. Three types of information will be collected: List of potential focus group participants, descriptive and demographic information about focus group participants, and the information gathered at each focus group related to the barriers to meaningful use. The information will be synthesized to provide information to the Federal government to inform the future meaningful use regulations and understand any disparities potentially resulting from the implementation of the incentive programs.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this research. The screening questionnaire will be completed by 300 clinicians and will take 12 minutes to complete on average. Focus groups will be conducted with not more than 89 clinicians and will last about 2 hours. The total annual burden hours are estimated to be 238 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this research. The total annual cost burden is estimated to be $15,902.
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total and annualized cost to the government for conducting this research. The total cost is estimated to be $424,493.
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQs information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, January 24, 2011, 5 p.m. to January 26, 2011, 5 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli RD, Bethesda, MD, 20852 which was published in the
This notice is amending the meeting from three days to two days. The new date and time of this meeting is January 25, 2011, 8 a.m. to January 26, 2011, 5 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council, January 20, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. for Open session and 1:15 p.m. to adjournment for Closed Session, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Terrace Level Conference Center, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be on January 20, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. Open session and 11 a.m. to adjournment for Closed Session.
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 section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Eye Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performances, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, February 7, 2011, 6:30 p.m. to February 9, 2011, 12 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to cancel the Subcommittee on Clinical Investigations meeting on February 7, 2011 from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. and to cancel the National Cancer Advisory Board Meeting on February 9, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public on February 8, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and the closed session will be from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting is partially 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 sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, 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 limitationsimposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitationsimposed by the review and funding cycle.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notice.
Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may approve petitions for H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant status only for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has designated by notice published in the
Alexander Hartman, Office of Policy, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 282-9820.
In designating countries to include on the list, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, will take into account factors including, but not limited to: (1) The country's cooperation with respect to issuance of travel documents for citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country who are subject to a final order of removal; (2) the number of final and unexecuted orders
In December 2008, DHS published in the
To allow for the continued operation of the H-2A and H-2B programs, the Secretary of Homeland Security published, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, a notice in the
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that 38 countries previously designated in the January 19, 2010 notice continue to meet the standards identified in that notice for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, however, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that Indonesia should no longer continue to be designated as an eligible country because Indonesia is not meeting the standards set out in the regulation.
Further, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has determined that it is now appropriate to add 15 additional countries to the list of countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. This determination is made taking into account the four factors identified above. The Secretary of Homeland Security considered other pertinent factors including, but not limited to, evidence of past usage of the H-2A and H-2B programs by nationals of the countries to be added, as well as evidence relating to the economic impact on particular U.S. industries or regions resulting from the addition or continued non-inclusion of specific countries. In consideration of all of the above, this notice designates for the first time Barbados, Estonia, Fiji, Hungary, Kiribati, Latvia, Macedonia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs.
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1), and 215(a)(1) and 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), 1185(a)(1), and 1231), I have designated, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that nationals from the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant worker programs:
This notice does not affect the status of aliens who currently hold valid H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status.
Nothing in this notice limits the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee or any other Federal agency to invoke against any foreign country or its nationals any other remedy, penalty, or enforcement action available by law.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Meetings.
The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (“HOGANSAC” or “the Committee”) and its working groups will meet in Texas City, Texas and Houston, Texas to discuss waterway improvements, aids to navigation, area projects impacting safety on the Houston Ship Channel, and various other navigation safety matters in the Galveston Bay area. These meetings will be open to the public.
The Committee will meet on Thursday February 3, 2011 from 9 a.m. to noon. The Committee's working groups will meet on Thursday January 20, 2011 from 9 a.m. to noon. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before January 19, 2011. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed
The Committee will meet on February 3, 2011 at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Texas City, 3101 FM 2004, Texas City, Texas 77591. The working groups will meet January 20, 2011 at West Gulf Maritime Association (WGMA) offices, 1717 East Loop, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77029. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Commander Michael Zidik, Assistant Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) of HOGANSAC. This notice and documents identified in the
If you have questions concerning the meeting, please call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Margaret Brown, Waterways Management Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 713-678-9001, e-mail
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
The tentative agenda for the Committee is as follows:
(1) Opening Remarks by the Designated Federal Officer (CAPT Woodring) and Committee Chair (Mrs. Tava Foret).
(2) Approval of September 23, 2010 minutes.
(3) Old Business.
(a) Navigation Operations subcommittee report;
(b) Dredging subcommittee report;
(c) Technology subcommittee report;
(d) Waterways Safety and Utilization subcommittee report;
(e) Commercial Recovery Contingency (CRC) subcommittee report;
(f) HOGANSAC Outreach subcommittee report;
(g) State of the Waterway report;
(h) Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) Liaison's report.
(4) New Business.
(a) Discussion on 2011 AMSC/HSC Conference.
(b) Action items recommended for consideration by a Working Group.
(5) Announcements.
(a) Schedule Next Meetings.
(1) Presentation by each working group of its accomplishments and plans for the future;
(2) Review and discuss the work completed by each working group;
(3) Put forth any action items for consideration at full committee meeting.
Both meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chairs' discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the ADFO no later than January 19, 2011. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than January 19, 2011. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of a meeting, please submit 15 copies to the ADFO no later than January 19, 2011.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Margaret Brown as soon as possible.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Meeting cancellation.
On December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82040), the United States Coast Guard announced that a public meeting on the International Maritime Organization guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems for marine engines would be held January 19 and 20, 2011 in Washington, DC. This meeting has been cancelled. A future meeting date on this topic may be scheduled and would be announced in the
The public meeting previously scheduled for January 19 and 20, 2011 is cancelled.
For additional informationabout this public meeting you may contact Mr. Wayne Lundy by telephone at 202-372-1379 or by e-mail at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651-0108.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit (CBP Form I-68). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before February 17, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's/component's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
The information collected on CBP Form I-68 allows people who enter the United States from Canada by small pleasure boats to be inspected only once during the boating season, rather than each time they make an entry. This information collection is provided for by 8 CFR 235.1(e) and Section 235 of Immigration and Nationality Act. CBP Form I-68 is accessible at
If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at (202) 325-0265.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses and all associated permits are cancelled without prejudice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General Notice.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual Customs broker license and any and all permits have been cancelled due to the death of the broker:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
Availability of Revised North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram and Supplemental Official Outer Continental Shelf Block Diagrams.
Notice is hereby given that effective with this publication, the following NAD 83-based Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Official Protraction Diagram (OPD) and Supplemental Official OCS Block Diagrams (SOBDs) located in the Pacific Ocean near Eureka, California, with revision date as indicated, are now available. BOEMRE in accordance with its authority and responsibility under Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, is updating the basic record used for the description of renewable energy, mineral, and oil and gas lease sales in the geographic areas they represent. The revised OPD and SOBDs reflect updated locations for the Submerged Lands Act (3 nautical mile), and Limit of “8(g) Zone” (6 nautical mile) boundaries. This announcement of the revised OPD and SOBDs is for informational purposes only.
NK10-10 (Eureka)—2/10/2006.
Submerged Lands Act boundary Blocks (7)—2/10/2006: 6678, 6627, 6628, 6577, 6578, 6528, and 6529.
Limit of “8(g) Zone” Blocks (10)—2/10/2006: 6728, 6727, 6677, 6676, 6626, 6576, 6526, 6527, 6477, and 6478.
Steven Textoris, Acting Chief, Leasing Division at (703) 787-1223 or via e-mail at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of thelands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on February 17, 2011.
Protests of the survey must be filed before February 17, 2011 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, CadastralSurveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 SouthgateDrive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5009.
This survey was executed at the request of theU.S. Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, Montana, and was necessary to determineboundaries of the Federal interest lands.The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the survey of an island (Tract 37), Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted December 28, 2010.
The plat, in one sheet, representing the survey of an island (Tract 37), Township 27 North, Range 24 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted December 28, 2010.
We will place a copy of the plats, in two sheets, and related field notes in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on these plats, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file these plats, in two sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dominguez-Escalante Advisory Council (Council) will meet as indicated below. Future meetings will be scheduled at a later date.
Meetings will be held February 2, 2011; March 2, 2011; April 6, 2011; and May 4, 2011. All meetings will begin at 3 p.m. and will continue until 6 p.m.
The February 2 and April 6 meetings will be held at the Mesa County Courthouse Annex, Training Room A, 544 Rood, Grand Junction, Colorado. The March 2 and May 4 meetings will be held at the Delta Performing Arts Center, 822 Grand Ave., Delta, Colorado.
Katie Stevens, Advisory Council
The 10-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the resource management planning process for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.
Topics of discussion during the meeting may include informational presentations from various resource specialists working on the resource management plan, as well as Council reports relating to the following topics: recreation, fire management, land-use planning process descriptions, invasive species management, travel management, wilderness, land exchange criteria, cultural resource management, and other resource management topics of interest to the Council raised during the planning process.
These meetings are anticipated to occur monthly, and may occur as frequently as every two weeks during intensive phases of the planning process. Dates, times and agendas for additional meetings may be determined at future Advisory Council Meetings, and will be published in the
These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will have time allocated at the beginning and end of each meeting for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual, oral comments may be limited at the discretion of the chair.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Correction.
This notice amends a Notice of Realty Action which published in the
Manuela Johnson at (702) 515-5224, or
43 CFR 2711.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of an expedited five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Effective Date: January 4, 2011.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), and has terminated the investigation.
James A. Worth, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 29, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California (“HP”). 74 FR 55856-7 (Oct. 29, 2009). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies or components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1-7 and 22-28 of United States Patent No. 6,959,985; claims 1-10, 11, 12, 14, 18-20, 22, 26, 27, and 28-35 of United States Patent No. 7,104,630; claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687 (“the '687 patent”); and claims 1-3, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301 (“the '301 patent”). The complaint named as respondents Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co. Ltd. of Guangdong, China (“Zhuhai”); InkPlusToner.com of Canoga Park, California (“InkPlusToner”); Mipo International Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Mipo International”); Mextec Group, Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida (“Mextec”); Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of Shanghai, China (“Shanghai Angel”); SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net of Hayward, California (“Smart One”); Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (“Shenzhen Print Media”); Comptree Ink d/b/a Meritline, ABCInk, EZ Label, and CDR DVDR Media of City of Industry, California (“Comptree”); Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China (“Zhuhai National”); Tatrix International of Guangdong, China (“Tatrix”); and Ourway Image Co., of Guangdong, China (“Ourway”).
Seven respondents, Mipo International, Mextec, Shanghai Angel, Shenzhen Print Media, Zhuhai National, Tatrix, and Ourway (collectively, “Defaulting Respondents”), failed to answer the Complaint and Notice of Investigation. The ALJ granted default determinations against the Defaulting Respondents (Order No. 9), and the Commission determined not to review the order. See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding Seven Respondents in Default (February 17, 2010). Three respondents, Comptree, InkPlusToner, and SmartOne, reached settlement agreements with HP and were terminated from the investigation (Order Nos. 11, 13, and 14), and the Commission determined not to review those orders. One respondent, Zhuhai, was terminated from the investigation on the basis of a consent order (Order No. 12), and the Commission determined not to review that order.
On May 7, 2010, HP moved for summary determination that a domestic industry exists and that the Defaulting Respondents have violated section 337. The ALJ granted HP's motion and issued his final ID (Order No. 18) on August 30, 2010, finding substantial, reliable and probative evidence of violation by the Defaulting Respondents with respect to claims 6 and 9 of the `687 patent and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the `301 patent. The ID included the ALJ's recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended that in the event the Commission finds a violation of section 337, the Commission should issue a general exclusion order and a cease and desist
On October 7, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the final ID, and to solicit submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On October 28, 2010, HP and the Commission investigative attorney filed submissions with respect thereto. After reviewing the relevant portions of the record, the Commission has determined to issue a general exclusion order with respect to claims 6 and 9 of the `687 patent and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the `301 patent, and a cease and desist order against Mextec with respect to the same claims.
The Commission has therefore terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and sections 210.16(c), 210.41-.42, and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c), 210.41-.42, and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on December 30, 2010, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7401
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The consent decree and associated appendices may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on January 10, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action, the United States alleges that the Defendant is liable under Sections 107 and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613(g)(2), for the recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States at the Building 190 at the former Grissom Air Force Base, located at 1175 North Hoosier Boulevard, Peru, Indiana (“Site” or “Building 190 Site”). Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendant will reimburse the United States $300,000 in past and future response costs.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announce a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Friday, February 4, 2011, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E. Street, SW., Room 9H40, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0732.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its 1st Quarterly Meeting for 2011. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include: Updates on Metrics on Mishap Investigation Board Report, Human Rating Requirements for Technical Standards, and NASA Alcohol Use and Testing Policy.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collections described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before February 17, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167; or electronically mailed to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-713-7409.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on October 29, 2010 (75 FR 66802). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
The National Science Board's Task Force on Unsolicited Mid-Scale Research (MS), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a meeting held by teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows:
January 26, 2011, 12:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m. ET.
Summary of internal NSF discussion, proposed revision to the MS Task Force charge, plans for the future external discussion groups and workshop, and additional data gathering activities and plans (data mining, possible survey, and Web site).
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A room will be available for the public to listen-in to this meeting held by teleconference. All visitors must contact the Board Office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting held by teleconference to arrange for a visitor's badge and to obtain the room number. Call 703-292-7000 or send an e-mail message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 111-175, the NTSB announces the availability of the FY2010 inventory of service contracts.
The inventory is available electronically on the following Web site:
For further information, please contact: Christopher Blumberg, Chief, Acquisition and Lease Management Division, NTSB; 202-314-6102;
Section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 111-117, requires civilian agencies to prepare an annual inventory of their service contracts. The inventory includes all service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in FY2010. The inventory was prepared in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and may be downloaded in electronic form (.pdf) from the Web site at the following location
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of opportunity for public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is issuing this Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) to clarify the NRC staff's technical position on existing regulatory requirements and voltage studies necessary for Degraded Voltage Relay (second level undervoltage protection) setting bases and Transmission Network/Offsite/Onsite station electric power system design bases. This RIS does not transmit any new requirements or staff positions. No specific action or written response is required.
Comment period expires 30 days after publication. Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0013 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal Rulemaking Web site Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
Kenn A. Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3152, e-mail:
All holders of, or applicants for, a power reactor operating license or construction permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
All holders of, and applicants of design centers and combined operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certificate and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is issuing this Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) to clarify the NRC staff's technical position on existing regulatory requirements and voltage studies necessary for Degraded Voltage Relay (second level undervoltage protection) setting bases and Transmission Network/Offsite/Onsite station electric power system design bases. This RIS does not transmit any new requirements or staff positions. No specific action or written response is required.
The events at Millstone and Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) that led to the NRC staff's position requiring degraded voltage protection for nuclear power plant Class 1E (or safety related) electrical safety buses and expectations for voltage calculations for the plant offsite/onsite electric power system interface, are discussed below as a reminder of past operating experience.
Electrical grid events at the Millstone Station, in July of 1976, have shown that when the Class 1E buses are supplied by the offsite power system, sustained degraded voltage conditions on the grid can cause adverse effects on the operation of Class 1E loads. These degraded voltage conditions will not be detected by the Loss-of-Voltage Relays (LVRs) which are designed to detect loss of power to the bus from the offsite circuit. The LVR's low voltage dropout setting is generally in the range of 0.7 per unit voltage or less, with a time delay of about 2 seconds.
As a result of further evaluation of the Millstone events, it was also determined that improper voltage protection logic can also cause adverse effects on the Class 1E systems and equipment, such as spurious load shedding of Class 1E loads from the standby diesel generators and spurious separation of Class 1E systems from offsite power due to normal motor starting transients.
As a result of these Millstone events, the NRC required all licensees to implement degraded voltage protection under Generic Action (Multi-plant Action B-23) to ensure automatic protection of safety buses and loads. Since degradation of the offsite power system can lead to or cause the failure of redundant Class 1E safety related electrical equipment, the NRC required licensees to install degraded voltage protection schemes (second level of voltage protection (Degraded Voltage Relays (DVRs)) for the onsite power system) as described in NRC Letters dated June 2 & 3, 1977, “Statement of Staff Positions Relative to Emergency Power Systems for Operating Reactors,” which were sent to all licensees of all operating nuclear power plants. As an example,
(a) The selection of voltage and time delay setpoints shall be determined from an analysis of the operating voltage requirements of the safety related loads at all onsite system distribution levels;
(b) The voltage protection shall include coincidence logic to preclude spurious trips of the offsite power source;
(c) The time delay selected shall be based on the following conditions:
(1) The allowable time delay, including margin shall not exceed the maximum time delay that is assumed in the FSAR accident analyses;
(2) The time delay shall override the effect of expected short duration grid disturbances, preserving availability of the offsite power source(s): and
(3) The allowable time duration of a degraded voltage condition at all distribution system levels shall not result in failure of safety related systems or components;
(d) The voltage monitors (or DVRs as defined above) shall automatically initiate the disconnection of offsite power sources whenever the voltage and time delay limits have been exceeded; and
(e) The voltage monitors (DVRs) shall be designed to satisfy the requirements of IEEE Standard 279-1971, “Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations”; and
(f) The Technical Specifications shall include limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, trip setpoints with minimum and maximum limits, and allowable values for second-level voltage protection DVRs.
The NRC outlined the purpose of the degraded voltage relays to protect Class 1E safety related buses from sustained degraded voltage conditions on the offsite power system under accident and non-accident conditions in Branch Technical Position (BTP) of the Standard Review Plan (SRP/NUREG-0800), PSB-1, Revision 0, “Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution System Voltages,” dated July 1981 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052350520), and in the current BTP 8-6 of the SRP, Revision 3, “Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution System Voltages,” dated March 2007, (ADAMS Accession No. ML070710478).
Another degraded voltage event, in September of 1978, at Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) station demonstrated that degraded voltage conditions could exist on the Class 1E buses even with normal grid voltages, due to deficiencies in equipment between the grid and the Class 1E buses or by the starting transients experienced during certain accident events not originally considered in the sizing of these circuits. Information Notice No. 79-04, “Degradation of Engineered Safety Features,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML0311801180) provides additional information regarding this event.
The NRC staff issued Generic Letter 79-36, August 8, 1979, “Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution Systems voltages” (ADAMS Legacy No. 7908230155), expanding its generic review of the adequacy of electric power systems for operating nuclear power plants. Specifically, the NRC required all licensees to review the electric power systems at each of their nuclear power plants to determine analytically if, assuming all onsite sources of AC power are not available, the offsite power system and the onsite distribution system is of sufficient capacity and capability to automatically start as well as operate all required safety related loads.
Despite lessons learned from past events, and the generic communications on degraded voltage protection and adequate station voltages, NRC inspectors have identified incorrect
During the safety system design and performance capability biennial baseline inspection (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-315/03-07(DRS); 50-316/03-07(DRS) (ADAMS Accession No. ML032260201) at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant in July of 2003, NRC inspectors identified that the degraded voltage protection scheme was bypassed whenever the 4160V buses were not being supplied through the reserve auxiliary transformers (RATs). This resulted in a lack of automatic degraded voltage protection during normal operation and for the first 30 seconds of an accident when engineered safety feature (ESF) loads were being sequenced onto the safety buses. This condition did not meet the staff position described in BTP PSB-1 and the electrical scheme is contrary to the design criteria for degraded voltage protection stated in an NRC letter to the licensee (a version of a letter sent to all licensees) dated June 3, 1977. This issue was reviewed by the NRR technical staff under Task Interface Agreement, TIA 2004-02 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042460579), and the staff concluded that the degraded voltage protection design at D.C. Cook was inadequate and as such should be modified to include degraded voltage protection during normal operation as well. Because the NRC staff had approved D.C. Cook's degraded voltage protection design in 1980, the staff's 2005 determination that the design was inadequate constituted a change in position and was subject to a backfit analysis. By letter dated November 9, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050680057), the NRC imposed a facility-specific compliance backfit on D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 to bring the facility into compliance with its license, the rules and orders of the Commission, and the licensee's written commitments. The licensee implemented a plant modification to the degraded voltage relaying circuit to make it functional during normal operation (
In May of 2008, NRC inspectors determined that the time delay settings of the degraded voltage relays for both divisions I and II of the Class 1E electrical distribution system were inadequate. The time delays could impact the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) injection timing requirements of the licensee's Title 10 of the
Exelon did not use the safety related degraded grid relay trip setpoint specified in the Technical Specifications (TS) as a design input in calculations to ensure adequate voltage was available to all safety related components required to respond to a design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). Instead, Exelon used the results from a Voltage Regulation Study to establish the voltage level for system operability. The study credited the use of non safety related equipment (load tap changers) to raise the voltage level. This allowed higher voltages to be used in the design calculations for components than would be allowed by the TS setpoint. The NRR technical staff reviewed the issue in TIA 2009-07 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102710178). The staff concluded that the licensee must demonstrate that the existing degraded voltage trip setpoints, including allowable values and time delays shown in the licensee's TS Table 3.3.8.1, are adequate to protect and provide the required minimum voltage to all safety related equipment. Since the load tap changers are not safety related and are subject to operational limitations and credible failures, they cannot be relied on to establish degraded voltage relay setpoints and time delay input for design basis calculations. For additional details,
In July of 2009, an NRC inspection team questioned the calculations that demonstrate adequate voltage to safety related loads during worst case loading conditions and the adequacy of a time delay of 35 seconds for transfer of safety buses to the onsite power supplies should an actual degraded voltage condition occur. The licensee's calculation assumed a voltage above the degraded bus setpoint to demonstrate adequate voltage at the terminals of the safety related loads rather than the degraded voltage dropout setpoint value. The licensee maintains that a degraded voltage condition concurrent
Because the NRC continues to identify inspection findings associated with degraded voltage, the NRC is providing clarifying information on two issues related to the need for two sets of calculations for the design of the electric power systems of a nuclear power plant and its interface with the transmission network as defined in 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criteria 17. The two issues are (1) Degraded Voltage Relaying Design Calculations, and (2) Offsite/Onsite Design Interface Calculations. The Degraded Voltage Relaying Design Calculations establish the necessary settings of the DVRs to ensure that required safety related components are provided adequate voltage based on the design of the Class 1E distribution system in the plant and its most limiting operating configuration. The Offsite/Onsite Design Interface Calculations specify the voltage operating parameters of the plant electrical distribution system based on the transmission system (Offsite) operating parameters. This interface calculation establishes operating voltage bands for all plant electrical buses, which ensures that all plant components and systems (Class 1E and Non Safety Related) have proper voltage for starting and running in all operational configurations (expected operational and accident conditions). Therefore, based on normal grid operation, the degraded voltage relays will not operate, maintaining the offsite power supply to the plant electrical distribution system.
Proper design of a degraded voltage relaying scheme is needed to ensure that safety related systems are supplied with adequate voltages. The purpose of the NRC developed Branch Technical Position (BTP) PSB-1 (revised later to become BTP 8-6), is to protect Class 1E safety related buses and components from sustained degraded voltage conditions on the offsite power system coincident with an accident as well as during non-accident conditions. The Class 1E buses should separate from the offsite power system within a few seconds if an accident occurs coincident with sustained degraded voltage conditions. During normal plant operation, the Class 1E safety related buses should automatically separate from the power supply within a short interval (typically less than 60 seconds) if sustained degraded voltage conditions are detected. The time delay chosen should be optimized to ensure that permanently connected Class 1E loads are not damaged under sustained degraded voltage conditions (such as sustained degraded voltage just above the LVR voltage setting for the duration of the DVR time delay setting). The staff considers degraded voltage conditions coincident with a postulated design basis accident to be a credible event. DVRs should be set to protect the safety related equipment from sustained degraded voltage conditions.
Licensee voltage calculations should provide the basis for their DVR settings, ensuring safety related equipment is supplied with adequate operating voltage (typically a minimum of 0.9 per unit voltage at the terminals of the safety related equipment per equipment manufacturers requirements), based on bounding conditions for the most limiting safety related load (in terms of voltage) in the plant. These voltage calculations should model the plant safety related electrical distribution system such that the limiting voltage at the bus monitored by the DVR can be calculated in terms of the voltage at the terminals of the most limiting safety related component in the plant. These models would allow calculation of voltages at terminals or contacts of all safety related equipment with the voltage at the DVR monitored bus at the DVR dropout setting, providing the necessary design basis for the DVR voltage settings. In this manner, the DVR ensures adequate operational (starting and running) voltage to all safety related equipment, independent of voltage controlling equipment external to the plant safety related electrical distribution system. For the purposes of this calculation, no credit should be taken for voltage controlling equipment external to the Class 1E distribution system such as automatic load tap changers and capacitor banks. Voltage-time settings for DVRs should be selected so as to avoid spurious separation of safety buses from the offsite power system during unit startup, normal operation and shutdown. These DVRs should disconnect the Class 1E buses from any power source other than the emergency diesel generators (onsite sources) if the degraded voltage condition exists for a time interval that could prevent the Class 1E safety related loads from achieving their safety function. The DVRs should also protect the Class 1E safety related loads from prolonged operation below sustained degraded voltage which could result in equipment damage.
The licensees should demonstrate that the existing DVR settings including allowable values and time delays are adequate to protect and provide the required minimum voltage to all safety related equipment. The time-delay(s) chosen for DVRs during accident conditions should meet the accident analyses assumptions and allow for proper starting of all Class 1E safety related equipment. Also, the time delay chosen for DVRs during non-accident condition must not cause any degradation of the safety related components, including actuation of their protective devices.
The offsite power source is the preferred source of power to safely shut down the plant during design basis accidents, abnormal operational occurrence, and reactor trips. The licensee's voltage calculations should provide the basis for proper operation of the plant safety related electrical distribution system, when supplied from the offsite circuit (from the transmission network). These calculations should demonstrate that the voltage requirements (both starting and operational voltages) of all plant safety related systems and components are satisfied based on operation of the transmission system and the plant onsite electric power system during all operating configurations of transmission network and plant systems. In this way, all safety related systems and components will function as designed with proper starting and running voltages during all plant conditions and the DVRs will not actuate (separating the transmission network supply). Following are guidelines for voltage drop calculations derived from Generic Letter 79-36, which have been supplemented to add clarifying
(a) The plant voltage analysis, while supplied from the transmission network, should be based on the operating voltage range of the transmission network connection. This transmission owner/operator supplied voltage range should address all transmission network and plant system operating configurations and should also include voltage drop due to the bounding worst case transmission system contingency (transmission system contingencies include trip of the nuclear power unit).
(b) Separate analyses should be performed assuming the power source to the safety buses is (1) the unit auxiliary transformer; (2) the startup transformer; and (3) other available connections (
(c) For multi-unit stations, a separate analysis should be performed for each unit assuming (1) an accident in the unit being analyzed and simultaneous shutdown of all other units at the station; or (2) an anticipated transient (anticipated operational occurrence) in the unit being analyzed (
(d) All actions the electric power system is designed to automatically initiate should be assumed to occur as designed (
(e) Manual load shedding should not be assumed.
(f) For each event analyzed, the maximum load necessitated by the event and the mode of operation of the unit at the time of the event should be assumed in addition to all loads caused by expected automatic actions and manual actions permitted by administrative procedures.
(g) The voltage analysis should include documentation for each condition analyzed, of the voltage at the input and output of each transformer and at each intermediate bus between the connection of the offsite circuit and the terminals of each safety related load.
(h) The calculated voltages at the terminals of each safety related load should be compared with the required voltage range for normal operation and starting of that load calculated in Item (a) above. Any identified inadequacies of calculated voltage should require immediate remedial action.
(i) For each case evaluated, the calculated voltages on each safety bus should demonstrate adequate voltage at the component level without separation from the offsite circuit due to DVR actuation.
(j) To provide assurance that actions taken to assure adequate voltage levels for safety related loads do not result in excessive voltages, assuming the maximum expected value of voltage at the connection to the offsite circuit, a determination should be made of the maximum voltage expected at the terminals of all safety related equipment and their starting circuits (if applicable). If this voltage exceeds the maximum voltage rating of any safety related equipment, immediate remedial action should be taken.
(k) Analysis documentation should include a statement of the assumptions for each case analyzed.
The NRC has evaluated this RIS against the criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.109, 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria 17, NRC Letter dated June 2, 1977 “Statement of Staff Positions Relative to Emergency Power Systems for Operating Reactors,” Branch Technical Position BTP-1 and later BTP 8-6 (both of NUREG 0800) and Generic Letter 79-36 and determined that it does not represent a backfit. Specifically, NRC Staff technical positions outlined in this RIS are consistent with the aforementioned regulations and generic communications, while providing more detailed discussion concerning the necessary voltage calculations supporting DVR settings based only on voltage requirements of Class 1E components and the Class 1E distribution system design. Under section 50.109, a backfit can be defined as a proposed action that is a modification of the procedures required to operate a facility and may result from the imposition of a regulatory staff position that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position.
To be done after the public comment period.
This RIS is not a rule as designated by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-886) and therefore, is not subject to the Act.
This RIS does not contain any information collections and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Kenn A. Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3152, e-mail:
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 17, 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 2011.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 17, 2011.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 14, 2011.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an e-mail to
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This gives notice of OPM decisions granting authority to make appointments under Schedules A, B, and C in the excepted service as required by 5 CFR 213.103.
Roland Edwards, Senior Executive Resource Services, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
Appearing in the listing below are the individualauthorities established under Schedules A, B, and C between November 1, 2010, and November 30, 2010.These notices are published monthly in the
No Schedule A authorities to report during November 2010.
No Schedule B authorities to report during November 2010.
The following Schedule C appointments were approved during November 2010.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Expedited Package Services—Non-Published Rates 2 to the Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642.
January 18, 2011.
Margaret M. Falwell, 703-292-3576.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission, on December 15, 2010, a Request of the United States Postal Service to add Global Expedited Package Services—Non-Published Rates, to the Competitive Products List, and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) the Enabling Governors' Decision. Documents are available at
Postal Service
Notice.
Postal Service notice of its filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Plus 1B and 2B Negotiated Service Agreements to the Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642.
January 18, 2011.
Margaret M. Falwell, 202-268-2576.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission, on December 9, 2010,
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of a market test of an experimental product in accordance with statutory requirements.
January 18, 2011.
David H. Rubin, 202-268-2986.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3641(c)(1) that it will begin a market test of its “Gift Cards” experimental product on or around May 1, 2011. The Postal Service has filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a notice setting out the basis for the Postal Service's determination that the market test is covered by 39 U.S.C. 3641 and describing the nature and scope of the market test. Documents are available at
Postal Service
Notice.
Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).
January 18, 2011.
Brandy Osimokun, 202-268-2982.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on December 23, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Postal Service
Notice.
Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).
January 18, 2011.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on December 30, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).
January 18, 2011.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on December 30, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2011 will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
In notice document 2010-32943 beginning on page 194 the issue of Monday, January 3, 2011 make the following correction:
On page 199, in the third column, in the last line before the signature block, “January 18, 2011” should read “January 24, 2011”.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) to clarify that the Exchange will open at least one expiration month and one series for each class of stock options or Exchange Traded Fund Share (“ETF”) options
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 this proposed rule change is to amend Exchange Rule 1012 to clarify that the Exchange will open at least one expiration month and one series for each class of stock options or ETF options open for trading on the Exchange; and that the Exchange may open additional series of stock options or ETF options under certain circumstances. The proposed change is based directly on the recently approved rules of another options exchange, namely Chapter IV, Sections 6 and 8 of the NASDAQ Options Market.
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (“NASDAQ OMX”) owns several U.S. registered securities exchanges that are self-regulatory organizations—Phlx, with its equity, securities, and options exchanges; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) and the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”); and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX”). In 2008, the Commission approved the establishment of NOM and rules pertaining thereto
(c) Additional series of options of the same class may be opened for trading on NOM when Nasdaq deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet Customer demand or when the market price of the underlying stock moves more than five strike prices from the initial exercise price or prices. The opening of a new series of options shall not affect the series of options of the same class previously opened. New series of options on an individual stock may be added until the beginning of the month in which the options contract will expire. Due to unusual market conditions, Nasdaq, in its discretion, may add a new series of options on an individual stock until five (5) business days prior to expiration.
(b) After a new long-term options contract series is listed, such series will be opened for trading either when there is buying or selling interest, or forty (40) minutes prior to the close, whichever occurs first. No quotations will be posted for such options series until they are opened for trading.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is proper, and indeed desirable, in light of its objective to continue to harmonize the listing rules of the two options exchanges under the NASDAQ OMX umbrella and thereby maximize operating efficiencies.
Rule 1012 has developed in the latter portion of the last century to indicate when, among other things, the Exchange may open months and series, including long-term series, in classes of stock options, ETF options, and foreign currency options (“FCOs”)
First, the Exchange proposes to state in Rule 1012(a)(i)(A) that at the commencement of trading on the Exchange of a particular class of stock or ETF options, the Exchange will open at least one expiration month and series for each class of options open for trading on the Exchange, thereby replacing the current language in subsection (a)(i)(A) about opening not less than three expiration months in every option class open for trading. The proposed language regarding one expiration month is taken directly from NOM Chapter IV, Section 6(e). The proposed language regarding one expiration series is taken directly from NOM Chapter IV, Section 6(b). These NOM rules have been continually in use for years.
Second, the Exchange proposes to add new language in Rule 1012 (a)(i)(B) to state that it may open additional option series when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market price of the underlying stock moves more than five strike prices from the initial exercise price or prices. New series of options on an individual stock may be added until the beginning of the month in which the options contract will expire. Additionally, due to unusual market conditions, the Exchange, in its discretion, may add a new series of options on an individual stock until five (5) business days prior
Moreover, Rule 1012 has developed over several decades to include stock options, ETF options and FCOs traded on the Exchange. As such, discussion regarding these various types of options is sometimes commingled within Rule 1012. The Exchange is now proposing to clarify the rule by splitting out discussion regarding stock options and ETF options, which are similarly treated within the rule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to relocate the criteria for additional series of stock and ETF options from its present location in subsection (a)(iv), where it is applicable to FCOs as well as stock and ETF options, to subsection (a)(i)(B), where it would be applicable only to stock and ETF options.
The Exchange's proposal is being done to conform and harmonize certain Phlx rules to recently-approved Nasdaq Options Market rules regarding opening initial months and series and adding series of stock options and ETF options. The Exchange believes that harmonization of the rules of the two options exchanges under the NASDAQ OMX umbrella would be beneficial to the Exchange and its traders, market participants, and public investors in general.
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 significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change is substantially similar to that of another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to make various changes for Fiscal Year 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the CBOE Fees Schedule to make various fee changes. The proposed changes are the product of the Exchange's annual budget review. The fee changes were approved by the Exchange's Board of Directors pursuant to CBOE Rule 2.22 and will take effect on January 3, 2011. The Exchange proposes to amend the following fees:
Specifically, the standard CTPH Proprietary transaction fee in CBOE Proprietary Products would be reduced to the fees shown in the following table for CTPHs that execute at least 375,000 contracts but less than 1,500,000 contracts in multiply-listed options on the Exchange in a month, excluding contracts executed in AIM that incurred the AIM Execution Fee (the AIM Execution Fee is described below).
If a CTPH reaches the aforementioned volume thresholds in multiply-listed options on the Exchange in a month, under the proposed sliding scale the first 750,000 contracts traded by the CTPH in a month in CBOE Proprietary Products would be assessed at $.18 per contract. The next 250,000 contracts traded in a month in CBOE Proprietary Products (up to 1,000,000 total contracts traded) would be assessed at $.05 per contract. All contracts above 1,000,000 contracts traded in a month in CBOE Proprietary Products would be assessed at $.02 per contract.
The standard CTPH Proprietary transaction fee in CBOE Proprietary Products would be reduced to the fees shown in the following table for CTPHs that execute 1,500,000 or more contracts in multiply-listed options on the Exchange in a month, excluding contracts executed in AIM that incurred the AIM Execution Fee:
If a CTPH reaches the 1,500,000 contract threshold in multiply-listed options on the Exchange in a month, under the proposed sliding scale the first 750,000 contracts traded by the CTPH in a month in CBOE Proprietary Products would be assessed at $.15 per contract. All contracts above 750,000 contracts traded in a month in CBOE Proprietary Products would be assessed at $.01 per contract.
A CTPH that executes less than 375,000 contracts in multiply-listed options on the Exchange in a month would not be eligible for the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale and would pay the standard CTPH Proprietary transaction fee for CBOE Proprietary Products. Due to the Exchange's obligation to pay license fees on the CBOE Proprietary Products, Surcharge Fees
As is the case with the existing CTPH Proprietary Sliding Scale, the proposed Multiply-Listed Options Fee Cap and CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale would apply to Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary orders (“F” origin code), except for orders of joint back-office (“JBO”) participants. The Exchange would also aggregate the fees and contracts of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder and its affiliates in the same manner as it does under the existing CTPH Proprietary Sliding Scale.
The Exchange proposes to amend the AIM Execution Fee to (i) reduce the fee from $.20 per contract to $.05 per contract, and (ii) apply the fee to all orders (all origin codes) in all products, except OEX, XEO, SPX and volatility indexes, executed in AIM that were initially entered into AIM as the contra party to an Agency Order. The proposed fee would apply to such executions instead of the applicable standard transaction fee except if the applicable standard transaction fee is lower than $.05 per contract, in which case the applicable standard transaction fee would apply.
Monthly fees:
a. Exchangefone Maintenance—Increase from $52.00 to $57.00.
b. Single Line Maintenance—Increase from $10.50 t0 $11.50.
c. PhoneMail with Outcall & Pager—Increase from $17.00 to $18.75.
d. Intra-Floor Lines—Increase from $52.50 to $57.75.
e. Voice Circuits—Increase from $14.40 to $16.00.
f. Data Circuits at Local Carrier (entrance)—Increase from $14.40 to $16.00.
g. Lines Between Local Carrier and Communications Center—Increase from $11.60 to $12.75.
h. Lines Direct From Local Carrier to Trading Floor—Increase from $11.60 to $12.75.
i. Lines Between Communications Center and Trading Floor—Increase from $11.60 to $12.75.
Fees for installation, relocation and removal of lines:
j. Data Circuits at In-House Frame:
i. Lines Between Local Carrier and Communications Center—The installation fee would increase from $200 to $550 and would include the removal fee. The existing removal fee of $100 would be eliminated.
ii. Lines Direct From Local Carrier to Trading Floor—The installation fee would increase from $350 to $725 and
iii. Lines Between Communications Center and Trading Floor—The installation fee would increase from $350 to $725 and would include the removal fee. The existing removal fee of $200 would be eliminated. The relocation fee of $425 would be increased to $625.
iv. [sic]
The Exchange currently charges a $350 installation fee for electrician services connected to the installation of a tether on the trading floor for a market-maker hand held terminal. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $450. The Exchange proposes to charge $900 for installation of a tether in index pits due to the higher costs associated with installing tethers in those larger pits. The fee for relocation of a tether would remain unchanged at $200 regardless of location.
The Exchange charges trading permit holders $35 per month for Satellite TV on the trading floor. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $50 per month.
The Exchange charges $100 per month for use of a PAR Workstation. PAR Workstations are touch screen terminals designed to allow electronic representation of orders routed to it. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $125 per month.
TickerXpress (“TX”) is an Exchange service that supplies market data to Exchange market-makers trading on the Hybrid Trading System. Currently, the Exchange charges trading permit holders receiving “enhanced” TX market data a fee of $300 per month. Enhanced market data is data that has been processed so that it can be used by market-makers utilizing quoting software. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $350 per month to help offset the Exchange's increased costs in providing this data to Exchange trading permit holders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 4 (Appointment of Market Makers) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”) to permit the Exchange and Market Makers greater flexibility in handling Market Makers' voluntary withdrawal from trading options classes in which they are appointed. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 4(f) of the BOX Rules (Appointment of Market Makers) to eliminate the requirement that a Market Maker provide three business days' notice if they wish to withdraw from trading an options class in which they are appointed. The proposed rule change will provide that Boston Options Exchange Regulation, LLC (“BOXR”) (i) may determine an appropriate minimum amount of prior notice required for Market Makers to withdraw from trading; and (ii) has the authority to place other conditions on Market Maker withdrawal as may be appropriate in the interests of maintaining fair and orderly markets.
Chapter VI, Section 4(f) of the BOX Trading Rules currently provides that a Market Maker may voluntarily withdraw from trading an options class that is within their appointment by providing BOX with three business days' written notice of such withdrawal. The proposed rule change will eliminate
Under the proposed rule change, BOXR will also have the authority to place conditions on Market Maker withdrawal as may be appropriate in the interests of maintaining fair and orderly markets. With this discretionary authority, BOXR can consider the impact of a Market Maker's withdrawal on the market's customers, participants, other Market Makers, and the overall marketplace, and place conditions on a Market Maker's withdrawal as appropriate and necessary. This authority allows BOXR to consider various factors, but BOXR will exercise its discretion to place conditions on Market Maker withdrawal in a non-discriminatory manner.
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow BOXR greater flexibility when addressing instances where the Market Maker requesting voluntary withdrawal is the only Market Maker appointed to such class. Chapter IV, Section 5(a) of the BOX Rules specifies that BOXR will open trading in a series of options in a class only if there is at least one Market Maker appointed for trading in that particular class. BOX believes that requiring at least one Market Maker to be appointed for trading a class provides BOX Options Participants with the greatest amount of potential liquidity. Generally, BOXR anticipates placing conditions on a Market Maker's request for withdrawal when the Market Maker is the only Market Maker appointed to a class. For example, the Market Maker may be required to continue trading in its appointed class until BOXR can appoint another Market Maker in such options class, or for one or more additional trading days, as BOXR deems appropriate in the interests of maintaining a fair and orderly market and so that BOX market participants may continue trading without interruption, if possible. If BOXR is unable to appoint another Market Maker in the options class, then BOXR may, in accordance with the proposed rule change and the BOX Rules, approve the Market Maker withdrawal, but then be unable to open trading in that class the following day.
BOX believes that this proposed rule change eliminating the specific notice requirement for Market Makers' voluntary withdrawal from trading will provide BOX and its Market Makers greater flexibility in modifying Market Maker appointments in options classes on BOX, while retaining BOXR's ability to act in the best interests of a fair and orderly market when a Market Maker requests voluntary withdrawal. BOX believes that all of its market participants benefit from continuous open trading on BOX, and Market Makers assist in the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and provide liquidity to BOX. BOX believes that providing potential BOX Market Makers greater flexibility in handling their class appointments for trading on BOX may encourage additional market participants to act as a Market Maker on BOX and allow Market Makers to better fulfill their role on BOX to the benefit of all BOX participants. BOX believes that additional Market Makers may add liquidity and result in better markets.
Finally, Chapter VI, Section 4(f) will continue to specify that Market Makers who fail to give the required advance written notice of withdrawal may be subject to formal disciplinary action by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this continues to be appropriate so that regulatory action might be taken against any Market Maker that fails to comply with the notice requirement, or any other conditions that BOXR may place on the Market Maker, for withdrawal.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
This Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to the rules of another self-regulatory organization that has previously been approved by the Commission.
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 Exchange 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 November 17, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend Rule 1092, Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors, to address obvious and catastrophic errors involving trades of one complex order against another complex order. Specifically, the proposal is designed to address a situation in which one component (or leg) of a complex order is deemed an obvious (or catastrophic) error, but the other component(s) are not. In such situation, the proposed rule change would permit all legs of a complex order execution to be nullified when one leg of such complex order can be nullified as an obvious or catastrophic error under Rule 1092,
In addition, the proposal would make three minor corrections: (i) A reference in Rule 1092(b)(ii) to Rule 1014(c)(1)(A)(i)(a) is inverted and should instead say Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a); (ii) the words “obvious error” in Rule 1092(e)(i)(B) are being capitalized to match the rest of the rule; and (iii) a reference to “AUTOM” in Rule 1092(e)(ii) is outdated and will be deleted, leaving reference to the “Help Desk.”
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
The Commission notes that, in approving proposals relating to adjustment or nullification of trades involving obvious errors, it has stated that the determination of whether an obvious error has occurred and the process for reviewing such a determination should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated on the attachments pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) and in compliance with section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776).
Mr. Robert S. Kovac, Managing Director, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202) 663-2861.
Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the design, manufacture and delivery of the Anik G1 Commercial Communication Satellite to Canada.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia for the operation and maintenance of the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, and the Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces HAWK and PATRIOT Air Defense Missile Systems.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a Technical Assistance Agreement for the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the development, production and test of the APS-508 Radar System for the CP-140 Aircraft Program.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the nuclear-based Flash Radiography Sources for the United Kingdom in support of its nuclear weapons program for the UK Ministry of Defence.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement to include the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of Control Actuation Systems for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Program.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed permanent export license for the export of defense articles, to include technical data, related to firearms in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of discontinued rifles to be returned to the manufacturer in Brazil for commercial resale.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support military and security training activities for the Government of Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of major defense equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services, to Germany for the design, manufacture, market and sale of High-G Military Accelerometers.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel for the manufacturing of F-15 parts, spares, and associated tooling for end use by the Republic of Korea and the United States.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of major defense equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services, to The Netherlands for the manufacture of Dayside CCD Cameras, Lower Arm Support Assemblies and CCA Test Stations for end use by the United States Government.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services relating to the development and demonstration of lightweight small arms technologies for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of major defense equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture, assembly, test and sale of 25mm weapon stations for integration with Pandur 6x6 vehicles for end use by the Kuwait National Guard.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services necessary to support the manufacture of select T700 engine components for the SH-60 Helicopter for the Armed Forces of Japan.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In December 2010, there were eight applications approved. This notice also includes information on three other applications, one approved in May 2010, one approved in September 2010, and one approved in November 2010, inadvertently left off the May 2010, September 2010, and November 2010 notices, respectively. Additionally, 12 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Acquisition of deicing truck.
Acquisition of snow removal equipment.
(1) Air taxi commercial operators; (2) certified air carriers; and (3) certified route air carriers having fewer than 500 annual passenger enplanements.
Terminal rehabilitation/baggage claim expansion.
Western land acquisition.
Air carrier ramp security and safety enhancements (rehabilitate apron).
Terminal 2 west improvements.
Airside—apron improvements.
Roadway improvements—level separation.
None.
Storage building for Part 139 equipment.
Update airport layout plan.
Prepare airport electrical master plan.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
Rehabilitate airfield guidance signs.
Rehabilitate runway 16/34 (design only).
Rehabilitate parallel and connecting taxiways (design only).
Rehabilitate terminal building.
Conduct wildlife hazard assessment.
Terminal building expansion (design only).
PFC administrative costs.
Reconstruct west aircraft parking apron (Air Shasta).
Reconstruct T-Hangar taxilanes.
Air cargo apron expansion (design only).
Security fencing (design only).
Rehabilitate and expand terminal building.
Upgrade airfield electrical system (design only).
Environmental assessment (parallel runway 16L/34R).
Design runway 16L/34R and associated parallel taxiways.
Nonscheduled Part 135 air taxi or commercial operators.
Blast barrier.
Land acquisition—runway protection zone.
Land acquisition—future development.
Security access control system.
Relocate electrical vault.
Relocate aircraft rescue and firefighting station.
Relocation of runway end identifier lights and precision approach path indicator light systems;
By-pass taxiway and hold apron.
Airport master plan updates.
Airfield signage.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting training facility.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles and equipment.
Snow removal equipment.
Pavement management plan.
Apron lighting.
Runway 5/23 rehabilitation.
Rotating beacon relocation.
Runway 5/23 lighting improvements.
Runway 5R/23L environmental impact statement.
Perimeter access road.
Concourses A and B renovation.
Taxiway C rehabilitation.
Airfield signage rehabilitation. Taxiway A rehabilitation and general aviation apron overlay.
Feasibility study for runway 18/36 extension (400 feet)—airport layout plan update.
Snow removal equipment fuel farm design and construction.
Sand storage building construction.
Precision approach path indicator for runway 28—design and construction.
PFC preparation cost reimbursement.
PFC program audit cost reimbursement.
Snow removal equipment plow truck/snow sweeper 3.
Snow removal equipment plow truck/snow sweeper 4.
Perimeter road construction (north 1-Hangars to west 1-Hangars).
Preliminary engineering for runway 10/28 extension.
Preliminary plans to relocate medium intensity runway lighting system and runway approach indicator lights and instrument landing system glide slope for runway 28 extension.
Engineering design services to relocate the medium intensity approach lighting system and runway approach indicator lights and instrument landing system glide slope for runway 28 extension.
FAA reimbursable agreement to relocate navigational aids for runway 28.
Environmental assessment for runway 10/28 extension.
Demolition of the old aircraft rescue and firefighting/snow removal equipment building.
Snow removal equipment bi-directional tractor/blower/plow/loader procurement.
Snow removal equipment snow blower procurement.
Part 405 approach surveys.
Runway 10R/28L safety area design, phase I.
Runway 10L/28R safety area design, phase II.
Runway 10L/28R safety area construction, phase I.
Modify snow removal equipment building and relocate power line.
Acquire broom truck snow removal equipment.
Airfield pavement rehabilitation.
Acquire rotary plow snow removal equipment.
Development of draft environmental impact statement, phase II.
Communications switch FAN air traffic control tower.
PFC administrative costs for application 11-07.
Relocate power line for snow removal equipment building.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 USC 327, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Bruce April, Deputy District Director, Division of Environmental Analysis, Caltrans, District 11, 4050 Taylor Street, San Diego, CA 91942, Office: 619-688-0100, e-mail:
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, approved on December 30th, 2010, in the FHWA Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) issued on December 30th, 2010, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The IS/MND & EA/FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans Final EA and FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
• 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
• 404 Permit pursuant to the
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
3. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU);
4. Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
5. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
6. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
7. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
8. Endangered Species Act of 1973;
9. Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
10. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981;
11. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
12. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970;
13. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;
14. Historic Sites Act of 1935;
15. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands;
16. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species;
17. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and,
18. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Statute of Limitations on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project on a 3.5 mile combined segment of Trunk Highway (TH) 23 and U.S. Highway 71. The proposed project is from the TH 294 and TH 23/71 divergence on the south to the divergence of the TH 23 and U.S. Highway 71 on the north in Dovre Township, northeast of Willmar, Minnesota in Kandlyohi County. The proposed improvements include grade-separated interchanges at a relocated County Road 90 and at County State Aid Highway 25, median and driveway closures, and new or reconstructed segments of local frontage roads. Those actions grant approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions of the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed within 180 days from the date this notice is published in the
For FHWA: Mr. Derrell Turner, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 500, Saint Paul, MN 55101, Telephone (651) 291-6100, e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in Minnesota: TH 23/71 from the TH 294 and TH 23/71 divergence on the south to the divergence of the TH 23 and U.S. Highway 71 on the north in Dovre Township, northeast of Willmar, Minnesota. The project is located in Kandiyohi County. A Record of Decision (ROD) for this 3.5-mile section of the TH 23/71 corridor was signed by FHWA on November 9, 2010.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].
7.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Statute of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project on TH 371 from the intersection of CSAH 18 in Nisswa (Crow Wing County) to the County Road 2/42 intersection in Pine River (Cass County), Minnesota. Those actions grant approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions of the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed within 180 days from the date this notice is published in the
For FHWA: Mr. Derrell Turner, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 500, Saint Paul, MN 55101, Telephone (651) 291-6100, e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in Minnesota: TH 371 from the intersection of CSAH 18 in Nisswa to the County Road 2/42 intersection in Pine River. The project is located in Crow Wing and Cass Counties. A Record of Decision (ROD) for the TH 371 corridor from Nisswa to Pine River was signed by FHWA in 2005. A Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) was prepared to address recent changes to the preferred alternative, based upon a request from the City of Pequot Lakes to change from a through-city design (the 2005 preferred alternative) to a bypass. The SFEIS also serves as a reevaluation of the entire corridor and to document minor changes since the ROD was signed in 2005.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001-4128].
7.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed project, the SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project in the State of Washington. Those actions grant approval for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the project will be barred unless the claim is filed within 180 days of the date of publication of this notice. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Randolph Everett, Major Projects Oversight Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson Federal Building, 915 2nd Avenue, Room 3142, Seattle, Washington 98174; telephone: (206) 220-7538; and e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has taken final agency actions by issuing approval for the following highway project: the SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project. The project includes constructing pontoons sufficient to replace the existing traffic capacity of the Evergreen Point Bridge, in the event of the bridge's catastrophic failure. The selected alternative includes constructing a new casting basin facility at the Aberdeen Log Yard site in Aberdeen, WA. The pontoons would be stored in case they are needed for catastrophic failure response or until they are incorporated into the proposed bridge replacement.
The actions by the FHWA on this project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the May 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the December 2010 Final EIS, the January 2011 Record of Decision (ROD), and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record for the project. The Draft EIS, the Final EIS, the ROD, and the other documents supporting the decision are available by contacting the FHWA or the Washington State Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above.
The Draft EIS, the Final EIS, and the ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321-4347]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544]; Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1536]; Anadromous Fish Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)-757(g)]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]; Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Wetlands and Water Resources: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1536]; Clean Water Act (Section 319 [33 U.S.C. 1329]); Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)].
7. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the following projects: (1) New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal (NOUPT)/Loyola Avenue Streetcar Project, New Orleans Regional Transit Authority, New Orleans, LA; (2) South Corridor: Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), Clackamas, and Portland, Oregon; and (3) Second Avenue Subway Project, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York, NY. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of the FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 18, 2011.
Katie Grasty, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Planning and Environment, 202-366-9139, or Christopher Van Wyk, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-1733. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on these projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with each project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information on these projects. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period of 180 days for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
The projects and actions that are the subject of this notice are:
1.
2.
3.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2011.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2011.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on February 1, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. of the following debt management advisory committee:
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B) (31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Deputy Director for Office of Debt Management, (202) 622-1876.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing—January 27, 2011, Washington, DC.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.”
Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on January 27, 2011, to address “China's Active Defense Strategy and its Regional Impact.”
Any interested party may file a written statement by January 27, 2011, by mailing to the contact below. On January 27, the hearing will be held in two sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. A portion of each panel will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
Transcripts of past Commission public hearings may be obtained from the USCC Web site
The hearing will be held on Capitol Hill in Room 2212 of the Rayburn House Office Building located at Independence Avenue and South Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20515. Public seating is limited to about 50 people on a first come, first served basis.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Michael Danis, Executive Director for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1407, or via e-mail at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 2011.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7485, fax (202) 273-0966 or e-mail
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of State submits the following comprehensive listing of the statements which, as required by law, Federal employees filed with their employing agencies during calendar year 2009 concerning gifts received from foreign government sources. The compilation includes reports of both tangible gifts and gifts of travel or travel expenses of more than minimal value, as defined by statute. Also, included are gifts received in previous years including one gift in 2001, one gift in 2002, one gift in 2004, two gifts in 2006, one gift in 2007 and 20 gifts in 2008. These latter gifts are being reported in 2009 as the Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, did not receive the relevant information to include them in earlier reports.
Publication of this listing in the