National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Council on Environmental Quality
Council on Environmental Quality
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Prisons Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule requires all certificate holders conducting operations under part 135 to include in their training programs crew resource management training for crewmembers, including pilots and flight attendants. This final rule is needed to ensure that crewmembers in part 135 operations receive training in the use of crew resource management principles, as appropriate for their operation. This final rule responds to National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, addresses a recommendation from the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee, and codifies current FAA guidance. The intended effect of this final rule is to reduce the frequency and severity of errors that are crew based, which will reduce the frequency of accidents and incidents within the scope of part 135 operations.
This final rule becomes effective March 22, 2011.
For technical questions concerning this final rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8166; e-mail:
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
Crew Resource Management (CRM) training is the incorporation of team management concepts in flight operations. This training focuses on communication and interactions among pilots, flight attendants, operations personnel, maintenance personnel, air traffic controllers, flight service stations, and others. CRM also focuses on single pilot communications, decision making and situational awareness. On May 1, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM proposing to require all part 135 certificate holders required to have training programs under 14 CFR 135.341 to implement CRM training for pilots and flight attendants in part 135 operations.
The intent of the NPRM was to create uniform standards for CRM training in part 135 operations by codifying existing guidance material in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-51E,
The FAA received seven comments on the proposed rule. Commenters include the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Century CRM, LLC, Helicopter Association International (HAI), NTSB, Scientific Alliance for Education, and 2 individuals. All comments were generally supportive of requiring CRM training for crewmembers in part 135 operations. Additionally, some comments discussed increasing the requirements for certain provisions in the proposal, such as establishing minimum programmed hour requirements for training, and prohibiting credit for previous CRM training when a crewmember changes employers. One of the comments resulted in a substantive change to the proposed requirements, as discussed below.
The final rule requires certificate holders to establish initial and recurrent CRM academic training programs for crewmembers within 2 years of the effective date of the rule. At a minimum, the CRM training programs must address the authority of the pilot in command, communication processes, building and maintaining a flight team, managing workload and time, maintaining situational awareness, recognizing and mitigating fatigue and stress, and mastering aeronautical decision-making skills based on the certificate holder's operating environment. Some credit may be given
In the final rule, the FAA has retained all the requirements as proposed with one exception. The NTSB did not support the provision in the proposed rule that allowed part 135 operators to waive the requirement to provide initial CRM training to crewmembers who have previously received initial CRM training from another operator. The NTSB stated that such a provision would not be consistent with CRM training requirements for part 121 operators, and, in the interest of safety, should not be allowed for part 135 operations. The NTSB further supported this position by stating that part 135 operations are characterized by a wide range of operational environments, applications, aircraft and automation capabilities, and crew complements. As a result, CRM training programs may vary widely among operators. To ensure the crewmember is familiar with its operator's processes and procedures, NTSB asserted that initial CRM should be provided to crewmembers when transitioning to a new certificate holder. The NTSB recommended the FAA withdraw the provision that would allow certificate holders to waive the requirement for initial CRM training for crewmembers who have received initial CRM training from another part 135 operator.
Upon further review, the FAA has removed the language that allows certificate holders to waive the requirement for initial CRM training for crewmembers who have received initial CRM training from another operator. Given the unique operating environments of the various part 135 operators, it is essential that a crewmember receive training on the certificate holder's operational environment, procedures, effective use of automation capabilities, and communication with fellow crewmembers. When a crewmember begins employment with a different part 135 certificate holder, the crewmember must complete that certificate holder's initial CRM training program to ensure the crewmember is familiar with the operator's policies and procedures.
The NTSB also responded to the FAA's request for comments about whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule differently for intrastate operations in Alaska. The NTSB stated that it believed that CRM training would improve safety for all part 135 on-demand operations, including certificate holders in Alaska. The NTSB recommended that the proposed requirements should be applied to certificate holders conducting operations in Alaska.
The FAA agrees with the NTSB regarding the application of the requirements for CRM training. Of the 24 accidents that the FAA identified as directly related to ineffective CRM, one-third of the accidents occurred in Alaska. Therefore, the FAA has retained the language proposed in the NPRM. There is no exception for certificate holders conducting intrastate operations in Alaska.
ALPA supported the proposal and also recommended integrating CRM into flightcrew member job performance training as a tool to minimize the consequences of human error and to improve flightcrew performance. ALPA also agreed with the FAA that CRM training is appropriate for both pilots of single and multi-crew operations conducted under part 135. ALPA suggests the FAA require that individuals providing CRM training be employees of the air carrier. ALPA asserts this would ensure the instructors are familiar with the air carrier's culture, policies and procedures, as opposed to a contracted instructor. As with the CRM requirements for part 121 operations, the requirements in this final rule allow each operator the flexibility to design a training program that can meet the curriculum requirements via academic training and does not require job performance training. As recognized by HAI, these requirements allow “significant flexibility to allow training to be customized to the specific needs of individual operators.” For some operators, it may be appropriate to incorporate CRM training in their job performance training curriculums. This may not be necessary for all operators, however, because of the size of their operations. At a minimum, CRM training elements must be completed in initial and recurrent academic training. This final rule does not preclude an operator from incorporating CRM training into its job performance training curriculum if the operator determines it is necessary based on the complexity of its operations.
The FAA has not required that all CRM instructors be employed by the air carrier. The FAA believes that the current requirements for instructors are appropriate. As with any other academic training, whether or not an instructor is a direct employee of the part 119 certificate holder or the employee of a part 142 certificate holder does not relieve the instructor or the certificate holder from the requirement in 14 CFR 135.323 that all instructors must be properly qualified to conduct the training in the certificate holder's training program.
The FAA also received a comment from a commercial provider of CRM training, Century CRM, LLC. Century CRM, LLC supported adoption of the provisions in the NPRM with regard to requiring CRM training for part 135 operators, recognizing that CRM and human factors training are crucial to flight safety. In addition, Century CRM recommended that the FAA establish a minimum programmed hour requirement for CRM training to cover the required CRM training topics.
The amount of CRM training that is necessary for each certificate holder may vary based on the complexity of the operations. Therefore, similar to the CRM training requirements for part 121 operators, the FAA has not established a minimum programmed hour requirement for CRM for part 135 operators. In evaluating and approving part 135 CRM training programs, the FAA will consider instructional techniques, the number of students in a class, the use of performance-based scenarios, new training technology, the use of student feedback, the measurement of training outcomes, as well as the time necessary to accomplish the training requirements for each certificate holder.
The FAA is adopting the rule as proposed, with the exception that certificate holders will not be permitted to give credit for initial CRM training to new employees who have received initial CRM training with another operator. Within 2 years after the effective date of this rule, a certificate holder conducting part 135 operations is prohibited from using a crewmember unless that person has completed the certificate holder's approved initial CRM training.
Under the final rule, initial and recurrent CRM academic training must be provided to crewmembers in part 135 operations. At a minimum, the training must address the authority of the pilot in command, communication processes, building and maintaining a flight team, managing workload and time, maintaining situational awareness, recognizing and mitigating fatigue and stress, and mastering the aeronautical decision-making skills tailored to the certificate holder's operations. This training is in addition to current training requirements for crewmembers under part 135. In evaluating and
This final rule will impose the following new information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information collection amendments to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB approval for this information collection will be published in a future
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection requirements in this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its review.
An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
As seen in Table 1, the cost of this rule is $12.749 million ($9.015 million in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate). Using a 25 percent accident rate reduction in which causal factors involved CRM training, the benefits are $32.261 million ($21.021 million in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate). The net benefits from the rule will be $19.512 million ($12.016 million in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate).
The rule will affect part 135 certificate holders who are required to have an approved training program. In 2009, there were 1,625 part 135 operators that employed 25,033 crewmembers, of which 24,447 were pilots and 586 were flight attendants.
We used a 10-year time period (2011-2020) to calculate the CRM training costs and benefits from CRM training. A 10-year period of analysis is sufficient to determine costs and benefits because much of the costs are front-loaded.
We evaluated part 135 accidents from March 20, 1997 through March 7, 2008. During this time period, there were 24 accidents (18 involving airplanes and 6 involving helicopters) with causal factors directly related to a lack of effective CRM. These accidents were responsible for 83 fatalities (66 involving airplanes and 17 involving helicopters) and 12 serious injuries (all involving airplanes).
Further, of the 18 airplane accidents, 8 involved single-pilot operations and 10 involved dual-pilot operations. All 6 of the helicopter accidents involved single-pilot operations. The individual accident histories are in the Final Regulatory Evaluation, which is in the docket.
The values are $6 million for a prevented fatality, $2.015 million for a prevented serious injury, and $53,000 for a minor injury.
We reviewed all part 121 accidents contained in the NTSB data base between 1988 through 2007 involving the same causal factors relevant to CRM and divided them into accidents occurring from 1988 through 1997, and accidents occurring after 1997, the effective date of the CRM training requirement for certificate holders conducting operations under 14 CFR part 121. We then calculated the CRM training-related accident rates for these two groups and found that the accident rates decreased from 0.0000206 to 0.0000182 (an 11.65 percent decline) and the accident rate for all fatal accidents decreased from 0.0000048 to 0.0000036 (a 25 percent decline). Although these rate reductions are not statistically significant due to the infrequency of these accidents, they can be useful in establishing an upper bound for the potential CRM training effectiveness rate for part 135 operations.
In order to illustrate the potential part 135 CRM training benefits, we applied the part 121 accident rate reductions of 25 percent for fatal accidents and 11.65 percent for non-fatal accidents to the 24 CRM-related part 135 accidents. Had the CRM training rule been effective in 1997 for all certificate holders conducting operations under part 135 that are required to have an approved training program, it could have prevented 2.75 of these fatal airplane accidents involving 16.5 fatalities and 2.25 serious injuries, as well as 1 fatal helicopter accident involving 4.25 fatalities. It also could have prevented 1 non-fatal airplane and helicopter accident. On that basis, the rule could have prevented 3.75 fatal accidents involving 20.75 fatalities and 2.25 serious injures.
Applying the DOT values to all of the accidents hypothetically prevented, an upper-bound quantified benefit of about $121 million, which has a present value of about $84 million using a 7 percent discount rate, would have resulted had the rule been in effect since 1997.
Current industry practice is the baseline for the incremental compliance costs.
Each operator will provide training for its employees because CRM training is classroom training that will be incorporated into the current initial and recurrent academic training programs required by existing rules.
All 26 large operators with more than 100 crewmembers and 10 percent of the 400 operators with 10-99 crewmembers (40 operators) already provide CRM training and will incur minimal compliance costs.
The FAA estimates that 360 of the medium-sized operators and all of the 1,199 small operators with fewer than 10 crewmembers currently do not provide CRM training. These operators will incur compliance costs.
The average cost to develop a CRM training program will be $1,170 for a medium-sized operator and $680 for a small operator.
Current pilots and future new pilots in medium-sized operations will need 4 hours for initial CRM training while those in small operations will need 3 hours.
Current flight attendants and future new flight attendants will need 2 hours for initial CRM training.
Annual recurrent CRM training will take one-half of the time that initial CRM training would require.
There will be an average of 10 pilots in an initial or recurrent CRM training session for a medium-sized operator and an average of 3.66 pilots for a small operator.
There will be an average of 3.92 flight attendants in an initial or recurrent CRM training session for a medium-sized operator and an average of 1.1 flight attendants for a small operator.
The average cost for an initial CRM pilot training session will be $1,293 for a medium-sized operator and $428 for a small operator.
The average cost for an initial CRM flight attendant training session will be $207 for a medium-sized operator and $94 for a small operator.
The average cost for recurrent CRM pilot training will be $647 for a medium-sized operator and $214 for a small operator.
The average cost for recurrent CRM flight attendant training will be $104 for a medium-sized operator and $47 for a small operator.
Initial CRM training for crewmembers new to part 135 employment as well as initial CRM training for crewmembers who change employers within part 135 operators will be done on a one-to-one basis with the trainer. The average cost will be $208 per new pilot hire for medium-sized operators and $156 for small operators. The average cost will be $76 per new flight attendant hire for medium-sized and small operators.
Based on those data and assumptions, as shown in Table 2, we estimated that the rule from 2011 through 2020 would have a total cost of $12.749 million, which would have a present value of $9.015 million using a 7 percent discount rate, and a present value of $10.906 million using a 3 percent discount rate.
As presented earlier, an upper-bound estimate of the quantified benefits using a $6 million value for a prevented fatality would be $121 million, which would be larger than the undiscounted compliance cost of $12.75 million.
An alternative way of looking at the cost-benefit analysis is that if the rule were to prevent only 2 fatalities and 1 serious injury during this 10-year period, the rule would be cost beneficial.
Finally, we should not overlook the fact that 9 out of 9 operators we surveyed already provide CRM training. Thus, these operators have already made an implied internal cost-benefit analysis that the benefits from CRM training are worth its costs.
For those reasons, we conclude that the CRM training rule would be cost beneficial.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. Based on the following, the FAA certifies that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There would be 1,559 small entities employing 11,815 crewmembers under the North American Industrial Classification System (NACIS) codes 481211 (Non-Scheduled Air Services) and 621910 (Ambulance Services) that would be affected by the rule. The average number of crewmembers would be 7.6. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established, under NAICS code 481211, that all operators with fewer than 1,500 employees are small businesses. Furthermore, for all operators that fall
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities because the average initial cost per operator is between $680 and $1,170. Further, the average annual cost per operator is $450, which is less than one percent of annual revenues. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Assessment had estimated similar compliance costs and the FAA received no adverse comments in response to its assessment.
Therefore, as Administrator I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards are not considered unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The FAA notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and has assessed the effects of this rule to ensure it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result this rule is not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did receive a comment from the NTSB recommending that this rule should apply to operations in Alaska. We have determined, based on the administrative record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312F and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.
(a) * * *
(4) Crew resource management training in § 135.330.
(a) Each certificate holder must have an approved crew resource management training program that includes initial and recurrent training. The training program must include at least the following:
(1) Authority of the pilot in command;
(2) Communication processes, decisions, and coordination, to include communication with Air Traffic Control, personnel performing flight locating and other operational functions, and passengers;
(3) Building and maintenance of a flight team;
(4) Workload and time management;
(5) Situational awareness;
(6) Effects of fatigue on performance, avoidance strategies and countermeasures;
(7) Effects of stress and stress reduction strategies; and
(8) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment training tailored to the operator's flight operations and aviation environment.
(b) After March 22, 2013, no certificate holder may use a person as a flightcrew member or flight attendant unless that person has completed approved crew resource management initial training with that certificate holder.
(c) For flightcrew members and flight attendants, the Administrator, at his or her discretion, may credit crew resource management training completed with that certificate holder before March 22, 2013, toward all or part of the initial CRM training required by this section.
(d) In granting credit for initial CRM training, the Administrator considers training aids, devices, methods and procedures used by the certificate holder in a voluntary CRM program included in a training program required by § 135.341, § 135.345, or § 135.349.
(b) * * *
(2) Instruction as necessary in the subjects required for initial ground training by this subpart, as appropriate, including low-altitude windshear training and training on operating during ground icing conditions as prescribed in § 135.341 and described in § 135.345, crew resource management training as prescribed in § 135.330, and emergency training as prescribed in § 135.331.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9512) that were published in the
This correction is effective on January 21, 2011, and is applicable on December 23, 2010.
Patrick S. Kirwan, (202) 622-3110 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 9512) that are the subject of this document are under section 468A of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9512) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
* * * Pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, Y must file a request for a revised schedule of ruling amounts by March 15 of year 7
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the CSX Railroad Swing Span Bridge across Chickasaw Creek, mile 0.0, in Mobile, Alabama. The deviation is necessary to replace railroad ties on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for nine hours with a one-hour mid-day opening on February 8 and 9, 2011.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, February 9, 2011.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch; telephone 504-671-2128, e-mail
The CSX Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Swing Span Bridge across Chickasaw Creek, mile 0.0, in Mobile, Alabama. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 6 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge currently opens on signal for the passage of vessels. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for two (2) four-hour periods on two consecutive days with a one-hour opening in the middle of the closures. The bridge will remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and from noon until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 and Wednesday, February 9, 2011. At all other times, the bridge will open on signal for the passage of vessels.
The closure is necessary in order to change out railroad ties on the bridge. This maintenance is essential for the continued operation of the bridge. Notices will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows and ships. As a result of coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users, this closure has been scheduled to minimize the possibility of any significant effects on these vessels. There are no alternate routes available to vessel traffic. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving an extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 of the applicable attainment date for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area), which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This extension is based in part on complete, quality-assured air quality data recorded during the 2009 ozone season. In accordance with requirements for a 1-year extension, the Philadelphia Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored ozone value during the 2009 ozone season at each monitor in the area is less than 0.084 parts per million (ppm). EPA is revising the table with regard to the 8-hour ozone attainment date for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia Area.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2010-0688. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.
On June 23, 2010, the State of New Jersey requested a one-year attainment date extension for the Philadelphia Area. The Philadelphia Area, which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), consists of Cecil County in Maryland; Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; the entire State of Delaware; and Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem Counties in New Jersey. Since this area was classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, the statutory ozone attainment date, as prescribed by section 181(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is June 15, 2010. New Jersey requested that the attainment date be extended to June 15, 2011.
On November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68733), EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's request based upon:
(1) New Jersey has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable ozone implementation plan. New Jersey's applicable ozone implementation plan can be found at 40 CFR 52.1570; and
(2) The maximum 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value at any monitoring site in the Philadelphia area during the 2009 ozone season was 0.074 ppm, which is below the 0.084 ppm criteria.
EPA received one comment in response to the proposal which supported the decision to approve an attainment date extension.
Pursuant to CAA section 181(a) and 40 CFR 51.907, EPA is approving an attainment date extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia Area, which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The table in 40 CFR 81.331 will be modified to reflect EPA's approval of New Jersey's
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely finds that an area has qualified for a one-year extension of the attainment date of a previously established NAAQS, and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not involve establishment of technical standards, and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because extending the attainment date does not alter the emission reduction measures that are required to be implemented in the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area, which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
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 22, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is extending the attainment date from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania portions of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area), which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This extension is based in part on air quality data recorded during the 2009 ozone season. Specifically, the Philadelphia Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored ozone value during the 2009 ozone season is 0.084 parts per million (ppm) or less. Accordingly, EPA is revising the tables concerning the 8-hour ozone attainment dates for the Philadelphia Area in the States of Delaware and Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the States). EPA is approving the extension of the attainment date for the Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania portions of the Philadelphia Area in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving the extension of the attainment date for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia Area in a separate rulemaking in this
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0574. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Maria Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by e-mail at
On November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68736), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the States. The NPR proposed approval of requests made by the States for a one-year attainment date extension for the Philadelphia Area. The Philadelphia Area, which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, consists of: Cecil County in Maryland; Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; the entire State of Delaware; and Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem Counties in New Jersey. Since this area was classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, the statutory ozone attainment date, as prescribed by section 181(a) of the CAA, is June 15, 2010. The States requested that the attainment date be extended to June 15, 2011. As previously stated, EPA is approving the extension of the attainment date for the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia Area in a separate rulemaking notice in this
Section 172(a)(2)(C) of subpart 1 of the CAA provides for EPA to extend the attainment date for an area by one year if the State has complied with all the requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan and no more than a minimal number of exceedances of the NAAQS has occurred in the attainment year. Up to two one-year extensions may be issued for a single nonattainment area. Section 181(a)(5) of subpart 2 contains a similar provision for the ozone NAAQS, but instead of providing for an extension where there has been a “minimal” number of exceedances, it allows an extension only if there is no more than one exceedance of the NAAQS in the year preceeding the extension year. However, the language in section 181(a)(5) reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and not the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.907 sets forth how sections
EPA has determined that the requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date, as set out under 40 CFR 51.907, have been fulfilled as follows:
(1) The States have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable ozone implementation plan. The applicable ozone implementation plans can be found at 40 CFR 52.420, 40 CFR 52.1070, 40 CFR 52.2020, for the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, respectively; and
(2) the Philadelphia Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value during the 2009 ozone season is 0.084 ppm or less.
Therefore, EPA approves the States' attainment date extension requests for the Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania portions of the Philadelphia Area. As a result, the charts in 40 CFR 81.308, 40 CFR 81.321, and 40 CFR 81.339 are being modified to reflect EPA's approval of the States' attainment date extension request. Those charts are entitled “Delaware-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)”, “Maryland-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)”, and “Pennsylvania-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)”, respectively.
In the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, EPA evaluates the air quality monitoring data for the Philadelphia Area. For details, please refer to EPA's TSD. Other specific requirements for an attainment date extension and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving a 1-year attainment date extension, from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011, for the Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania portions of the Philadelphia Area, which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not involve establishment of technical standards, and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order.
Executive Order (EO) 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 direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because extending the attainment date does not alter the emission reduction measures that are required to be implemented in the Philadelphia Area, which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 22, 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.
This 1-year attainment date extension for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania portions of the Philadelphia Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Council on Environmental Quality.
Notice of availability.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing its final guidance for Federal departments and agencies on the appropriate use of mitigation in Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The guidance was developed to modernize, reinvigorate, and facilitate and increase the transparency of NEPA implementation.
This guidance outlines principles Federal agencies should apply in the development of their NEPA implementing regulations and procedures to guide their consideration of measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts in EAs and EISs; their commitments to carry out mitigation made in related decision documents, such as the Record of Decision; the implementation of mitigation; and the monitoring of mitigation outcomes during and after implementation. This guidance also outlines principles agencies should apply to provide for public participation and accountability in the development and implementation of mitigation and monitoring efforts that are described in their NEPA documentation. Mitigation commitments should be explicitly described as ongoing commitments and should specify measurable performance standards and adequate mechanisms for implementation, monitoring, and reporting.
In addition, this guidance affirms the appropriateness of what is traditionally referred to as a “mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact.” Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) can result when an agency concludes its NEPA review with an EA that is based on a commitment to mitigate significant environmental impacts, so that a more detailed EIS is not required. As explained in this guidance, an agency does not have to prepare an EIS when the environmental impacts of a proposed action can be mitigated to a level where the agency can make a FONSI determination, provided that the agency or a project applicant commits to carry out the mitigation, and establishes a mechanism for ensuring the mitigation is carried out. When a FONSI depends on successful mitigation, the requisite mitigation commitments should be made public.
The guidance is effective January 21, 2011.
The Council on Environmental Quality (ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for National Environmental Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 395-5750.
This guidance applies to Federal agencies in accordance with sections 1507.2 and 1507.3 of the CEQ Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, enacted in 1970, is a fundamental tool used to harmonize our environmental, economic, and social aspirations and is a cornerstone of our Nation's efforts to protect the environment. NEPA recognizes that many Federal activities affect the environment and mandates that Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before deciding to adopt proposals and take action. Additionally, NEPA emphasizes public involvement in government actions affecting the environment by requiring that the benefits and risks associated with proposed actions be assessed and publicly disclosed.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is charged with overseeing NEPA's implementation by Federal agencies. CEQ recognizes that NEPA is a visionary and versatile law that can be used effectively to address new environmental challenges facing our nation and also to engage the public widely and effectively. Furthermore, CEQ recognizes that successful NEPA implementation requires agencies to make information accessible to the public to strengthen citizen involvement in government decisionmaking. This guidance is designed to facilitate agency compliance with NEPA, by clarifying the commitments agency decisionmakers may decide to make when complying with NEPA, and ensuring that information about those commitments is accurate and made available to the public.
On February 18, 2010, CEQ announced the issuance of three
In a
Some commenters expressed concern that this guidance would impose an obligation on agencies to develop detailed mitigation plans as a standard part of every EA and EIS process. Several commenters asserted that a detailed mitigation planning stage would needlessly increase complexity and reduce project flexibility. Commenters also suggested that mitigation planning might actually decrease mitigation effectiveness, as the burden created would pressure agencies, as well as applicants, to undertake less comprehensive mitigation.
This guidance provides a flexible template for the development of agency regulations and procedures allowing continued discretion for agencies to respond to individual project characteristics. Not every EA or EIS will require the development of detailed mitigation plans. Plans should be developed and implemented when mitigation described in an EA serves as the basis for the FONSI (that is, the effects might be significant but for the proposed mitigation). CEQ disagrees that increased attention to mitigation planning in appropriate circumstances will needlessly increase complexity or reduce project flexibility. Rather, the purpose of detailed mitigation planning is to ensure that mitigation plans appropriately reflect project or program characteristics, and careful consideration of a range of options for adequate implementation and monitoring should increase agency flexibility in responding to changing or unforeseen circumstances. CEQ also disagrees that increased attention to mitigation planning would decrease mitigation effectiveness. To the extent that this guidance may prompt agencies to propose actions with lesser adverse environmental impacts allowing for the selection of less comprehensive (or no) mitigation alternatives, such a response would likely indicate that agencies have appropriately structured their proposed actions to avoid and minimize impacts up front to the extent feasible. This is the fundamental goal of NEPA. This would increase rather than decrease the likelihood that mitigation would be effective. Furthermore, CEQ believes that a focus on monitoring will help to ensure the actual effectiveness of proposed mitigation efforts. The guidance has been revised to ensure that agencies focus on establishing monitoring plans for important cases.
Several commenters, citing
This guidance is not intended to impose new substantive requirements on agencies or project applicants. Rather, it ensures that the public and decisionmakers are fully informed of any promised mitigation and an agency's clear commitment to perform or ensure the performance of that mitigation, which in turn strengthens the basis for the NEPA analysis and documentation that an agency has prepared. This guidance is designed to enhance the integrity of the NEPA analysis when it relies on mitigation. It is an agency's underlying authority that provides the basis for the agency to commit to perform or require the performance of particular mitigation. That authority also allows the agency to implement and monitor, or to require the implementation and monitoring of, those mitigation commitments to ensure their effectiveness. It further provides the authority to take remedial steps, so long as there remains federal decisional involvement in a project or other proposed action. The guidance has been revised to further clarify that existing authorities provide the basis for agency commitments to implement mitigation and monitor its success.
NEPA in itself does not compel the selection of a mitigated approach. But where an agency chooses to base the use of less extensive NEPA analysis on mitigation, then this guidance is designed to assist agencies in ensuring the integrity of that decision.
Several commenters requested that in recommending the use of third party experts, this guidance should clarify that such experts should be neutral and unbiased parties without conflicts of interest. For example, third party experts participating in development of mitigation and monitoring plans should not have financial stakes in the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring. CEQ agrees with this suggestion but also recognizes that applicants and delegated parties can, in appropriate circumstances, participate in the development and implementation of mitigation and monitoring. The text of this guidance document has been edited to address and incorporate these concerns.
Several commenters asserted that the guidance document was too rigid in providing guidelines for agencies to use when adopting regulations and procedures for responses to mitigation failure. These commenters argued that flexibility should be allowed in response to mitigation failure, with the type of response dependent upon the project's size and scope. Some comments additionally argued that a “NEPA restart” should not be required in response to mitigation failure, and
Mitigation failure occurs when a previously adopted mitigation commitment has not been implemented or is not as effective as predicted in lessening the significance of the impacts. Where an EA with a mitigated FONSI was predicated on the implementation of the mitigation, failure of that mitigation calls into question the basis for the FONSI because impacts were not reduced to below the level of significance in the manner anticipated. In the case of other EAs and EISs, mitigation failure could similarly indicate mistaken environmental consideration in the original analysis. In any case, this guidance imposes no requirement to restart a NEPA process; rather, it suggests that if there is Federal action remaining, it is appropriate for agencies to consider preparing supplemental NEPA analysis and documentation and to pursue remaining opportunities to address the effects of that remaining action. The agency should also consider whether it is appropriate for future NEPA analyses to consider the mitigation failure in order to ensure that unsupported assumptions about mitigation outcomes are not included in future analyses and documentation. Subsequent environmental baselines must, of course, reflect true conditions, as informed by any past experience with mitigation results. The guidance has been revised to include recommendations that agencies employ adaptive management or assess multiple mitigation alternatives, so that they have already-developed options they can use to address situations where mitigation is not implemented or is not as effective as predicted in the NEPA analysis.
Another commenter felt that the document does not clearly distinguish between the role of mitigation in support of a mitigated FONSI and the role of mitigation in other circumstances. The guidance now discusses mitigated FONSIs and other mitigation commitments in separate sections and the text has been revised to clearly distinguish between those two scenarios.
One commenter asserted that clarification is needed to understand the exact nature of many mitigation measures. This commenter suggested explicitly amending the guidance document to require unambiguous and exact language in explaining potential and adopted mitigation. Although CEQ cannot mandate exact requirements for every agency or project, CEQ agrees with this commenter that individual agency regulations and procedures should require mitigation to be clearly described where appropriate and mitigation goals to be carefully specified in terms of measurable performance standards to the greatest extent possible. No change to the guidance has been made in response to this comment.
Other commenters suggested providing additional guidelines to clarify how the principles in the guidance would apply to various types of multi-agency projects, in which lead federal agencies may rely in part on NEPA work done by co-lead or cooperating agencies. CEQ cannot specify how this guidance should apply in every situation. CEQ views the guidance as appropriately clear; each individual agency should, based on existing authority, work to ensure appropriate cooperation with other agencies in the development and implementation of mitigation and monitoring. Specifically, the guidance notes that mitigation and monitoring authority may be shared among joint lead or cooperating agencies “so long as the oversight is clearly described in the NEPA documents or associated decision documents” and “responsible parties, mitigation requirements, and any appropriate enforcement clauses are included in documents such as authorizations, agreements, permits or contracts.” With respect to public engagement, the guidance states that “it is the responsibility of the lead agency to make the results of relevant monitoring available to the public.” No change to the guidance has been made in response to these comments.
One commenter requested that the guidance define “important” in 40 CFR 1505.3, which states that agencies should provide for monitoring in “important cases.” CEQ appreciates this concern. Because of the wide range of situations in which NEPA is applied, it would be difficult to define in advance what cases are “important,” and CEQ has edited the guidance document to note that agencies should apply professional judgment and the rule of reason in determining which cases are “important.”
Other commenters noted that analyzing resource conditions prior to implementation can be useful in providing a baseline for judgments of mitigation effectiveness during the monitoring stage. CEQ agrees and has added language to the guidance incorporating this suggestion.
A number of comments addressed the role of the public in mitigation implementation and monitoring. Some commenters felt that allowing the public to directly participate in this process could present safety risks. The guidance states that public participation in mitigation implementation and monitoring should be provided where appropriate. Public involvement will not be appropriate in every situation, and the guidance was left unchanged.
Others felt that the guidance's discussion of the release of monitoring results could inappropriately encourage the release of confidential information or that the need for public access could be met by relying on citizen requests rather than affirmative reporting by agencies. The guidance does not require that all information be released in every instance, and CEQ believes that agencies will be able to balance their responsibilities to provide opportunities for public participation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), NEPA, CEQ regulations and this guidance with the need to protect confidential information as appropriate. CEQ notes, however, that environmental monitoring results are rarely considered confidential information and are explicitly required to be made available to the public under some environmental statutes. The guidance has been changed to include the need to balance competing privacy or confidentiality concerns with the benefits of public disclosure.
A number of commenters requested that CEQ provide additional guidance on the meaning of “significant” impacts. CEQ has already issued regulations on this, e.g., in 40 CFR 1508.27. No change to the guidance has been made in response to these comments.
Several commenters suggested supplementing the Appendix with additional examples of agency practices or regulations in addition to the Department of the Army regulations detailed in the proposed guidance. Objections to the example were made based on concerns that the example is focused on actions an agency would directly perform, and that the example is a regulation and thereby implies that mitigation and monitoring must be established through a regulatory process. While CEQ appreciates the suggestions, we believe the Department of the Army regulations detailed in the
For reasons stated in the preamble, above, CEQ issues the following guidance on the Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact. The final guidance is provided here and is available on the National Environmental Policy Act Web site (
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing this guidance for Federal departments and agencies on establishing, implementing, and monitoring mitigation commitments identified and analyzed in Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, and adopted in the final decision documents. This guidance also clarifies the appropriate use of mitigated “Findings of No Significant Impact” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This guidance is issued in accordance with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA was enacted to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the human environment.
This guidance addresses mitigation that an agency has committed to implement as part of a project design and mitigation commitments informed by the NEPA review process. As discussed in detail in Section I, below, agencies may commit to mitigation measures considered as alternatives in an EA or EIS so as to achieve an environmentally preferable outcome. Agencies may also commit to mitigation measures to support a mitigated FONSI, so as to complete their review of potentially significant environmental impacts without preparing an EIS. When agencies do not document and, in important cases, monitor mitigation commitments to determine if the mitigation was implemented or effective, the use of mitigation may fail to advance NEPA's purpose of ensuring informed and transparent environmental decisionmaking. Failure to document and monitor mitigation may also undermine the integrity of the NEPA review. These concerns and the need for guidance on this subject have long been recognized.
Accordingly, in conjunction with the 40th Anniversary of NEPA, CEQ announced that it would issue this guidance to clarify the appropriateness of mitigated FONSIs and the importance of monitoring environmental mitigation commitments.
CEQ provides several broad recommendations in Section II, below, to help improve agency consideration of mitigation in EISs and EAs. Agencies should not commit to mitigation measures considered in an EIS or EA absent the authority or expectation of resources to ensure that the mitigation is performed. In the decision documents concluding their environmental reviews, agencies should clearly identify any mitigation measures adopted as agency commitments or otherwise relied upon (to the extent consistent with agency authority or other legal authority), so as to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process and allow for greater transparency.
Section III emphasizes that agencies should establish implementation plans based on the importance of the project and its projected effects. Agencies should create new, or strengthen existing, monitoring to ensure that mitigation commitments are implemented. Agencies should also use effectiveness monitoring to learn if the mitigation is providing the benefits predicted. Importantly, agencies should encourage public participation and accountability through proactive disclosure of, and provision of access to, agencies' mitigation commitments as well as mitigation monitoring reports and related documents.
Although the recommendations in this guidance are broad in nature, agencies should establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures and/or guidance, specific procedures that create systematic accountability and the mechanisms to accomplish these goals.
• How to ensure that mitigation commitments are implemented;
• How to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation commitments;
• How to remedy failed mitigation; and
• How to involve the public in mitigation planning.
Mitigation is an important mechanism Federal agencies can use to minimize the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with their actions. As described in the CEQ Regulations, agencies can use mitigation to reduce environmental impacts in several ways. Mitigation includes:
• Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
• Minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
• Reducing or eliminating an impact over time, through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
• Compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Federal agencies typically develop mitigation as a component of a proposed action, or as a measure considered in the course of the NEPA review conducted to support agency decisionmaking processes, or both. In developing mitigation, agencies necessarily and appropriately rely upon the expertise and experience of their professional staff to assess mitigation needs, develop mitigation plans, and oversee mitigation implementation. Agencies may also rely on outside resources and experts for information about the ecosystem functions and values to be protected or restored by mitigation, to ensure that mitigation has the desired effects and to develop appropriate monitoring strategies. Any outside parties consulted should be neutral parties without a financial interest in implementing the mitigation and monitoring plans, and should have expert knowledge, training, and experience relevant to the resources potentially affected by the actions and—if possible—the potential effects from similar actions.
The sections below clarify practices Federal agencies should use when they employ mitigation in three different contexts: As components of project design; as mitigation alternatives considered in an EA or an EIS and adopted in related decision documents; and as measures identified and committed to in an EA as necessary to support a mitigated FONSI. CEQ encourages agencies to commit to mitigation to achieve environmentally preferred outcomes, particularly when addressing unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Agencies should not commit to mitigation, however, unless they have sufficient legal authorities and expect there will be necessary resources available to perform or ensure the performance of the mitigation. The agency's own underlying authority may provide the basis for its commitment to implement and monitor the mitigation. Alternatively, the authority for the mitigation may derive from legal requirements that are enforced by other Federal, state, or local government entities (e.g., air or water permits administered by local or state agencies).
Many Federal agencies rely on mitigation to reduce adverse environmental impacts as part of the planning process for a project, incorporating mitigation as integral components of a proposed project design before making a determination about the significance of the project's environmental impacts.
Mitigation measures included in the project design are integral components of the proposed action, are implemented with the proposed action, and therefore should be clearly described as part of the proposed action that the agency will perform or require to be performed. Consequently, the agency can address mitigation early in the decisionmaking process and potentially conduct a less extensive level of NEPA review.
Agencies are required, under NEPA, to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives when preparing EAs and EISs.
When a Federal agency identifies a mitigation alternative in an EA or an EIS, it may commit to implement that mitigation to achieve an environmentally-preferable outcome. Agencies should not commit to mitigation measures considered and analyzed in an EIS or EA if there are insufficient legal authorities, or it is not reasonable to foresee the availability of sufficient resources, to perform or ensure the performance of the mitigation. Furthermore, the decision document following the EA should—and a Record of Decision (ROD) must—identify those mitigation measures that the agency is adopting and committing to implement, including any monitoring and enforcement program applicable to such mitigation commitments.
When preparing an EA, many agencies develop and consider committing to mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that would otherwise require full review in an EIS. CEQ recognizes the appropriateness, value, and efficacy of providing for mitigation to reduce the significance of environmental impacts. Consequently, when such mitigation measures are available and an agency commits to perform or ensure the performance of them, then these mitigation commitments can be used to support a FONSI, allowing the agency to conclude the NEPA process and proceed with its action without preparing an EIS.
Mitigation commitments needed to lower the level of impacts so that they are not significant should be clearly described in the mitigated FONSI document and in any other relevant decision documents related to the proposed action. Agencies must provide for appropriate public involvement during the development of the EA and FONSI.
Federal agencies should take steps to ensure that mitigation commitments are actually implemented. Consistent with their authority, agencies should establish internal processes to ensure that mitigation commitments made on the basis of any NEPA analysis are carefully documented and that relevant funding, permitting, or other agency approvals and decisions are made conditional on performance of mitigation commitments.
Agency NEPA implementing procedures should require clear documentation of mitigation commitments considered in EAs and EISs prepared during the NEPA process and adopted in their decision documents. Agencies should ensure that the expertise and professional judgment applied in determining the appropriate mitigation commitments are described in the EA or EIS, and that the NEPA analysis considers when and how those mitigation commitments will be implemented.
Agencies should clearly identify commitments to mitigation measures designed to achieve environmentally preferable outcomes in their decision documents. They should also identify mitigation commitments necessary to reduce impacts, where appropriate, to a level necessary for a mitigated FONSI. In both cases, mitigation commitments should be carefully specified in terms of measurable performance standards or expected results, so as to establish clear performance expectations.
CEQ views funding for implementation of mitigation commitments as critical to ensuring informed decisionmaking. For mitigation commitments that agencies will implement directly, CEQ recognizes that it may not be possible to identify funds from future budgets; however, a commitment to seek funding is considered essential and if it is reasonably foreseeable that funding for implementation of mitigation may be unavailable at any time during the life of the project, the agency should disclose in the EA or EIS the possible lack of funding and assess the resultant environmental effects. If the agency has disclosed and assessed the lack of funding, then unless the mitigation is essential to a mitigated FONSI or necessary to comply with another legal requirement, the action could proceed. If the agency committing to implementing mitigation has not disclosed and assessed the lack of funding, and the necessary funding later becomes unavailable, then the agency should not move forward with the proposed action until funding becomes available or the lack of funding is appropriately assessed (
Federal agencies must consider reasonably foreseeable future impacts and conditions in a constantly evolving environment. Decisionmakers will be better able to adapt to changing circumstances by creating a sound mitigation implementation plan and through ongoing monitoring of environmental impacts and their mitigation. Monitoring can improve the quality of overall agency decisionmaking by providing feedback on the effectiveness of mitigation techniques. A comprehensive approach to mitigation planning, implementation, and monitoring will therefore help agencies realize opportunities for reducing environmental impacts through mitigation, advancing the integrity of the entire NEPA process. These approaches also serve NEPA's goals of ensuring transparency and openness by making relevant and useful environmental information available to decisionmakers and the public.
Adaptive management can help an agency take corrective action if mitigation commitments originally made in NEPA and decision documents fail to achieve projected environmental outcomes and there is remaining federal action. Agencies can, in their NEPA reviews, establish and analyze mitigation measures that are projected to result in the desired environmental outcomes, and can then identify those mitigation principles or measures that it would apply in the event the initial mitigation commitments are not implemented or effective. Such adaptive management techniques can be advantageous to both the environment and the agency's project goals.
Monitoring is fundamental for ensuring the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation commitments, meeting legal and permitting requirements, and identifying trends and possible means for improvement. Under NEPA, a Federal agency has a continuing duty to ensure that new information about the environmental impact of its proposed actions is taken into account, and that the NEPA review is supplemented when significant new circumstances or information arise that are relevant to environmental concerns and bear on the proposed action or its impacts.
Agencies are expected to apply professional judgment and the rule of reason when identifying those cases that are important and warrant monitoring, and when determining the type and extent of monitoring they will use to check on the progress made in implementing mitigation commitments as well as their effectiveness. In cases that are less important, the agency should exercise its discretion to determine what level of monitoring, if any, is appropriate. The following are examples of factors that agencies should consider to determine importance:
• Legal requirements of statutes, regulations, or permits;
• Human health and safety;
• Protected resources (e.g., parklands, threatened or endangered species, cultural or historic sites) and the proposed action's impacts on them;
• Degree of public interest in the resource or public debate over the effects of the proposed action and any reasonable mitigation alternatives on the resource; and
• Level of intensity of projected impacts.
Once an agency determines that it will provide for monitoring in a particular case, monitoring plans and programs should be described or incorporated by reference in the agency's decision documents.
Regardless of the method chosen, agencies should ensure that the monitoring program tracks whether mitigation commitments are being performed as described in the NEPA and related decision documents (i.e., implementation monitoring), and whether the mitigation effort is producing the expected outcomes and resulting environmental effects (i.e., effectiveness monitoring). Agencies should also ensure that their mitigation monitoring procedures appropriately provide for public involvement. These recommendations are explained in more detail below.
A successful monitoring program will track the implementation of mitigation commitments to determine whether they are being performed as described in the NEPA documents and related decision documents. The responsibility for developing an implementation monitoring program depends in large part upon who will actually perform the mitigation—the lead Federal agency or cooperating agency; the applicant, grantee, or permit holder; another responsible entity or cooperative non-Federal partner; or a combination of these. The lead agency should ensure that information about responsible parties, mitigation requirements, as well as any appropriate enforcement clauses are included in documents such as authorizations, agreements, permits, financial assistance awards, or contracts.
Effectiveness monitoring tracks the success of a mitigation effort in achieving expected outcomes and environmental effects. Completing environmental data collection and analyses prior to project implementation provides an understanding of the baseline conditions for each potentially affected resource for reference when determining whether the predicted efficacy of mitigation commitments is being achieved. Agencies can rely on agency staff and outside experts familiar with the predicted environmental impacts to develop the means to monitor mitigation effectiveness, in the same way that they can rely on agency and outside experts to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation (
When monitoring mitigation, agencies should consider drawing on sources of information available from the agency, from other Federal agencies, and from state, local, and tribal agencies, as well as from non-governmental sources such as local organizations, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations. Agencies should especially consider working with agencies responsible for overseeing land management and impacts to specific resources. For example, agencies could consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services (for information to evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species) and with State Historic Preservation Officers (for information to evaluate potential impacts to historic structures).
Public involvement is a key procedural requirement of the NEPA review process, and should be fully provided for in the development of mitigation and monitoring procedures.
Agencies should provide for public access to mitigation monitoring information consistent with NEPA and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Beyond these requirements, agencies are encouraged to make proactive, discretionary release of mitigation monitoring reports and other supporting documents, and to make responses to public inquiries regarding mitigation monitoring readily available to the public through online or print media. This recommendation is consistent with the President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government directing agencies to take affirmative steps to make information public without waiting for specific requests for information.
Agencies should exercise their judgment to ensure that the methods and media used to provide mitigation and monitoring information are commensurate with the importance of the action and the resources at issue, taking into account any risks of harm to affected resources. In some cases, agencies may need to balance competing privacy or confidentiality concerns (
Through careful monitoring, agencies may discover that mitigation commitments have not been implemented, or have not had the environmental results predicted in the NEPA and decision documents. Agencies, having committed to mitigation, should work to remedy such inadequacies. It is an agency's underlying authority or other legal authority that provides the basis for the commitment to implement mitigation and monitor its effectiveness. As discussed in Section I, agencies should not commit to mitigation considered in an EIS or EA unless there are sufficient legal authorities and they expect the resources to be available to perform or ensure the performance of the mitigation. In some cases, as discussed in Section II, agencies may exercise their authority to make relevant funding, permitting, or other agency approvals and decisions conditional on the performance of mitigation commitments by third parties. It follows that an agency must rely on its underlying authority and available resources to take remedial steps. Agencies should consider taking remedial steps as long as there remains a pending Federal decision regarding the project or proposed action. Agencies may also exercise their legal authority to enforce conditions placed on funding, grants, permits, or other approvals.
If a mitigation commitment is simply not undertaken or fails to mitigate the environmental effects as predicted, the responsible agency should further consider whether it is necessary to prepare supplemental NEPA analysis and documentation.
In cases where there is no remaining agency action to be taken, and the mitigation has not been fully implemented or has not been as effective as predicted, it may not be appropriate to supplement the original NEPA analysis and documentation. However, it would be appropriate for future NEPA analyses of similar proposed actions and relevant programs to consider past experience and address the potential for environmental consequences as a result of mitigation failure. This would ensure that the assumed environmental baselines reflect true conditions, and that similar mitigation is not relied on in subsequent decisions without more robust provisions for adaptive management or analysis of mitigation alternatives that can be applied in the event of mitigation failure.
This guidance is intended to assist Federal agencies with the development of their NEPA procedures, guidance, and regulations; foster the appropriate use of Findings of No Significant Impact; and ensure that mitigation commitments are appropriately and effectively documented, implemented, and monitored. The guidance also provides Federal agencies with recommended actions in circumstances where mitigation is not implemented or fails to have the predicted effect. Questions regarding this guidance should be directed to the CEQ Associate Director for NEPA Oversight.
A number of agencies have already taken actions to improve their use of mitigation and their monitoring of mitigation commitments undertaken as part of their NEPA processes. For example, the Department of the Army has promulgated regulations implementing NEPA for military installations and programs that include a monitoring and implementation component.
Consistent with existing CEQ guidelines, the Army's NEPA implementing regulations place significant emphasis on the planning and implementation of mitigation
Another important mechanism in the Army's regulations to assure effective mitigation results is the requirement to fully fund and implement adopted mitigation. It is acknowledged in the regulations that “unless money is actually budgeted and manpower assigned, the mitigation does not exist.”
The Army regulations recognize that monitoring is an integral part of any mitigation system.
The Army regulations distinguish between implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring ensures that mitigation commitments made in NEPA documentation are implemented. To further this objective, the Army regulations specify that these conditions must be written into any contracts furthering the proposed action. In addition, the agency or unit proposing the action is ultimately responsible for the performance of the mitigation activities.
The Army's effectiveness monitoring addresses changing conditions inherent in evolving natural systems and the potential for unexpected environmental mitigation outcomes. For this monitoring effort, the Army utilizes its Environmental Management System (EMS) based on the standardized ISO 14001 protocols.
The Army regulations also provide guidance for the challenging task of defining parameters for effectiveness monitoring. Guidelines include identifying a source of expertise, using measurable and replicable technical parameters, conducting a baseline study before mitigation is commenced, using a control to isolate mitigation effects, and, importantly, providing timely results to allow the decision-maker to take corrective action if necessary.
The Army regulations seek to integrate robust engagement of the interested public in the mitigation monitoring program. The regulations place responsibility on the entity proposing the action to respond to inquiries from the public and other agencies regarding the status of mitigation adopted in the NEPA process.
National Science Foundation.
Final rule.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is amending its regulations to remove the provisions concerning statutory conflict-of-interest exemptions.
The final rule is effective on January 21, 2011.
Robin Clay, Deputy Ethics Official, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8060; Facsimile: (703) 292-9041; e-mail:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is amending its regulations to remove the provisions in 45 CFR 680.20 (subpart B) in their entirety. On December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66830), the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued executive branch-wide regulations on exemptions and waivers for financial interests under 18 U.S.C. 280(b) (codified at 5 CFR part 2640). The portion of the OGE regulations on exemptions under 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(2) supersedes the provisions of subpart B of the NSF regulations (45 CFR part 680).
In accordance with OGE's issuance of the final rule regarding 18 U.S.C. 208(b) exemptions and waivers (5 CFR 2640), the Foundation is issuing this final rule removing 45 CFR part 680 subpart B in its entirety.
Because the Foundation is required to delete the superseded provisions of 45 CFR part 680 subpart B relating to 208(b)(2) exemptions, with no discretion in the matter, the Foundation finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(B), that there is good cause not to seek public comment on this rule, as such comment is unnecessary. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, the Foundation finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), that good cause exists to make this rule effective upon publication of this notice.
Conflict of interests.
Accordingly, 45 CFR part 680 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 7301; 42 U.S.C. 1870(a); 5 CFR 2635.105(c)(3).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1, is installed on aeroplanes with the optional “Camera Hole” modification.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the loss of rudder control on the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Reims Aviation Industries, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone + 33 3 26 48 46 65; fax + 33 3 26 49 18 57; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090.
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 12, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-12, Amendment 39-14899 (72 FR 3047; January 24, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2007-02-12, REIMS AVIATION S.A. discovered that airplane serial number (SN) F406-0091 had inadvertently not been included in the service information and has revised the service information to correct the omission.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2010-0230, dated November 5, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1, is installed on aeroplanes with the optional “Camera Hole” modification.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the loss of rudder control on the airplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued Emergency (Urgent) AD UF-2005-080, followed by the final AD F-2005-080, requiring repetitive inspections of the P/N 6015511-1 rudder pulley bracket and replacement of the bracket with a modified bracket, P/N 4061-2701-1, as terminating action.
Recently, Reims discovered that aeroplane s/n F406-0091 had inadvertently not been included in the SB and this has been revised to correct the omission.
For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2005-080, which is superseded, and adds aeroplane s/n F406-0091 to the Applicability of the AD, by referencing Revision 2 of the Reims Aviation Industries SB F406-58.
Reims Aviation S.A. has issued Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27,
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $750 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,795, or $1,685 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it 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 removing Amendment 39-14899 (72 FR 3047; January 24, 2007), and adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by March 7, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-12, Amendment 39-14899.
(c) This AD applies to Reims Aviation S.A. Model F406 airplanes, serial numbers (SNs) 0002, 0003, 0004, 0006, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0012, 0013, 0017, 0024, 0025, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0066, 0070, 0073, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0080 through 0092, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1, is installed on aeroplanes with the optional “Camera Hole” modification.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the loss of rudder control on the airplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued Emergency (Urgent) AD UF-2005-080, followed by the final AD F-2005-080, requiring repetitive inspections of the P/N 6015511-1 rudder pulley bracket and replacement of the bracket with a modified bracket, P/N 4061-2701-1, as terminating action.
Recently, Reims discovered that aeroplane s/n F406-0091 had inadvertently not been included in the SB and this has been revised to correct the omission.
For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2005-080, which is superseded, and adds aeroplane s/n F406-0091 to the Applicability of the AD, by referencing Revision 2 of the Reims Aviation Industries SB F406-58.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(i) Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February 13, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-02-12), perform the initial inspection as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010.
(ii) If no cracking is found following the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect every 50 hours TIS or 1 month, whichever occurs first, until the installation of the modified pulley bracket specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) or (f)(1)(iv) of this AD is done.
(iii) If any cracking is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, install the
(iv) Within the next 100 hours TIS or 2 months after February 13, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-02-12), whichever occurs first, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This installation terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(v) The modified pulley bracket specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010, may be installed at any time after the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, as long as no cracking is found, but no later than the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this AD. If cracking is found, it must be replaced before further flight as required in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(2)
(i) Within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective of this AD, perform the initial inspection as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010.
(ii) If no cracking is found following the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect every 50 hours TIS or 1 month, whichever occurs first, until the installation of the modified pulley bracket specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv) of this AD is done.
(iii) If any cracking is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This installation terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(iv) Within the next 100 hours TIS or 2 months after the effective of this AD, whichever occurs first, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This installation terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(v) The modified pulley bracket specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010, may be installed at any time after the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD as long as no cracking is found, but no later than the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this AD. If cracking is found, it must be replaced before further flight as required in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2010-0230, dated November 5, 2010; Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; and Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010, for related information. For service information related to this AD, contact Reims Aviation Industries, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone + 33 3 26 48 46 65; fax + 33 3 26 49 18 57; e-mail
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would result in all airplanes having new relays with a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane configuration, doing certain wiring changes, replacing the fuel pump power control relays for the main, center and auxiliary tanks, as applicable, with new relays having a GFI feature, performing certain bonding resistance measurements, and modifying relay module assemblies. The proposed AD also would require revising the maintenance program to incorporate Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, 737-200, and 737-200C series airplanes), and 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series airplanes). This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 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 me.
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 (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
As part of an SFAR88 analysis, Boeing determined that the power control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps, the center tank fuel boost pumps, and for certain airplanes, the auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps should be replaced with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature. The relays are located in the P6 circuit breaker panel in the flight compartment. The GFI relay feature is intended to protect the fuel boost pumps from damage caused from electrical arcing by removing electrical power from the pump if a ground fault is detected. Electrical arcing, if not prevented could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010. Depending on airplane configuration and on whether the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, were accomplished, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, describes procedures for the following actions, depending on airplane configurations:
• Doing wiring changes,
• Replacing the fuel pump power control relays for the main, center and auxiliary tanks with new relays having a GFI feature,
• Doing certain bonding resistance measurements to verify certain bonding requirements are met, and
• Modifying the M181, M182, M183 relay module assemblies.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, specifies a compliance time of 60 months for replacing the power control relays.
For certain airplanes, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for doing the modification of the relay module assemblies and bond resistance measurements.
In addition, we have reviewed Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
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, except as described under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.”
AWL 28-AWL-23 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009, is applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, although it specifies only the Model 737-100 and -200 airplanes.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 750 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 7, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (m) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
(e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent the damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable action required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes without the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules installed: Do the wiring changes; replace the fuel pump power control relays for the main, center, and auxiliary tanks, as applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature; and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met; in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
(2) Airplanes with the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules installed: Modify the M181, M182, and M183 relay module assemblies, and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding resistance measurements.
(h) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD, and on which the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules have not been installed: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the wiring changes and certain bonding measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
(i) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD, and that the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay modules are installed: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do certain bonding measurements to verify that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding resistance measurements.
(j) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, revise the maintenance program by incorporating the applicable airworthiness limitation (AWL) specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-23 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 AWL and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-23 is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: AWL 28-AWL-22 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-22 is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(k) After accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used, unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an alternative means of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(l) Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWLs 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes) and 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes) in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of AD 2008-10-09 R1, amendment 39-16148, terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 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: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6482; fax (425) 917-6590. Or, e-mail information to
(2) 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
In accordance with Section 764(a) of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is proposing rule 15Fi-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78a
Comments should be received on or before February 22, 2011.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Joseph Furey, Assistant Chief Counsel; Darren Vieira, Special Counsel; or Ignacio Sandoval, Attorney, at (202) 551-5550, Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
The Commission is proposing rule 15Fi-1 pursuant to Section 15F of the Exchange Act.
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Section 15F(i)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that SBS Entities must “conform with such standards as may be prescribed by the Commission, by rule or regulation, that relate to timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all security-based swaps.” Section 15F(i)(2) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission must adopt rules governing documentation standards for SBS Entities. Proposed rule 15Fi-1 would prescribe standards related to timely and accurate confirmation and documentation of SBS, as further described below.
Market participants currently issue a “trade acknowledgment” (sometimes referred to by industry participants as a “draft confirmation” or an “alleged trade”) to memorialize the economic and related terms of an SBS transaction, regardless of the means by which the transaction was executed. If an SBS transaction is not reduced to writing, a court may have to supply contract terms upon which there was no previous agreement. For this reason, prudent practice requires that, after coming to an agreement on the terms of a transaction, the parties document the transaction in a complete and definitive written record so there is legal certainty about the terms of their agreement in case those terms are later disputed. Therefore, industry best practices incorporate a process by which the parties verify that the trade acknowledgment accurately reflects the terms of their trade.
In the past few years, market participants and regulators have paid particular attention to the timely confirmation of SBS transactions. The Government Accountability Office has found that, since 2002, the trading volume of SBS such as credit derivatives has expanded rapidly, causing stresses on the operational infrastructure of market participants, which in turn caused the participants' back office systems to fail for a period of time to confirm the increased volume of trades.
To promote the efficient operation of the SBS market, and to facilitate market participants' management of their SBS-related risk, the Commission is proposing a confirmation process in rule 15Fi-1. The proposed rule will govern the delivery of SBS trade acknowledgments and the verification of those trade acknowledgments, as described more fully below. In developing this proposed rule, the Commission has consulted with other financial regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Commission understands that proposed rule 15Fi-1, as well as other proposals that the Commission may consider in the coming months to implement the Dodd-Frank Act, if adopted, could significantly affect—and be significantly affected by—the nature and scope of the security-based swaps market in a number of ways. For example, the Commission recognizes that if the measures it adopts are too onerous for existing participants or new entrants, they could hinder the further development of a market for SBS by unduly discouraging participation by SBS Entities. On the other hand, if the Commission adopts rules that are too permissive, they may not adequately protect investor interests or promote the purposes of the Exchange Act. We also are aware that the further development of the SBS market may require the Commission to revise its confirmation standards for SBS transactions. We urge commenters, as they review our proposal, to consider generally the role that regulation may play in fostering or limiting the development of the market for SBS (or the role that market developments may play in changing the nature and implications of regulation) and specifically to focus on this issue with respect to the proposed trade acknowledgment and verification rule for SBS Entities.
Proposed Exchange Act rule 15Fi-1 would require SBS Entities to provide to their counterparties a trade acknowledgment, to provide prompt verification of the terms provided in a trade acknowledgment of transactions from other SBS Entities, and to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification of the terms provided in a trade acknowledgment. We are proposing to define several key terms in the rule to have the meaning that we believe is commonly attributed to those terms by industry participants. Thus, as discussed above, we propose to define the term “trade acknowledgment” to mean a written or electronic record of an SBS transaction sent by one party to the other.
Proposed rule 15Fi-1 would require certain SBS Entities that purchase or sell any SBS to provide an electronic trade acknowledgment to the applicable counterparty containing certain required information—discussed in Part II.C, below—within the prescribed timeframe. By requiring counterparties to provide trade acknowledgments of and to verify SBS transactions in a timely way, proposed rule 15Fi-1 is intended to promote the principles of Exchange Act Section 15F(i)(1).
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed definitions of trade acknowledgment, verification and confirmation.
Proposed rule 15Fi-1(b) would require an SBS Entity that purchases or sells any security-based swap to provide a trade acknowledgment to its counterparty. The terms “purchase” and “sale” are defined in Section 3(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposal as to the events that would trigger an obligation to provide a trade acknowledgment.
1. Are there circumstances, other than purchases or sales of SBS, when SBS Entities should be required to provide SBS trade acknowledgments to their counterparties?
2. What are the current market practices with respect to confirming SBS transactions?
3. How would current industry practices for confirming transactions be affected by the proposed rule?
4. How should policies and procedures to verify trade acknowledgments differ from current market practices, if at all?
5. What are the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed rule compared to current market practices? What additional costs would these differences entail?
6. Do participants currently have operations and/or departments in place to comply with the proposed requirements?
7. Do the benefits of promptly providing a trade acknowledgment justify the additional costs, and, if not, why not?
8. Many, if not most, types of securities transactions are complete upon settlement of the trade (usually shortly following execution), and the purchaser and seller have no continuing obligations to one another. In contrast, parties to SBS transactions have ongoing obligations to each other that could continue for years, depending on the term of the SBS transaction. The Commission has proposed to require parties to SBS transactions to report to an SBS data repository certain life-cycle events, some of which are included in the definition of purchase and sale and some of which, like corporate actions (
9. Should the proposed rule require different procedures for terminations than for other purchases and sales? What are the current practices with respect to sending notices of termination? What information should be provided in an acknowledgment of a termination?
The Commission proposes using Section 13A(a)(3) of the Exchange Act as a model to determine which counterparty is responsible for providing the trade acknowledgment in the transaction. Section 13A(a)(1) provides that each SBS that is not accepted for clearing by a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization must be reported to a swap data repository or to the Commission.
Although the responsible counterparty would have the obligation to provide the trade acknowledgment, that counterparty could use a third-party to fulfill this obligation. The Commission expects that many transactions will be confirmed by “matching services” provided through a clearing agency.
A clearing agency is providing matching services if it captures trade information regarding a securities transaction, performs an independent comparison of that information, and issues a confirmation
A clearing agency may also serve as a central clearing counterparty (“CCP”) in SBS transactions. In a CCP arrangement, if the original counterparties to a bilateral SBS transaction are clearing members, they novate their bilateral trade to the clearing agency (acting as a CCP). In such a novation to a CCP, each counterparty terminates its contract with the other and enters into a new contract on identical terms with the CCP. In this way, the CCP becomes buyer to one counterparty and seller to the other.
The Commission solicits comment on all aspects of the allocation of responsibility between the parties for providing the trade acknowledgment.
10. Does the proposed rule appropriately allocate the responsibility to provide a trade acknowledgment?
11. Would permitting the parties to agree which party would provide a trade acknowledgment in all transactions, instead of only in transactions between two SBS dealers or two major SBS participants, be preferable?
12. Should the rule require each SBS Entity that is a party to an SBS transaction to provide a trade acknowledgment to its counterparty?
13. Should the rule allow persons other than clearing agencies, such as
14. Does the description of the use of matching services, above, accurately describe current market practice, including market practice in such forums as the inter-dealer market? If not, what current practices are not encompassed by the description?
15. Should clearing agencies be permitted to provide trade acknowledgments on behalf of SBS Entities in transactions where the clearing agency was not responsible for clearing the transaction through a matching process? If so, under what conditions?
The Commission believes that confirming SBS transactions shortly after execution should help to promote the stability of the SBS market by preventing documentation backlogs from creating uncertainty over SBS Entities' exposure to SBS.
Promptly providing a trade acknowledgment would assure that the parties know the terms of their executed agreement.
• For any transaction that has been executed and processed electronically, a trade acknowledgment must be provided within 15 minutes of execution.
• For any transaction that is not electronically executed, but that will be processed electronically, a trade acknowledgment must be provided within 30 minutes of execution.
• For any transaction that the SBS Entity cannot process electronically, a trade acknowledgment must be provided within 24 hours following execution.
The Commission encourages SBS Entities to minimize the number of manual transactions processed, and to process electronically all SBS transactions if it is reasonably practicable to do so. However, the Commission understands that an SBS Entity may have the ability to process electronically only certain SBS transactions. For example, an SBS Entity may have the ability to process electronically certain standardized SBS transactions in certain asset classes, or transactions that it executes on an exchange or SBS execution facility, but may lack the ability to process electronically SBS transactions in other asset classes or that are executed by other means.
Thus, proposed rule 15Fi-1(c)(2) would require an SBS Entity to process electronically an SBS transaction if the SBS Entity has the ability to do so. In other words, an SBS Entity could not delay providing a trade acknowledgment by choosing to process a transaction by non-electronic means. The Commission preliminarily believes that requiring SBS Entities to acknowledge trades as promptly as they are able to do so would promote the purposes of Exchange Act Section 15Fi-1.
The Commission solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed time to provide a trade acknowledgment, and the requirement for SBS Entities to process electronically all transactions for which they have the ability.
16. What is the current industry practice with respect to the time necessary to confirm trades, and does the operational infrastructure of SBS Entities makes providing a trade acknowledgment within 24 hours of execution for manual trades feasible?
17. Should the proposed rule require an SBS Entity to provide a trade acknowledgment more quickly, particularly for transactions that are executed or processed electronically?
18. Would the proposed rule provide sufficient time for SBS Entities to provide trade acknowledgments to their counterparties?
19. Is there currently a backlog in confirming trades, and if so, would the proposed rule encourage confirming trades and reduce the backlog? Are there other procedures that would reduce any backlog of unconfirmed trades?
20. Are there circumstances in which certain terms included on a trade acknowledgment would not be agreed by the parties within 24 hours of execution? If so, please explain why parties may not be able to agree on such terms within 24 hours of the execution of the SBS transaction. How should an inability to obtain agreement on such contract terms within 24 hours of execution, when it happens, be handled?
21. How should the proposed rule address terms required to be on the trade acknowledgment that are not known on the date of execution?
22. How should the proposed rule address transactions between an SBS Entity and a fund manager or other agent, where the allocation of the trade to the fund manager's or agent's accounts is not determined by the fund manager or agent until sometime after execution? Should a delay in providing a trade acknowledgment be permitted
23. Should the proposed rule require SBS Entities that have the ability to process transactions electronically do so in all situations? Are there circumstances when an SBS Entity would have the ability to process a transaction electronically but should not be required to do so?
24. How often do trade acknowledgments contain inaccurate information and what are the most common errors? What procedures are currently in place to correct those errors?
Paragraph (d) of proposed rule 15Fi-1 would require the trade acknowledgments to be provided through any electronic means that provide reasonable assurance of delivery and a record of transmittal. The Commission believes that electronic delivery of SBS trade acknowledgments would promote the timely provision of trade acknowledgments, in accordance with Exchange Act Section 15F(i) of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule would provide flexibility for SBS Entities to determine the specific electronic means by which they will comply.
The Commission anticipates that clearing agencies may be instrumental in delivering trade acknowledgments and verifying SBS transactions for their members, but that the roles played by individual clearing agencies may vary. For example, as discussed in Part II.A above, clearing agencies may provide matching services in which they perform independent comparisons of each security-based swap transaction participant's trade data regarding the terms of settlement of the transaction that result in the issuance of legally binding matched terms to the transactions. Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed rule would permit clearing agencies to provide trade acknowledgments on behalf of SBS Entities; however, SBS Entities would not be limited to using clearing agencies to provide trade acknowledgments electronically. SBS Entities may also provide trade acknowledgments through a mutually agreed upon electronic standard, such as a messaging system that uses Financial products Markup Language (commonly known as FpML). SBS Entities may also continue to rely on facsimile transmission or e-mail to provide trade acknowledgments. The Commission understands these means of providing trade acknowledgments may be particularly necessary when engaging in SBS transactions with counterparties that rarely buy or sell SBS and that consequently do not have the means to receive trade acknowledgments otherwise.
Providing trade acknowledgments exclusively by mail or overnight courier would not satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule. These delayed means of communication do not appear to promote the principles of Exchange Act Section 15F(i). Moreover, as discussed in Part II.E below, an SBS Entity must establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures to obtain prompt verification of the terms included in each trade acknowledgment it provides. This requirement does not appear compatible with processes to provide trade acknowledgments that rely on delayed means of communication.
Paragraph (d) of proposed rule 15Fi-1 would require trade acknowledgments to contain a minimum of 22 items of information, all but one of which is identical to the items that SBS Entities would be required to report to an SBS data repository pursuant to the rules the Commission has separately proposed in Regulation SBSR.
The specific items that SBS Entities would provide in a trade acknowledgment under the proposed rule include: (1) The asset class
The first 21 items are identical to the items that would be reported to an SBS data repository under proposed Regulation SBSR. In addition, if a transaction is to be cleared, proposed rule 15Fi-1(d)(22) would require SBS Entities to include on a trade acknowledgment any additional information that a clearing agency requires to clear the transaction. The Commission has oversight authority over clearing agencies, including the ability to approve or disapprove all proposed rules and rule changes.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposal as to the form and content of the trade acknowledgment.
25. Is it feasible to require trade acknowledgments to be provided electronically?
26. Would the requirement for electronic trade acknowledgment unduly restrict the types of SBS transactions that SBS Entities may enter into or the persons that may be their counterparties?
27. Would permitting non-electronic means of providing trade acknowledgments further the Commission's objective to promote the timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all SBS?
28. What systems are used to provide confirmations today?
29. Should the proposed rule require SBS Entities to use other systems, such as electronic messaging systems that rely on machine readable structured data (and therefore lend themselves to automated trade processing) or some other process, to provide trade acknowledgments? If so, please describe those systems.
30. Should we consider any enhancements to current market practices?
31. Would permitting trade acknowledgments to be provided by facsimile or e-mail create problems or raise issues, and would the benefits of permitting acknowledgments to be provided by facsimile or e-mail outweigh those problems or issues?
32. Would the requirement for trade acknowledgments to be provided through electronic means that provide reasonable assurance of delivery and a record of transmittal create difficulties for participants, for example, because some counterparties are unable to receive trade acknowledgments electronically, or because electronic trade acknowledgment is not feasible for transactions in certain asset classes?
33. Can the Commission's objective to promote the timely provision of trade acknowledgments be achieved if SBS Entities provide trade acknowledgments by non-electronic means, such as mail or overnight courier, and if so, how?
34. Should the proposed rule allow clearing agencies to use methods other than confirmation by matching or comparison to provide trade acknowledgments on behalf of SBS Entities?
35. Is there additional information that the proposed rule should require to be included on a trade acknowledgment?
36. Does the proposed rule require any information that is unnecessary?
37. The Commission has proposed that the trade acknowledgment contain a minimum of 22 items of information. In light of the purpose of the rule, should the Commission simply require instead that the trade acknowledgment must evidence the entire agreement of the parties? For example, the Commission could require a trade acknowledgment to include: (a) “All of the terms an SBS transaction”; (b) “all of the material terms of an SBS transaction”; (c) “all terms that the parties have agreed to at the time of execution”; (d) “all terms that are necessary for the parties to have a complete and definitive agreement”; or (e) “all the terms necessary to fully and completely describe the transaction.” Which of these alternatives is best, and why? Would it be clear how to comply with any or all of these possible alternatives? If not, why not? Would certain terms used in these alternative requirements require further definition, such as “complete and definitive,” or “fully and completely”? If so, what terms would require further definition, and how should they be defined? Would the alternative requirements encompass transaction terms that would otherwise not be included on a trade acknowledgment as required by the proposed rule and the enumerated items specified therein? If so, what additional transaction terms would be required? What would be the costs and benefits or disadvantages of such a principles-based requirement?
38. Please propose any alternative standards to those described in question 38 the Commission should consider, discuss what additional information would be required under your alternatives, and the costs and benefits and the advantages and disadvantages of your proposed standards.
39. Should the Commission require markup/markdown disclosure or expected profitability/loss on a trade acknowledgment? If so, why, and if not, why not? How should SBS Entities calculate markup/markdown or expected profitability/loss? What would be the best evidence of the prevailing market price for a SBS transaction from which a markup or markdown could be calculated? Should the prevailing market price be based on a dealer's contemporaneous cost, its cost to hedge the transaction, or a dealer's sale to another SBS dealer or major SBS participant? Should there be any
40. The Commission understands that some SBS agreements may receive credit support from a guarantor or other credit support provider who agrees to satisfy a party's payment or margin obligations in the event of default. Should the trade acknowledgment include the legal name of or other information about the guarantor or credit support provider?
41. How does price differ, if at all, from market value?
42. Should the Commission require that a trade acknowledgment include in all cases the material information necessary to identify the SBS or the data elements necessary to calculate its price (rather than the proposal in paragraph (d)(12))?
43. Should the Commission require that a trade acknowledgment include in all cases the material information necessary to determine required upfront payments and any future cash flows (rather the proposal in paragraph (d)(12))?
44. Do parties typically provide the material information necessary to identify the SBS or the data elements necessary to calculate its price in a trade acknowledgment or confirmation? Are there any SBS transactions, such as highly customized SBS transactions, for which it would be difficult to provide this information? If so, please describe these transactions and the information that parties would be challenged to provide.
45. Section 3C(g)(1) of the Exchange Act provides an exception for certain counterparties from the mandatory clearing requirement in Exchange Act Section 3C(a)(1). In order to qualify for the exception, counterparties would need to comply with the Commission's rules and regulations, which may require that counterparties provide additional information to the Commission, such as how a counterparty invoking the clearing exception generally expects to meet its financial obligations associated with an SBS or the title of any agreements in place between the SBS Entity and the counterparty that would support such counterparty's financial obligations. Should the trade acknowledgment include such additional information that a counterparty may need to provide to the Commission? Should the trade acknowledgment include such additional information that a counterparty may need to provide to the Commission to support that it is not a financial entity and is using the SBS to hedge or mitigate commercial risk?
46. The Commission also considered proposing a requirement that parties use master confirmation agreements for complex products when such agreements are in widespread use.
As part of the trade verification process, paragraph (e)(1) of proposed rule 15Fi-1 would require an SBS Entity to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonable written policies and procedures to obtain the prompt verification of trade acknowledgments. The Commission preliminarily believes this requirement will induce SBS Entities to minimize the number of unverified trade acknowledgments, and thereby reduce the operational risk and uncertainty associated with unverified SBS transactions.
Verifying a transaction would require the SBS Entity responsible for providing the trade acknowledgment to obtain manually, electronically, or by some other legally equivalent means, the signature of its counterparty on the trade acknowledgment.
Pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of the rule, cleared transactions would be verified in accordance with the process prescribed by the registered clearing agency through which the transaction will be cleared. The Commission expects that clearing agencies will adopt rules to obtain the signature of a counterparty on a trade acknowledgment as part of their verification procedures. In electronically processed transactions, the clearing agency could obtain counterparties' signatures electronically or by other means. As noted above, the Commission has authority over registered clearing agencies, including the authority to review and approve or disapprove all proposed rules and rule changes.
For SBS transactions that are not subject to clearing, paragraph (e)(1) of the proposed rule would require SBS Entities to establish their own trade verification processes. For example, an SBS Entity could establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures under which it will only deal with a counterparty that agrees to timely review any trade acknowledgment to ensure that it accurately describes their agreed upon transaction, and sign and return the trade acknowledgment as evidence of the verification. SBS Entities' policies and procedures for verification could also include using a third-party matching service.
Paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed rule would provide that, in any SBS transaction to be cleared through a clearing agency, an SBS Entity's compliance with the verification process prescribed by the clearing agency satisfies the verification requirements of subparagraph (e)(1) with respect to the transaction. Therefore, an SBS Entity would not need to separately verify a transaction with another SBS Entity cleared through a clearing agency. Additionally, an SBS Entity would not be required to have separate written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification of the terms of a trade acknowledgment if the SBS Entity enters a cleared transaction with a non-SBS Entity, and the SBS Entity complies with the clearing agency's verification process.
Paragraph (e)(3) of the proposed rule would require SBS Entities to promptly verify the accuracy of, or dispute with their counterparties, the terms of trade acknowledgments they receive pursuant to the proposed rule. This requirement is intended to reduce the incidence of unverified SBS transactions, thereby reducing the operational risk for SBS Entities.
The Commission solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed requirement that SBS Entities verify trade acknowledgments they receive, and establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures to obtain the prompt verification of the terms of executed SBS transactions.
47. Should the proposed rule set time limits within which trade acknowledgments must be verified by SBS Entities? For example, should the proposed rule require SBS Entities to verify or dispute a trade acknowledgment within 24 or 48 hours of provision of the trade acknowledgment? Should SBS Entities be required to verify or dispute a trade acknowledgment more quickly for SBS transactions that are executed electronically or processed electronically than for other transactions?
48. What additional steps could the Commission take to promote verification of SBS transactions?
49. Should the Commission give more guidance in the types of policies and procedures it expects SBS Entities to adopt that would be “reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification of the terms of a trade acknowledgment”?
50. Are there other ways in which SBS participants currently evidence their agreement to an SBS transaction besides manual or electronic signature of a trade acknowledgment that we should consider?
51. The proposed rule requires that parties obtain “verification” of the trade acknowledgment, which would be defined to mean manual or electronic signature of the trade acknowledgment by the receiving party. Is this definition sufficient? Does this definition differ from current market practice, and if so, how?
52. Are there other processes currently in place that would not fit within this definition of “verification” that we should consider?
53. Although the Commission believes that matching services are an effective way to verify SBS transactions, and increase the efficiency of the SBS settlement process, the Commission has not proposed requiring SBS Entities to submit their trades to a matching service. The Commission is concerned that the variety of SBS transactions may make it unlikely that matching services would be able to verify all transactions, and the Commission questions whether all SBS Entities' counterparties would be members or participants (or eligible to be members or participants) in a matching service. Therefore, a requirement to submit all trades to a matching service could limit both the types of transactions and the counterparties in the SBS market. We request comment on the mandatory use of matching services. Would a requirement to use matching services limit the types of SBS transactions or counterparties in the market? How could the Commission mitigate those effects?
Proposed paragraph (f) of rule 15Fi-1 would provide an exemption from the requirements of rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act for SBS Entities that confirm their SBS transactions in compliance with proposed rule 15Fi-1.
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Exchange Act definition of “security” to include any “security-based swap.”
The proposed exemption in paragraph (f) would apply solely to transactions in SBS in which an SBS Entity is also a broker or a dealer, and would not apply to a transaction by a broker-dealer that is not also an SBS Entity. In other words, a broker-dealer that is not an SBS Entity would continue to comply with rule 10b-10 to the extent that it effects transactions in SBS with customers.
As noted in Part A.1 above, because the proposed rule would apply solely to an SBS Entity that “purchases” or “sells” an SBS, it is effectively limited to principal transactions in which the SBS Entity is a counterparty to the transaction and is acting for its own account. Thus, the proposed exemption in paragraph (f) would also apply solely to principal transactions. The Commission recognizes that some SBS Entities may also engage in SBS brokerage or agency transactions.
The Commission solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed exemption from rule 10b-10 for SBS Entities that provide a trade acknowledgment pursuant to proposed rule 15Fi-1(f).
54. Is the proposed exemption from rule 10b-10 necessary or appropriate?
55. Is additional interpretive guidance regarding rule 10b-10 necessary?
The Commission proposes that the rule be effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
The Commission solicits comment on all aspects of the implementation time frame for proposed rule 15Fi-1.
56. Would the proposed time frame provide sufficient time for SBS Entities to comply with the rule?
57. Should the implementation time be coordinated with the implementation timeframes for proposed Regulation SBSR?
Certain provisions of the proposed rule would result in “collection of information requirements” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
As discussed above, Exchange Act Section 15F(i)(1) provides that SBS Entities “shall conform with such standards as may be prescribed by the Commission, by rule or regulation, that relate to timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all security-based swaps.”
Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed rule 15Fi-1, sending an SBS trade acknowledgment would be the obligation of a particular SBS Entity (
Paragraph (d) of proposed rule 15Fi-1 would require that trade acknowledgments be provided through electronic means and lists the 22 data elements that must be included on each confirmation.
The trade acknowledgment and verification requirements of proposed rule 15Fi-1 would apply to both types of SBS Entities depending on whether the entity and its counterparty are SBS dealers or major SBS participants and on any agreements between counterparties addressing the obligation to send a trade acknowledgment. Generally, the transaction details that would be provided in a proposed rule 15Fi-1 trade acknowledgment would serve as a written record by which the counterparties to a transaction memorialize the economic and related terms of a transaction. In effect, the trade acknowledgment would reflect the contract entered into between the counterparties. In addition, proposed rule 15Fi-1's verification requirements are intended to assure that the written record of the transaction (
Proposed rule 15Fi-1 would only apply to SBS Entities, that is to SBS dealers and major SBS participants, both of which would be registered with the Commission. Based on the Commission staff's discussions with industry participants and incorporated in our other Dodd-Frank Act related rulemaking, we preliminarily believe that approximately 50 entities may fit within the definition of SBS dealer, and up to five entities may fit within the definition of major SBS participant. Thus, approximately 55 entities may be required to register with the Commission as SBS Entities and thus,
Pursuant to proposed rule 15Fi-1, all SBS transactions would have to be acknowledged and verified through the methods and by the timeframes prescribed in the proposed rule. Collectively, paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of proposed rule 15Fi-1 identify the information that is to be included in a trade acknowledgment; the party responsible for sending the trade acknowledgment; the permissible methods for sending the trade acknowledgment; and criteria for verifying the terms of a trade acknowledgment. According to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), there are on average 36,000 single-name credit-default swap (“CDS”) transactions per day,
Based on discussions with industry participants, the Commission estimates that approximately 99 percent, or 15,305,400 transactions,
As discussed above, the Commission believes that most transactions will be electronically executed and cleared through the facilities of a clearing agency. The Commission understands that the clearing of SBS transactions through the facilities of a clearing agency generally includes the matching and verification of such transactions. The Commission has taken this process into account in paragraph (b)(2) of proposed rule 15Fi-1, which provides that SBS Entities will satisfy the requirement to provide a trade acknowledgment if a clearing agency produces a confirmation through its facilities. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that it will be necessary for SBS Entities, if they have not already done so, to develop computerized systems for inputting the terms of an SBS transaction and then transmitting that data to the relevant clearing agency for electronic processing.
The Commission also believes that such computerized systems will necessarily have to be programmed so that SBS transactions that are not electronically processed through the facilities of a clearing agency can be processed internally. Indeed, it is the Commission's understanding, through publicly available information and discussions with industry participants, that many SBS Entities may already have these types of systems in place.
Because this information is anecdotal, for the purposes of the PRA, the Commission assumes that most SBS Entities do not currently have the platforms necessary for processing, acknowledging, and verifying SBS transactions electronically, whether internally or by transmitting the necessary data packages to the facilities of a clearing agency for processing. Therefore, the Commission believes that SBS Entities will have to develop internal order and trade management systems (“OMS”) that will be connected or linked to the facilities of a clearing agency and that will also be able to process SBS transactions internally if necessary.
Based on our staff's discussions with industry participants and incorporated in our other Commission rulemaking related to the Dodd-Frank Act,
In addition, pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of proposed rule 15Fi-1, SBS Entities must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification of transaction terms. While the cost of these policies and procedures will vary, the Commission estimates that such policies and procedures would require an average of 80 hours per respondent to initially prepare and implement, with a total initial burden of 4,400 hours for all respondents.
Pursuant to amendments to the Exchange Act from Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission plans to propose separate rules for SBS transactions that include, among other things, recordkeeping and transaction reporting requirements. Because a trade acknowledgment will serve as a written record of the transaction, the information required by proposed Rule 15Fi-1 would be required to be maintained by an SBS Entity subject to those rules. This requirement will be subject to a separate PRA submission under that rulemaking.
Each collection of information discussed above would be a mandatory collection of information.
By its terms, information collected pursuant to proposed rule 15Fi-1 will not be available to the public. Under other rules proposed by the Commission, however, most, if not all, of the information required to be included in a trade acknowledgment, as described in paragraph (d) of the proposed rule, will be otherwise publicly available. In particular, under proposed Regulation SBSR,
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of its burden estimates. The Commission also solicits comment as follows:
58. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency? Would the information have a practical utility?
59. How accurate are the Commission's preliminary estimates of the burdens of the proposed collection of information associated with proposed rule 15Fi-1? How many entities would incur collection of information burdens pursuant to rule 15Fi-1?
60. Would SBS Entities incur any additional burdens associated with designing, creating and implementing a system for the processing, acknowledgment and verification of SBS transactions pursuant to proposed rule 15Fi-1?
61. Would there be different or additional burdens associated with the collection of information under proposed rule 15Fi-1 that an SBS Entity would not undertake in the ordinary course of business?
62. Are there additional burdens that the Commission has not addressed in its preliminary burden estimates?
63. Are there ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected?
64. Are there ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who would be required to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
65. What entities may be subject to proposed rule 15Fi-1? Would specific classes of entities be impacted? How many entities would be impacted? Will any entity or class of entities be impacted differently than others?
The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, in part, to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system.
The market for OTC derivatives, which has been described as opaque,
Proposed rule 15Fi-1 would prescribe standards for the documentation and timely provision of SBS trade acknowledgments and the verification of such trade acknowledgments. More specifically, proposed Rule 15Fi-1 would require SBS Entities to provide a trade acknowledgment of an SBS transaction within 15 minutes, 30 minutes or 24 hours following execution of the transactions, depending on whether the transaction is executed and/or processed electronically.
The Commission believes that proposed rule 15Fi-1 would yield substantial benefits to the SBS market and address many of the concerns noted by the GAO regarding the timely and accurate acknowledgment of OTC derivatives transactions. In particular, by requiring SBS Entities to timely provide trade acknowledgments and verify SBS transactions and to use electronic means when possible, the Commission is addressing the concern raised by the GAO regarding the legal and operational risks associated with confirmation backlogs in the OTC derivatives markets. In particular, the GAO noted in its report that the lack of automation was a significant contributor to confirmation backlogs.
Proposed rule 15Fi-1 would impose initial and ongoing costs on SBS Entities. The Commission believes that these costs will be a function of number of SBS transactions entered into by SBS Entities, whether SBS Entities have the ability to electronically process SBS transactions, and whether SBS Entities will enter into SBS transactions that can be, and are, cleared by a clearing agency.
The Commission obtained information from publicly available sources and consulted with industry participants in an effort to quantify the number of aggregate SBS transactions on an annual basis. According to the DTCC, there are on average 36,000 single-name CDS transactions per day,
To fulfill the proposed rule's requirements, the Commission believes that SBS Entities would have to develop an OMS with portals to relevant clearing agencies and real-time or near real-time linkages between an SBS Entity's front and back-office operations. The development of an OMS would have to occur regardless of whether an SBS transaction is, or can be, cleared by a clearing agency.
The Commission preliminarily estimates that an SBS Entity's development of an OMS that achieves compliance with proposed rule 15Fi-1 would impose a one-time aggregate cost of $3,665,750,
In sum, the Commission estimates that the initial cost of complying with proposed rule 15Fi-1 will be $5,417,500 for all respondents, or $98,500 per SBS Entity.
The Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits of proposed rule 15Fi-1 discussed above, as well as any costs and benefits not already described that could result. In addition, the Commission requests comment on the following:
66. How can the Commission accurately estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed rule?
67. What are the costs currently borne by SBS Entities that would be subject to proposed rule 15Fi-1 with respect to the acknowledgment and verification of SBS transactions?
68. How many entities would be subject to the proposed rule? How transactions would be subject to the proposed rule?
69. Are there additional costs involved in complying with the rule that have not been identified? What are the types, and amounts, of the costs?
70. Would the obligations imposed on SBS Entities by proposed rule 15Fi-1 be a significant enough barrier to cause some firms not to enter the SBS market? If so, how many firms might decline to enter the market? How could the cost of their not entering the market be measured? How should the Commission weigh those costs, if any, against the anticipated benefits from reducing legal and operational risk to SBS Entities from the proposal, as discussed above?
71. Would there be additional benefits from the proposed rule that have not been identified?
Exchange Act Section 3(f) requires the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when making rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact of those rules on competition. Section 23(a)(2) also prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Commission preliminarily believes that the documentation standards for the provision of trade acknowledgments and verification of SBS transactions, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act and implemented by proposed rule 15Fi-1, would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation by encouraging SBS Entities to automate their systems for SBS transactions, providing further incentive for SBS Entities to clear SBS transactions through clearing agencies' automated facilities, thus lowering transaction costs, and helping alleviate the legal and operational risks encountered by SBS Entities when SBS transactions are otherwise confirmed through manual methods.
The Commission's experience with the acknowledgment and verification of other types of securities is that the timely resolution of disputes regarding the terms of a transaction are more efficiently handled near in time to when the transaction took place. Timely acknowledgment and verification of SBS transactions will provide counterparties with the appropriate means by which to evaluate their own risk exposures in a timely manner, thereby enabling them to more quickly and efficiently determine whether and how to deploy capital in other asset classes. In addition, the Commission believes that competition will be promoted because market participants would be encouraged to enter into SBS transactions with SBS Entities whose automated operations reduce the amount of time it takes to confirm the terms of a trade. In particular, the Commission believes that the need for speed and efficiency in today's capital markets would encourage market participants in general, and SBS Entities in particular, to provide quicker and more efficient process for confirming SBS transactions because counterparties to an SBS transaction must not only concern themselves with the SBS transaction, but also the underlying reference security that itself is subject to rapid market movements.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), the Commission must advise the OMB whether the proposed regulation constitutes a “major” rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is considered “major” when, if adopted, it results or is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease); (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or (3) significant adverse effect on competition, investment or innovation. If a rule is “major,” its effectiveness will generally be delayed for 60 days pending Congressional review.
The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of proposed rule 15Fi-1 on the economy on an annual basis, on the costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, and on competition, investment, or innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their view to the extent possible.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires Federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. Section 603(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or proposed rule amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on “small entities.” Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule amendment which, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a small entity includes: (1) When used with reference to an “issuer” or a “person,” other than an investment company, an “issuer” or “person” that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or less; or (2) a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the Exchange Act, or, if not required to file such statements, a broker-dealer with total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business, if shorter); and is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization.
Based on our staff's discussions with SBS market participants, the Commission preliminarily believes that the majority of SBS transactions have at least one counterparty that is either a SBS dealer or major SBS participant, and that these entities—whether registered broker-dealers or not—would exceed the thresholds defining “small entities” set out above. Accordingly, neither of these types of entities would likely qualify as small entities for purposes of the RFA. Moreover, even in situations in which one of the counterparties to a SBS is not covered by these definitions, the Commission preliminarily does not believe that any such entities would be “small entities” as defined in Commission Rule 0-10. Industry participants have indicated to our staff that only persons or entities with assets significantly in excess of $5 million participate in the SBS market. For example, as stated in a current survey conducted by Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 99.9% of CDS positions by U.S. commercial banks and trusts are held by those with assets over $10 billion.
In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that the entities likely to register as SBS Entities would not be small entities. Industry participants have indicated to our staff that most if not all of the registered SBS Entities would be part of large business entities, and that all registered SBS Entities would have assets exceeding $5 million and total capital exceeding $500,000. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes that none of the SBS Entities would be small entities.
On this basis, the Commission preliminarily believes that the number of SBS transactions involving a small entity as that term is defined for purposes of the RFA would be
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission certifies that proposed Rule 15Fi-1 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA. The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities, indicate whether they believe that SBS Entities are unlikely to be small entities, and provide empirical data to support their responses.
The Commission is proposing to adopt Rule 15Fi-1 pursuant to Section 15F of the Exchange Act, as amended.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Security-based swaps, Security-based swap dealers, Major security-based swap participants.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing to amend Title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The general authority citation for Part 240 is revised to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-4, 78o-8, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201
2. Add an undesignated center heading following § 240.15Cc1-1 and add § 240.15Fi-1 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The term
(2) The term
(3) The term
(4) The term
(5) The term
(6) The term
(7) The term
(8) The term
(9) The term
(10) The term
(11) The term
(12) The term
(13) The term
(b)
(i) The security-based swap dealer, if the transaction is between a security-based swap dealer and a major security-based swap participant;
(ii) The security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant, if only one counterparty in the transaction is a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant; or
(iii) The counterparty that the counterparties have agreed will provide the trade acknowledgment in any transaction other than one described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(2) A security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant will have satisfied the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section if a clearing agency through its facilities produces a confirmation of each security-based swap transaction.
(c)
(i) For any transaction that has been executed and processed electronically, within 15 minutes of execution;
(ii) For any transaction that is not executed electronically, but that will be processed electronically, within 30 minutes of execution; or
(iii) For any transaction that cannot be processed electronically by the security-based swap dealer or security-based swap participant, within 24 hours following execution.
(2) A transaction must be processed electronically if the security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant has the ability to do so.
(d)
(1) The asset class of the security-based swap and, if the security-based swap is an equity derivative, whether it is a total return swap or is otherwise designed to offer risks and returns proportional to a position in the equity security or securities on which the security-based swap is based;
(2) Information that identifies the security-based swap instrument and the specific asset(s) or issuer of a security on which the security-based swap is based;
(3) The notional amount(s), and the currenc(ies) in which the notional amount(s) is expressed;
(4) The date and time, to the second, of execution expressed using Coordinated Universal Time (UTC);
(5) The effective date;
(6) The scheduled termination date;
(7) The price;
(8) The terms of any fixed or floating rate payments, and the frequency of any payments;
(9) Whether or not the security-based swap will be cleared by a clearing agency;
(10) If both counterparties to a security-based swap are security-based swap dealers, an indication to that effect;
(11) If the transaction involved an existing security-based swap, an indication that the transaction did not involve an opportunity to negotiate a material term of the contract, other than the counterparty;
(12) If the security-based swap is customized to the extent that the information provided in paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section does not provide all of the material information necessary to identify such customized security-based swap or does not contain the data elements necessary to calculate the price, an indication to that effect;
(13) The participant ID of each counterparty;
(14) As applicable, the broker ID, desk ID, and trader ID of the reporting party;
(15) The amount(s) and currenc(ies) of any up-front payment(s) and a description of the terms and contingencies of the payment streams of each counterparty to the other;
(16) The title of any master agreement, or any other agreement governing the transaction (including the title of any document governing the satisfaction of margin obligations), incorporated by reference and the date of any such agreement;
(17) The data elements necessary for a person to determine the market value of the transaction;
(18) If the security-based swap will be cleared, the name of the clearing agency;
(19) If the security-based swap is not cleared, whether the exception in Section 3C(g) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g)) was invoked;
(20) If the security-based swap is not cleared, a description of the settlement terms, including whether the security-based swap is cash-settled or physically settled, and the method for determining the settlement value;
(21) The venue where the security-based swap was executed; and
(22) If the transaction is to be cleared, any additional information that is required for the transaction to be cleared by a clearing agency.
(e)
(2) In any security-based swap transaction to be cleared through a clearing agency, a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant must comply with the verification process prescribed by the clearing agency. Such compliance shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section with respect to the transaction.
(3) A security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant must promptly verify the accuracy of, or dispute with its counterparty, the terms of a trade acknowledgment it receives pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(f)
By the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by WAND(TV) Partnership, the licensee of station WAND(TV), channel 18, Decatur, Illinois, requesting the substitution of channel 17 for channel 18 at Decatur.
Comments must be filed on or before February 22, 2011, and reply comments on or before March 7, 2011.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Scott S. Patrick, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-6802.
Adrienne Y. Denysyk,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 10-264, adopted December 29, 2010, and released December 30, 2010. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television, Television broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
2. Section 73.622(i), the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Illinois, is amended by adding channel 17 and removing channel 18 at Decatur.
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administrative Conference of the United States will submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting approval for the following collection of information: 3002-0003, Substitute Confidential Employment and Financial Disclosure. This form is a substitute for Standard Form 450, issued by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which non-government members of the Conference would otherwise be required to file. OGE has approved the use of this substitute form. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments must be received by February 22, 2011.
Interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Administrative Conference of the United States, and sent via electronic mail to
David Pritzker, Deputy General Counsel, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080,
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is charged with developing recommendations for the improvement of Federal administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 591). Its recommendations are the product of a research process overseen by a small staff, but ultimately adopted by a membership of 101 experts, including approximately 45 non-government members—5 Council members and up to 40 others (5 U.S.C. 593(b) and 5 U.S.C. 595(b)). These individuals are deemed to be “special government employees” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 202(a) and, therefore, are subject to confidential financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. App. 107) and regulations of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The ACUS “Substitute Confidential Employment and Financial Disclosure” form submitted (“Substitute Disclosure Form”) is a substitute for OGE Standard Form 450, which ACUS non-government members would otherwise be required to file.
In addition to the non-government members of the Conference, the Chairman, with the approval of the Council established under 5 U.S.C. 595(b) and appointed by the President, may appoint additional persons in various categories, for participation in Conference activities, but without voting privileges. These categories include senior fellows, special counsels, and liaison representatives from other government entities or professional associations. The estimated maximum number of such individuals that may also be required to submit the Substitute Disclosure Form at any particular time is 45.
Prior to the termination of funding for ACUS in 1995, the agency was authorized to use for this purpose a simplified form that was a substitute for OGE Standard Form 450. The simplified substitute form was approved by OGE following a determination by the ACUS Chairman, pursuant to 5 CFR 2634.905(a), that greater disclosure is not required because the limited nature of the agency's authority makes very remote the possibility that a real or apparent conflict of interest will occur. ACUS received OMB approval for the simplified substitute form in 1994.
ACUS was re-established in 2010. On June 10, 2010, OGE renewed its approval for this simplified substitute form, which ACUS must provide to its non-government members in advance of membership meetings. ACUS received emergency approval from OMB under 5 CFR 1320.13 for use of this form through March 31, 2011, so that there would be no delay in commencing the committee and Conference activities of the non-government members necessary to the implementation of its statutory responsibilities to identify and recommend improvements of Federal administrative procedures. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
As required by the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 107(a); Executive Order 12674, section 201(d); and OGE regulations, 5 CFR 2634.901(d), copies of the substitute form submitted to ACUS by its members are confidential and may not be released to the public.
The proposed “Substitute Confidential Employment and Financial Disclosure” form and the Supporting Statement submitted to OMB may be viewed at:
The total annual burden on respondents is estimated to be 135 hours, based on estimates of 90 persons submitting the form an average of 6 times per year, requiring no more than 15 minutes per response.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
On April 1, 2011, MBDA will announce the recipients of its most recent grant competition. The recipients of the MBDA grant will operate a minority business center and will provide direct service to minority business owners. Approval of this request will make it possible for MBDA to use the findings from the collected information to make decisions about the collateral materials used for informing clients, stakeholders and the public about MBDA's programs, as well as to assist in developing more effective outreach strategies and business programming for the centers' openings.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by January 25, 2011 to Nicholas Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-5806 or via the Internet at
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Request for information, extension of comment period.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standards, announces the extension of the period for submission of comments responsive to the December 8, 2010 Request for Information on the effectiveness of Federal agencies' participation in the development and implementation of standards and conformity assessment activities and programs. The new comment period deadline is 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 7, 2011.
Comments are due by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 7, 2011.
Comments will be accepted by e-mail only. Comments should be sent to
Ajit Jillavenkatesa, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060, 301-975-8519,
On December 8, 2010, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), on behalf of the Sub-Committee on Standards under the National Science and Technology Council's Committee of Technology, published in the
The original comment period was scheduled to end on February 7, 2011. As set forth in the Request for Information, the Sub-Committee on Standards is specifically interested in comments that address questions set out in the Request for Information, as they relate to the following technologies:
1. Smart Grid.
2. Health Information Technology.
3. Cyber Security.
4. Emergency Communications Interoperability.
5. Radioactivity Detectors and Radiation Monitors (ANSI N42.3x and N42.4x).
6. Other technologies involving significant Federal agency participation in standards setting.
NIST announces that the period for submission of comments responsive to the December 8, 2010 notice has been extended until 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 7, 2011 to allow the public additional time to submit input on the above subjects.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a webinar.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 7, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The webinar will be held at Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901;
Christopher M. Moore, PhD, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901;
The purpose of the meeting is to review and discuss the most recent butterfish abundance information generated from the NEFSC autumn bottom trawl survey in relation to the SSC's ABC recommendation for butterfish for the 2011 fishing year. The public may obtain information about accessing the webinar by visiting the Mid-Atlantic Council's Web site at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Tule Chinook Workgroup (TCW) will hold a meeting to review initial work products and revise future work plans relative to developing an abundance-based harvest management approach for Columbia River natural tule Chinook. This meeting of the TCW is open to the public.
The meeting will be held Thursday, February 10, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Pacific Council Office, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
Mr. Chuck Tracy, Salmon Management Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
This meeting of the TCW will involve review of initial work products and refining future work plans. Eventually, TCW work products will be reviewed by the Council, and if approved, would be submitted to NMFS for possible consideration in the next Lower Columbia River tule biological opinion for ocean salmon seasons in 2012 and beyond, and distributed to State and Federal recovery planning processes. In the event a usable approach emerges from this process, the Council may consider a fishery management plan (FMP) amendment process beginning after November 2011 to adopt the approach as a formal conservation objective in the Salmon FMP.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the TCW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee with Advisors, its Surfclam/Ocean Quahog/Tilefish Committee, its Ecosystem/Ocean Planning Committee, its Research Set-Aside (RSA) Committee and its, Executive Committee will hold public meetings.
The meetings will be held Tuesday, February 8, 2011 through Thursday, February 10, 2011. See
The meetings will be held at the Hilton New Bern, 100 Middle Street, New Bern, NC 28560; telephone: (252) 638-3585.
Christopher M. Moore, PhD, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.
1 p.m. until 5 p.m.—The Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee with Advisors will meet.
8 a.m. until 9 a.m.—The Surfclam/Ocean Quahog/Tilefish Committee will meet.
9 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.—The Ecosystem Committee will meet.
10:30 a.m. until 12 noon—The RSA Committee with meet.
1 p.m.—The Council will convene.
1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.—The Council will receive a presentation entitled
2:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.—The Shad/River Herring Committee will meet as a Committee of the Whole.
3:30 p.m. until 4 p.m.—The 51st Stock Assessment Review will be held.
4 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.—The Council will discuss Framework Adjustment 7 to the Monkfish FMP.
4:30 p.m. until 6 p.m.—A Monkfish Scoping Meeting will be held.
8 a.m. until 9 a.m.—The Executive Committee will meet.
9 a.m. until 1 p.m.—The Council will hold its regular Business Session to approve the December minutes, receive Organizational Reports, the New England Liaison Report, the Executive Director's Report, the status of the FMP's, Committee Reports, and conduct any continuing and/or new business.
Agenda items by day for the Council's Committees and the Council itself are:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and to delete the products and service previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product and service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On 9/10/2010 (75 FR 55309-55310); 11/15/2010 (75 FR 69639-69640); and 11/19/2010 (75 FR 70909-70910), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and/or service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:
On 10/22/2010 (FR 65305) and 11/19/2010 (75 FR 70909-70910), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
The following notice of a scheduled meeting is published pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The Commission has scheduled a meeting for the following date: January 26, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000).
Open.
The Commission has scheduled this meeting to consider the issuance of proposed rules regarding Investment Advisor Reporting under the Dodd-Frank Act. The agenda for this scheduled meeting will be made available to the public and posted on the Commission's Web site at
David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5071.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to PNI Sensor Corporation a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 6,820,025: Method and Apparatus for Motion Tracking of an Articulated Rigid Body, Navy Case No. 82,816.//U.S. Patent No. 7,089,148: Method and Apparatus for Motion Tracking of an Articulated Rigid Body, Navy Case No. 96,580.// and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof in the field of use of consumer electronics in the United States.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than February 7, 2011.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Postgraduate School, Code 41, 699 Dyer Road, Bldg. HA, Room 222, Monterey, CA 93943.
Danielle Kuska, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs Office, NPS Code 41, 699 Dyer Road, Bldg. HA, Room 222, Monterey, CA 93943, telephone 831-656-2099. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 831-656-2038, e-mail:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc. (TEMUS) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted to DOE and received on or before February 22, 2011.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) 202-586-5260.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C.824a(e)).
On August 31, 1999 the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-216, which authorized TEMUS to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a two-year term using existing international transmission facilities. DOE renewed the TEMUS export authorization two additional times: On August 16, 2001 in Order No. EA-216-A and again on May 17, 2006 in Order No. EA-216-B. Order No. EA-216-B will expire on May 17, 2011. On December 22, 2010, TEMUS filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-216-B for a five-year term.
The electric energy that TEMUS proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by TEMUS have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the TEMUS application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket No. 216-C. Additional copies (one each) are to be filed directly with Sterling Koch, TransAlta Corporation, 110-12th Avenue, SW., Calgary Alberta, Canada T2P 2M1 and Stephen Angle, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P, The Willard Office Building, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Intercom Energy, Inc. (Intercom) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted to DOE and received on or before February 22, 2011.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) 202-586-5260.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On May 19, 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-289, which authorized Intercom to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a two-year term using existing international transmission facilities. DOE renewed the Intercom export authorization on May 17, 2006 in Order No. EA-289-B. That Order will expire on May 17, 2011. On December 15, 2010, Intercom filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-289 for a five-year term.
The electric energy that Intercom proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Intercom have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the Intercom application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket No. 289-B. Additional copies (one each) are to be filed directly with Ernesto Pallares, CEO, Intercom Energy, Inc., 1330 Orange Ave., Suite 327, Coronado, CA 92118 and Joelle K. Ogg, Brunenkant Law Firm, LLP, 805 15th Street, NW., Suite 510, Washington, DC 20005. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 22, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595 to:
(1) EPA by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
(2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Erik Helm, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division, Economic and Environmental Assessment Branch, 4303T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1049; fax number: 202-566-1053; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 21, 2010 (74 FR 42438), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received five comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595 which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to estimate the potential benefits and costs to society of proposed rule options of significant rules. To assess the importance of the ecological gains from the section 316(b) regulation, EPA requests approval from the OMB to conduct a stated preference survey. Data from the associated stated preference survey will be used to estimate values (willingness to pay, or WTP) derived by households for changes related to the reduction of fish losses at CWIS, and to provide information to assist in the interpretation and validation of survey responses. EPA has designed the survey to provide data to support the following specific objectives: [a] The estimation of the total values that individuals place on preventing losses of fish and other aquatic organisms caused by 316(b) facilities; [b] to understand how much individuals value preventing fish losses,
The key elicitation questions ask respondents whether or not they would vote for policies that would increase their cost of living, in exchange for specified multi-attribute changes in [a] impingement and entrainment losses of fish, [b] commercial fish populations, [c] long-term populations of all fish, and [d] condition of aquatic ecosystems. The respondents' stated preferences with respect to levels of environmental goods and cost to households, when used in conjunction with other information collected in the survey on the use of the affected aquatic resources, household income, and other demographics, can be analyzed statistically (using a mixed logit framework) to estimate total WTP for the quantified environmental benefits of the 316(b) rulemaking. Data analysis and interpretation is grounded in a standard random utility model.
The welfare values that can be derived from this stated preference survey along with those that are estimated apart from the survey effort will offer insight into the composition of the value people place on the 316(b) environmental impacts. WTP estimates derived from the survey may overlap—to a potentially substantial extent—with estimates that can be provided through some other methods. Therefore, particular care will be given to avoid any possible double counting of values that might be derived from alternative valuation methods.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609 and the pesticide petition number (PP), by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this notice contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
In accordance with 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available on-line at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition (PP 0G7756), for an extension of the temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed administrative settlement and opportunity for public comment.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is proposing to enter into an administrative settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Alco Industries, Inc., Bayer CropScience Inc., Colonial Heights Packaging, Inc., Continental Holdings, Inc., Croda Inks Corporation, Henkel Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company, Sonoco Products Company, Stepan Company, Union Carbide Corporation, USG Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation (“Respondents”) pursuant to Section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h). The Settlement Agreement provides for Respondents' payment of certain costs incurred and to be incurred at the D'Imperio Property Superfund Site, located in Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey (“Site”).
In accordance with Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), this notice is being published to inform the public of the proposed Settlement Agreement and of the opportunity to comment. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed Settlement Agreement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 17th floor New York, New York 10007-1866.
Comments must be provided by February 22, 2011.
Comments should reference the D'Imperio Superfund Site, EPA Docket No. CERCLA-02-2010-2024 and should be sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Office of Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 10007.
Michael J. van Itallie, Assistant Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
A copy of the proposed administrative settlement, as well as background information relating to the settlement, may be obtained from Michael J. van Itallie, Assistant Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 22, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via fax at (202) 395-5167, or via e-mail to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before February 22, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via e-mail to
For additional information or copies of the information collections, contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR 76.54(c) is used to notify interested parties, including licensees or permittees of television broadcast stations, about audience surveys that are being conducted by an organization to demonstrate that a particular broadcast station is eligible for significantly viewed status under the Commission's rules. The notifications provide interested parties with an opportunity to review survey methodologies and file objections.
47 CFR 76.54(e) and (f), are used to notify television broadcast stations about the retransmission of significantly viewed signals by a satellite carrier into these stations' local market.
47 CFR 76.1602(a) states that franchise authorities must provide affected cable operators 90 days written notice of their intent to enforce customer services standards.
47 CFR 76.1603(b) states that customers will be notified of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator. In addition, the cable operator shall notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any significant changes in the other information required by Section 76.1602.
47 CFR 76.1603(c) states that in addition to the requirement set forth in Section 76.1603(b) regarding advance notification to customers of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions, cable systems shall give 30 days written notice to both subscribers and local franchising authorities before implementing any rate or service change. Such notice shall state the precise amount of any rate change and briefly explain in readily understandable fashion the cause of the rate change (
47 CFR 76.1619(b) states that in case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 days. In addition, Section 76.1619 sets forth requirements for information on subscriber bills.
Individuals who wish to comment on this request for waiver should mail comments to the Federal Communications Commission by no later than 30 days from (the date the notification was mailed to subscribers). Those comments should be addressed to the: Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Washington, DC 20554, and should include the name of the cable operator to whom the comments are applicable. Individuals should also send a copy of their comments to (the cable operator at its local place of business). Cable operators may file comments in reply no later than 7 days from the date subscriber comments must be filed.
47 CFR 76.1621 states that cable system operators that use scrambling, encryption or similar technologies in conjunction with cable system terminal devices, as defined in § 15.3(e) of this chapter, that may affect subscribers' reception of signals shall offer to supply each subscriber with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals. The equipment offered shall include a single terminal device with dual descramblers/decoders and/or timers and bypass switches. Other equipment, such as two independent set-top terminal devices may be offered at the same time that the single terminal device with dual tuners/descramblers is offered. For purposes of this rule, two set-top devices linked by a control system that provides functionality equivalent to that of a single device with dual descramblers is considered to be the same as a terminal device with dual descramblers/decoders.
(a) The offer of special equipment shall be made to new subscribers at the time they subscribe and to all subscribers at least once each year.
(b) Such special equipment shall, at a minimum, have the capability:
(1) To allow simultaneous reception of any two scrambled or encrypted signals and to provide for tuning to alternative channels on a pre-programmed schedule; and
(2) To allow direct reception of all other signals that do not need to be processed through descrambling or decryption circuitry (this capability can generally be provided through a separate by-pass switch or through internal by-pass circuitry in a cable system terminal device).
(c) Cable system operators shall determine the specific equipment needed by individual subscribers on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the subscriber. Cable system operators are required to make a good faith effort to provide subscribers with the amount and types of special equipment needed to resolve their individual compatibility problems.
(d) Cable operators shall provide such equipment at the request of individual subscribers and may charge for purchase or lease of the equipment and its installation in accordance with the provisions of the rate regulation rules for customer premises equipment used to receive the basic service tier, as set forth in § 76.923. Notwithstanding the required annual offering, cable operators shall respond to subscriber requests for special equipment for reception of multiple signals that are made at any time.
47 CFR 76.1622 states that Cable system operators shall provide a consumer education program on compatibility matters to their subscribers in writing, as follows:
(a) The consumer information program shall be provided to subscribers at the time they first subscribe and at least once a year thereafter. Cable operators may choose the time and means by which they comply with the annual consumer information requirement. This requirement may be satisfied by a once-a-year mailing to all subscribers. The information may be included in one of the cable system's regular subscriber billings.
(b) The consumer information program shall include the following information:
(1) Cable system operators shall inform their subscribers that some models of TV receivers and videocassette recorders may not be able to receive all of the channels offered by the cable system when connected directly to the cable system. In conjunction with this information, cable system operators shall briefly explain, the types of channel compatibility problems that could occur if subscribers connected their equipment directly to the cable system and offer suggestions for resolving those problems. Such suggestions could include, for example, the use of a cable system terminal device such as a set-top channel converter. Cable system operators shall also indicate that channel compatibility problems associated with reception of programming that is not scrambled or encrypted programming could be resolved through use of simple converter devices without descrambling or decryption capabilities that can be obtained from either the cable system or a third party retail vendor.
(2) In cases where service is received through a cable system terminal device, cable system operators shall indicate that subscribers may not be able to use special features and functions of their TV receivers and videocassette recorders, including features that allow the subscriber to: View a program on one channel while simultaneously recording a program on another channel; record two or more consecutive programs that appear on different channels; and, use advanced picture generation and display features such as “Picture-in-Picture,” channel review and other functions that necessitate channel selection by the consumer device.
(3) In cases where cable system operators offer remote control capability with cable system terminal devices and other customer premises equipment that is provided to subscribers, they shall advise their subscribers that remote control units that are compatible with that equipment may be obtained from
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 22, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via e-mail to
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams (202) 418-2918.
In a
On September 25, 1998, the Commission released an
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 22, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via e-mail
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 22, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, via e-mail to
For further information on this collection contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918.
The Commission released a Second Report and Order (FCC 10-82; IB Docket No. 95-91) on May 20, 2010, in which the agency accomplished three goals: (1) Adopted technical rules governing the operation of SDARS repeaters that will not constrain their function or deployment but will limit the potential for harmful interference to adjacent Wireless Communications Service (WCS) spectrum users by requiring SDARS licensees to notify WCS licensees prior to the deployment of new or modified SDARS terrestrial repeaters; (2) established a blanket-licensing regime for repeaters up to 12 kilowatts (kW) average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) to facilitate the flexible deployment of SDARS repeaters while ensuring that such repeater operations comply with the Commission's rules regarding RF safety, antenna marking and lighting, equipment authorization and international agreements; and, (3) established site-by-site licensing regime for repeaters operating above 12 kW (average) EIRP, or otherwise not in compliance with the rules adopted for SDARS terrestrial repeater operations.
The information collection requirements accounted for in this collection are necessary to determine the technical and legal qualifications of SDARS applicants or licensees to operate a station, transfer or assign a license, and to determine whether the authorization is in the public interest, convenience and necessity. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to permit respondents to provide SDARS services in the U.S. Therefore, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the procedures and minimum opening bids for the upcoming auction of certain FM Broadcast construction permits. This document is intended to familiarize prospective bidders with the procedures and minimum opening bids for the auction. This auction, which is designated as Auction 91, is now scheduled to start on April 27, 2011.
Applications to participate in Auction 91 must be filed prior to 6 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 10, 2011. Bidding for construction permits in Auction 91 is scheduled to begin on April 27, 2011.
This is a summary of the
1. The Wireless Telecommunications and the Media Bureaus (collectively, the Bureaus) announce a new start date and pre-auction deadlines for the upcoming auction of certain FM broadcast construction permits and establish the procedures and minimum opening bid amounts for the auction. On September 21, 2010, the Bureaus released a public notice seeking comment on competitive bidding procedures to be used in Auction 91. Five parties submitted five comments in response to the
2. Auction 91 will offer 144 construction permits in the FM broadcast service as listed in Attachment A of the
3. Attachment A to the
4. Applicants may apply for any vacant FM allotment listed in Attachment A of the
5. One commenter contends that the Commission's rules should be revised to automatically delete allotments that are offered at auction but receive no bids. The commenter suggests that such vacant allotments may hinder efforts by existing licensees to change channels or cities of license. The commenter also argues that, in the event that only one applicant places a bid on a permit, that applicant should not be required to submit a payment for the permit. Adoption of this proposal would require reversal of the Commission's determination that mutual exclusivity is determined in the auction context by the filing of short-form applications for the same permit. These proposed changes would require amendment of the Commission's rules and are thus outside of the scope of this proceeding, which is confined to establishing procedures for the conduct of this auction of FM construction permits. Because these proposals are outside of the scope of this proceeding, the Bureaus are unable to consider them here.
6. Prospective applicants must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's general competitive bidding rules, including recent amendments and clarifications, as well as Commission decisions in proceedings regarding competitive bidding procedures, application requirements, and obligations of Commission licensees. Broadcasters should also familiarize themselves with the Commission's rules relating to the FM broadcast service contained in 47 CFR 73.201-73.333 and 73.1001-73.5009. Prospective bidders must also be familiar with the rules relating to broadcast auctions and competitive bidding proceedings contained in 47 CFR 1.2101-1.2112 and 73.5000-73.5009. Prospective bidders must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions contained in the
7. The terms contained in the Commission's rules, relevant orders, and public notices are not negotiable. The Commission may amend or supplement the information contained in the Bureaus public notices at any time, and will issue public notices to convey any new or supplemental information to applicants. It is the responsibility of all applicants to remain current with all Commission rules and with all public notices pertaining to this auction.
8. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction process, 47 CFR 1.2105(c) prohibits auction applicants for construction permits in any of the same geographic license areas from communicating with each other about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements unless such applicants have identified each other on their short-form applications (FCC Form 175) as parties with whom they have entered into agreements pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(viii).
9. 47 CFR 1.2105(c)'s prohibition on certain communications will apply to any applicants that submit short-form applications seeking to participate in a Commission auction for construction permits in the same geographic license area. Thus, unless they have identified each other on their short-form applications as parties with whom they have entered into agreements under 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(viii), applicants for any of the same geographic license areas must affirmatively avoid all communications with or disclosures to each other that affect or have the potential to affect bids or bidding strategy. In some instances, this prohibition extends to communications regarding the post-auction market structure. This prohibition applies to all applicants regardless of whether such applicants become qualified bidders or actually bid. In broadcast services, the geographic license area is the market designation of the particular service. For the FM service, the market designation is the particular vacant FM allotment (
10. Applicants are also reminded that, for purposes of this prohibition on certain communications, 47 CFR 1.2105(c)(7)(i) defines applicant as including all officers and directors of the entity submitting a short-form application to participate in the auction, all controlling interests of that entity, as well as all holders of partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest amounting to 10 percent or more of the entity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of the entity submitting a short-form application. For example, where an individual served as an officer for two or more applicants, the Bureaus have found that the bids and bidding strategies of one applicant are necessarily conveyed to the other applicant, and, absent a disclosed bidding agreement, an apparent violation of 47 CFR 1.2105(c) occurs.
11. Individuals and entities subject to 47 CFR 1.2105(c) should take special care in circumstances where their employees may receive information directly or indirectly from a competing applicant relating to any competing applicant's bids or bidding strategies. The Bureaus have not addressed situations where non-principals (
12. Moreover, Auction 91 applicants are encouraged not to use the same individual as an authorized bidder. A violation of 47 CFR 1.2105(c) could occur if an individual acts as the authorized bidder for two or more competing applicants, and conveys information concerning the substance of bids or bidding strategies between such applicants. Also, if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization (
13. The 47 CFR 1.2105(c) prohibition on certain communications begins at the short-form application filing deadline and ends at the down payment deadline after the auction, which will be announced in a future public notice.
14. Applicants should note that they must not communicate directly or indirectly about bids or bidding strategy to other applicants in this auction. 47 CFR 1.2105(c) prohibits not only a communication about an applicant's own bids or bidding strategy, but also a communication of another applicant's bids or bidding strategy. While 47 CFR 1.2105(c) does not prohibit non-auction-related business negotiations among auction applicants, applicants must remain vigilant so as not to communicate directly or indirectly information that affects, or could affect, bids or bidding strategy, or the negotiation of settlement agreements.
15. The Commission remains vigilant about prohibited communications taking place in other situations. Public disclosure of information relating to bids, or bidding strategies, or to post auction market structures, may violate 47 CFR 1.2105(c). For example, the Commission has warned that prohibited communications concerning bids and bidding strategies may include communications regarding capital calls or requests for additional funds in support of bids or bidding strategies to the extent such communications convey information concerning the bids and bidding strategies directly or indirectly. The use of the Commission's bidding system to disclose an applicant's bidding strategy or market information will not be tolerated. Similarly, an applicant's public statement of intent not to participate in bidding in this auction also could violate this rule.
16. The Commission's rules do not prohibit applicants from entering into otherwise lawful bidding agreements before filing their short-form applications, as long as they disclose the existence of the agreement(s) in their short-form applications. If parties agree in principle on all material terms prior to the short-form application filing deadline, each party to the agreement must identify the other party or parties to the agreement on its short-form application under 47 CFR 1.2105(c), even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing. If the parties have
17. By electronically submitting a short-form application, each applicant in Auction 91 certifies its compliance with 47 CFR 1.2105(c) and 73.5002. However, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that a prohibited communication has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted. The Commission has stated that it intends to scrutinize carefully any instances in which bidding patterns suggest that collusion may be occurring. Any applicant found to have violated 47 CFR 1.2105(c) may be subject to sanctions.
18. 47 CFR 1.2105(c)(6) provides that any applicant that makes or receives a communication that appears to violate 47 CFR 1.2105(c) must report such communication in writing to the Commission immediately, and in no case later than five business days after the communication occurs. The Commission has clarified that each applicant's obligation to report any such communication continues beyond the five-day period after the communication is made, even if the report is not made within the five-day period.
19. In addition, 47 CFR 1.65 requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, 47 CFR 1.65 requires an auction applicant to notify the Commission of any substantial change to the information or certifications included in its pending short-form application. An applicant is therefore required by 47 CFR 1.65 to report to the Commission any communication the applicant has made to or received from another applicant after the short-form application filing deadline that affects or has the potential to affect bids or bidding strategy, unless such communication is made to or received from a party to an agreement identified under 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(viii).
20. 47 CFR 1.65(a) and 1.2105(c) require applicants in competitive bidding proceedings to furnish additional or corrected information within five days of a significant occurrence, or to amend their short-form applications no more than five days after the applicant becomes aware of the need for amendment. These rules are intended to facilitate the auction process by making the information available promptly to all participants and to enable the Bureaus to act expeditiously on those changes when such action is necessary.
21. A party reporting any communication pursuant to 47 CFR 1.65, 1.2105(a)(2), or 1.2105(c)(6) must take care to ensure that any report of a prohibited communication does not itself give rise to a violation of 47 CFR 1.2105(c). For example, a party's report of a prohibited communication could violate the rule by communicating prohibited information to other applicants through the use of Commission filing procedures that would allow such materials to be made available for public inspection.
22. 47 CFR 1.2105(c) requires parties to file only a single report concerning such communication and to file that report with Commission personnel expressly charged with administering the Commission's auctions. This rule is designed to minimize the risk of inadvertent dissemination of information in such reports. Pursuant to the amended rule, any reports required by 47 CFR 1.2105(c) must be filed consistent with the instructions set forth in the Auction 91 Procedures
23. A party seeking to report such a prohibited communication should consider submitting its report with a request that the report or portions of the submission be withheld from public inspection pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459. Such parties also are encouraged to coordinate with the Auctions and Spectrum Access Division staff if they have any questions about the procedures for submitting such reports. The
24. Applicants that are winning bidders will be required to disclose in their long-form applications the specific terms, conditions, and parties involved in any bidding consortia, joint venture, partnership, or agreement, understanding, or other arrangement entered into relating to the competitive bidding process, including any agreement relating to the post-auction market structure. Applicants must be aware that failure to comply with the Commission's rules can result in enforcement action.
25. A summary listing of documents issued by the Commission and the Bureaus addressing the application of 47 CFR 1.2105(c) may be found in Attachment D of the
26. Applicants are also reminded that, regardless of compliance with the Commission's rules, they remain subject to the antitrust laws, which are designed to prevent anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of 47 CFR 1.2105(c) will not insulate a party from enforcement of the antitrust laws. For instance, a violation of the antitrust laws could arise out of actions taking place well before any party submitted a short-form application. If an applicant is found to have violated the antitrust laws or the Commission's rules in connection with its participation in the competitive bidding process, it may be subject to forfeiture of its upfront payment, down payment, or full bid amount and may be prohibited from participating in future auctions, among other sanctions. See 47 CFR 1.2109(d).
27. Potential applicants are reminded that they are solely responsible for investigating and evaluating all technical and marketplace factors that may have a bearing on the value of the construction permits for broadcast facilities they are seeking in this auction. Bidders are responsible for assuring themselves that, if they win a construction permit, they will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance with the Commission's rules. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an
28. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding, as they would with any new business venture. In particular, potential applicants are strongly encouraged to review all underlying Commission orders, such as the specific report and order amending the FM Table of Allotments and allotting the FM channel(s) on which they plan to bid. Reports and orders adopted in FM allotment rulemaking proceedings often include restrictions, including site restrictions or expense reimbursement requirements. Additionally, potential bidders should perform technical analyses or refresh their previous analyses to assure themselves that, should they be a winning bidder for any Auction 91 construction permit, they will be able to build and operate facilities that will fully comply with the Commission's technical and legal requirements. Applicants are strongly encouraged to inspect any prospective transmitter sites located in, or near, the service area for which they plan to bid, confirm the availability of such sites, and also to familiarize themselves with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act at 47 CFR chapter 1, part 1, subpart I.
29. Applicants are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research prior to Auction 91 in order to determine the existence of any pending administrative or judicial proceedings, including pending allocation rulemaking proceedings that might affect their decision to participate in the auction. Participants in Auction 91 are strongly encouraged to continue such research throughout the auction. The due diligence considerations mentioned in the
30. Applicants should also be aware that certain pending and future proceedings before the Commission—including applications, applications for modification, petitions for rulemaking, requests for special temporary authority, waiver requests, petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, informal objections, and applications for review—may relate to particular applicants, incumbent permittees, incumbent licensees, or the construction permits available in Auction 91. In addition, pending and future judicial proceedings may relate to particular applicants, incumbent permittees, incumbent licensees, or the construction permits available in Auction 91. Prospective applicants are responsible for assessing the likelihood of the various possible outcomes and for considering their potential impact on construction permits available in this auction.
31. Applicants should perform due diligence to identify and consider all proceedings that may affect the construction permits being auctioned and that could have an impact on the availability of spectrum for Auction 91. In addition, although the Commission may continue to act on various pending applications, informal objections, petitions, and other requests for Commission relief, some of these matters may not be resolved by the beginning of bidding in the auction. Applicants are solely responsible for identifying associated risks and for investigating and evaluating the degree to which such matters may affect their ability to bid on, otherwise acquire, or make use of the construction permits available in Auction 91.
32. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information in its databases or any third party databases, including for example, court docketing systems. To the extent the Commission's databases may not include all information deemed necessary or desirable by an applicant, applicants may obtain or verify such information from independent sources or assume the risk of any incompleteness or inaccuracy in said databases. Furthermore, the Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information that has been provided by incumbent licensees and incorporated into its databases.
33. A commenter contended that the Bureaus should provide additional information in the Auction 91 public notices about the history of the allotments being offered and suggests that the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System (CDBS) should contain information as to whether a permit was previously offered at auction, as well as details concerning cancellation of a permit due to a failure to construct or licensee default. The Bureaus noted that Attachment A to the
34. The Commission will make available a browser-based bidding system to allow bidders to participate in Auction 91 over the Internet using the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System (ISAS or FCC Auction System). The Commission makes no warranty whatsoever with respect to the FCC Auction System. In no event shall the Commission, or any of its officers, employees, or agents, be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other loss) arising out of or relating to the existence, furnishing, functioning, or use of the FCC Auction System that is accessible to qualified bidders in connection with this auction. Moreover, no obligation or liability will arise out of the Commission's technical, programming, or other advice or service provided in connection with the FCC Auction System.
35. Permittees or licensees must comply with the Commission's rules regarding implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act and other Federal environmental statutes. The construction of a broadcast facility is a Federal action and the permittee or licensee must comply with the Commission's environmental rules for each such facility. Additional information about such Commission requirements is provided in the
36. Bidding in Auction 91 has been rescheduled and will begin on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. The Bureaus have postponed the originally scheduled start of the auction for reasons of administrative and bidder convenience. Although one commenter requested a later starting date, the Bureaus concluded that rescheduling the starting date for Auction 91 from March 29, 2011 to April 27, 2011, will help ensure optimum participation and an efficient auction process, as well as provide prospective applicants with additional time for planning and preparation.
37. The initial schedule for bidding rounds will be announced by public notice at least one week before the start of the auction. Moreover, unless otherwise announced, bidding on all construction permits will be conducted on each business day until bidding has stopped on all construction permits.
38. The bidding methodology for Auction 91 will be simultaneous multiple round bidding. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet using the FCC Auction System, and telephonic bidding will be available as well. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid electronically via the Internet or by telephone. All telephone calls are recorded.
39. The following dates and deadlines apply:
40. An application to participate in an FCC auction, referred to as a short-form application or FCC Form 175, provides information used in determining whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in Commission auctions for licenses or permits. The short-form application is the first part of the Commission's two-phased auction application process. In the first phase of this process, parties desiring to participate in the auction must file streamlined, short-form applications in which they certify under penalty of perjury as to their qualifications. Each applicant must take seriously its duties and responsibilities and carefully determine before filing an application that the applicant has the legal, technical and financial resources to participate in Auction 91, as well as construct and operate an FM station if the auction applicant becomes a licensee as a result of its participation in this auction. Eligibility to participate in bidding is based on the applicants' short-form applications and certifications as well as their upfront payments. In the second phase of the process, winning bidders must file more comprehensive long-form applications.
41. Entities and individuals seeking construction permits available in Auction 91 must file a short-form application electronically via the FCC Auction System prior to 6 p.m. ET on February 10, 2011, following the procedures prescribed in Attachment B to the
42. Applicants bear full responsibility for submitting accurate, complete and timely short-form applications. All applicants must certify on their short-form applications under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license. Applicants should read carefully the instructions set forth in Attachment B to the
43. An individual or entity may not submit more than one short-form application for a single auction. If a party submits multiple short-form applications, only one application may be accepted for filing.
44. Applicants also should note that submission of a short-form application (and any amendments thereto) constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, that he or she has read the form's instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application, its certifications, and any attachments are true and correct. Applicants are not permitted to make major modifications to their applications; such impermissible changes include a change of the certifying official to the application. Submission of a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.
45. An applicant must select the construction permits on which it wants to bid from the
46. Applicants interested in participating in Auction 91 must have selected construction permit(s) available in this auction by the short-form application filing deadline. Applicants must review and verify their construction permit selections before the deadline for submitting short-form applications. Applicants will not be able to change their construction permit selections after the short-form application filing deadline. The FCC Auction System will not accept bids from an applicant on construction permits that the applicant has not selected on its short-form application.
47. Under the tiered New Entrant Bidding Credit for broadcast auction applicants with no, or very few, other media interests, the interests of the applicant, and of any individuals or entities with an attributable interest in the applicant, in other media of mass communications are considered when determining an applicant's eligibility for the New Entrant Bidding Credit. In Auction 91, the bidder's attributable interests are determined as of the short-
48. Under traditional broadcast attribution rules, those entities or individuals with an attributable interest in a bidder include: (1) All officers and directors of a corporate bidder; (2) Any owner of 5 percent or more of the voting stock of a corporate bidder; (3) All partners and limited partners of a partnership bidder, unless the limited partners are sufficiently insulated; and (4) All members of a limited liability company, unless sufficiently insulated.
49. In cases where an applicant's spouse or close family member holds other media interests, such interests are not automatically attributable to the bidder. The Commission decides attribution issues in this context based on certain factors traditionally considered relevant. Applicants should note that the mass media attribution rules were revised in 1999.
50. The Commission further refined the eligibility standards for the New Entrant Bidding Credit, judging it appropriate to attribute the media interests held by very substantial investors in, or creditors of, an applicant claiming new entrant status. Specifically, the attributable mass media interests held by an individual or entity with an equity and/or debt interest in an applicant shall be attributed to that bidder for purposes of determining its eligibility for the New Entrant Bidding Credit, if the equity and debt interests, in the aggregate, exceed 33 percent of the total asset value of the applicant, even if such an interest is non-voting.
51. The Commission relaxed the equity/debt plus (EDP) attribution standard, to allow for higher investment opportunities in entities meeting the definition of eligible entities. An eligible entity is defined in Note 2(i) of 47 CFR 73.3555. The Commission allows the holder of an equity or debt interest in the applicant to exceed the above-noted 33 percent threshold without triggering attribution provided (1) the combined equity and debt in the eligible entity is less than 50 percent; or (2) the total debt in the eligible entity does not exceed 80 percent of the asset value, and the interest holder does not hold any equity interest, option, or promise to acquire an equity interest in the eligible entity or any related entity.
52. Generally, media interests will be attributable for purposes of the New Entrant Bidding Credit to the same extent that such other media interests are considered attributable for purposes of the broadcast multiple ownership rules. However, attributable interests held by a winning bidder in existing low power television, television translator or FM translator facilities will not be counted among the bidder's other mass media interests in determining its eligibility for a New Entrant Bidding Credit. Any bidder asserting new entrant bidding status must have
53. In addition to the ownership information required pursuant to 47 CFR 1.2112, applicants seeking a New Entrant Bidding Credit are required to establish on their short-form applications that they satisfy the eligibility requirements to qualify for the bidding credit. In those cases, a certification under penalty of perjury must be provided in completing the applicant's short-form application. An applicant claiming that it qualifies for a 35 percent New Entrant Bidding Credit must certify that neither it nor any of its attributable interest holders have any attributable interests in any other media of mass communications. An applicant claiming that it qualifies for a 25 percent New Entrant Bidding Credit must certify that neither it nor any of its attributable interest holders has any attributable interests in more than three media of mass communications, and must identify and describe such media of mass communications. A medium of mass communications is defined in 47 CFR 73.5008(b). Full service noncommercial educational stations, on both reserved and nonreserved channels, are included among media of
54. Applicants that qualify for the New Entrant Bidding Credit, as specified in the applicable rule, are eligible for a bidding credit that represents the amount by which a bidder's winning bid is discounted. The size of a New Entrant Bidding Credit depends on the number of ownership interests in other media of mass communications that are attributable to the bidder-entity and its attributable interest-holders. A 35 percent bidding credit will be given to a winning bidder if it, and/or any individual or entity with an attributable interest in the winning bidder, has no attributable interest in any other media of mass communications, as defined in 47 CFR 73.5008. A 25 percent bidding credit will be given to a winning bidder if it, and/or any individual or entity with an attributable interest in the winning bidder, has an attributable interest in no more than three mass media facilities, as defined in 47 CFR 73.5008. No bidding credit will be given if any of the commonly owned mass media facilities serve the same area as the broadcast permit proposed in the auction, as defined in 47 CFR 73.5007(b), or if the winning bidder, and/or any individual or entity with an attributable interest in the winning bidder, has attributable interests in more than three mass media facilities. For purposes of determining whether a broadcast permit identified for bidding in the auction is in the same area as an applicant's existing mass media facilities, the coverage area of the to-be-auctioned facility is calculated using maximum class facilities at the allotment reference coordinates, NOT applicant-specified preferred site coordinates.
55. Bidding credits are not cumulative; qualifying applicants receive either the 25 percent or the 35 percent bidding credit, but not both. Attributable interests are defined in 47 CFR 73.3555 and note 2 of that section. Applicants should note that unjust enrichment provisions apply to a winning bidder that utilizes a bidding credit and subsequently seeks to assign or transfer control of its license or construction permit to an entity not qualifying for the same level of bidding credit.
56. Applicants will be required to identify in their short-form application all parties with whom they have entered into any agreements, arrangements, or understandings of any kind relating to the construction permits being auctioned, including any agreements relating to post-auction market structure.
57. All applicants to participate in a broadcast auction must comply with the uniform Part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by 47 CFR 1.2105 and 1.2112. Specifically, in completing the short-form application, applicants will be required to fully disclose information on the real party- or parties-in-interest and ownership structure of the applicant, including both direct and indirect ownership interests of 10 percent or more. The ownership disclosure standards for the short-form application are prescribed in 47 CFR 1.2105 and 1.2112. Each applicant is responsible for information submitted in its short-form application being complete and accurate.
58. Each applicant is responsible for ensuring that the information submitted in its short-form application for Auction 91 is complete and accurate. In certain circumstances, an applicant's most current ownership information on file with the Commission, if in an electronic format compatible with the short-form application (FCC Form 175) (such as information submitted in an on-line FCC Form 602 or in an FCC Form 175 filed for a previous auction using ISAS) will automatically be entered into the applicant's short-form application. Applicants should carefully review any information automatically entered to confirm that it is complete and accurate as of the deadline for filing the short-form application.
59. Current defaulters or delinquents are not eligible to participate in Auction 91, but former defaulters or delinquents can participate so long as they are otherwise qualified and make upfront payments that are 50 percent more than the normal upfront payment amounts. An applicant is considered a current defaulter or a current delinquent when it, any of its affiliates, any of its controlling interests, or any of the affiliates of its controlling interests, is in default on any payment for any Commission construction permit or license (including a down payment) or is delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency as of the filing deadline for short-form applications. An applicant is considered a former defaulter or a former delinquent when it, any of its affiliates, any of its controlling interests, or any of the affiliates of its controlling interests, have defaulted on any Commission construction permit or license or been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, but have since remedied all such defaults and cured all of the outstanding non-tax delinquencies.
60. On the short-form application, an applicant must certify under penalty of perjury that it, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2110, are not in default on any payment for a Commission construction permit or license (including down payments) and that it is not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Each applicant must also state under penalty of perjury whether it, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, have ever been in default on any Commission construction permit or license or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Prospective applicants are reminded that submission of a false certification to the Commission is a serious matter that may result in severe penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license revocations, exclusion from participation in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution. These statements and certifications are prerequisites to submitting an application to participate in an FCC auction.
61. The
62. The Commission considers outstanding debts owed to the United States Government, in any amount, to be a serious matter. The Commission adopted rules, including a provision referred to as the red light rule, that implement the Commission's obligations under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which governs the collection of claims owed to the United States. Under the red light rule, the Commission will not process applications and other requests for benefits filed by parties that have outstanding debts owed to the Commission. In the same rulemaking order, the Commission explicitly declared, however, that the Commission's competitive bidding rules are not affected by the red light rule. As a consequence, the Commission's adoption of the red light rule does not alter the applicability of any of the Commission's competitive bidding rules, including the provisions and certifications of 47 CFR 1.2105 and 1.2106, with regard to current and former defaults or delinquencies.
63. Applicants are reminded, however, that the Commission's Red Light Display System, which provides information regarding debts currently owed to the Commission, may not be determinative of an auction applicant's ability to comply with the default and delinquency disclosure requirements of 47 CFR 1.2105. Thus, while the red light rule ultimately may prevent the processing of long-form applications by auction winners, an auction applicant's lack of current red light status is not necessarily determinative of its eligibility to participate in an auction or of its upfront payment obligation.
64. Moreover, prospective applicants in Auction 91 should note that any long-form applications filed after the close of bidding will be reviewed for compliance with the Commission's red light rule, and such review may result in the dismissal of a winning bidder's long-form application. Applicants that have their long-form applications dismissed will be deemed to have defaulted and will be subject to the default payments under 47 CFR 1.2104(g) and 1.2109(c).
65. Applicants owned by members of minority groups and/or women, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(3), and rural telephone companies, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(4), may identify themselves regarding this status in filling out their short-form applications. This applicant status information is collected for statistical purposes only and assists the Commission in monitoring the participation of designated entities in its auctions.
66. In the
67. After the deadline for filing initial applications, an Auction 91 applicant is permitted to make only minor changes to its application. Permissible minor changes include, among other things, deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and revision of addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants and their contact persons. An applicant is not permitted to make a major modification to its application (
68. If an applicant wishes to make permissible minor changes to its short-form application, such changes should be made electronically to its short-form application using the FCC Auction System whenever possible. Applicants are reminded to click on the SUBMIT button in the FCC Auction System for the change to be submitted and considered by the Commission. After the revised application has been submitted, a confirmation page will be displayed that states the submission time, submission date, and a unique file number. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of the confirmation page.
69. An applicant cannot use the FCC Auction System outside of the initial and resubmission filing windows to make changes to its short-form application other than administrative changes (
70. Any letter describing changes to an applicant's short-form application should be submitted by e-mail to
71. According to 47 CFR 1.917, any application amendment and related statements of fact must be certified by (1) the applicant, if the applicant is an individual; (2) one of the partners if the applicant is a partnership; (3) an officer, director, or duly authorized employee, if the applicant is a corporation; (4) a member who is an officer, if the applicant is an unincorporated association; (5) the trustee, if the applicant is an amateur radio service club; or (6) a duly elected or appointed official who is authorized to make such certifications under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction, if the applicant is a governmental entity.
72. Applicants must not submit application-specific material through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System, which was used for submitting comments regarding Auction 91.
73. 47 CFR 1.65 and 1.2105(b) require an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and in competitive bidding proceedings to furnish additional or corrected information to the Commission within five days of a significant occurrence, or to amend a short form application no more than five days after the applicant becomes aware of the need for the amendment. Changes that cause a loss of or reduction in the percentage of bidding credit specified on the originally submitted application must be reported immediately, and no later than five business days after the change occurs. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. Events occurring after the application filing deadline, such as the acquisition of attributable interests in media of mass communications, also may cause diminishment or loss of the bidding credit, and must be reported immediately.
74. If an amendment reporting substantial changes is a major amendment, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2105, the major amendment will not be accepted and may result in the dismissal of the application. After the application filing deadline, applicants may make only minor changes to their applications.
75. Applicants must click on the Submit button in the FCC Auction System for the changes to be submitted and considered by the Commission. If 47 CFR 1.65 submissions are needed after the initial filing and resubmission windows close, applicants must submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by e-mail to
76. On Monday, January 31, 2011, the Commission will post an educational auction tutorial on the Auction 91 web page for prospective bidders to familiarize themselves with the auction process. This online tutorial will provide information about pre-auction procedures, completing short-form applications, auction conduct, the FCC Auction Bidding System, auction rules, and broadcast services rules. The tutorial will also provide an avenue to ask FCC staff questions about the auction, auction procedures, filing requirements, and other matters related to this auction. The online tutorial will be accessible using a web browser with Adobe Flash Player from the FCC's Auction 91 Web page at
77. In order to be eligible to bid in this auction, applicants must follow the procedures set forth in Attachment B to the
78. After the deadline for filing FCC Form 175 applications, the Commission will process all timely submitted applications to determine which are complete, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying (1) those applications that are complete; (2) those applications that are rejected; and (3) those applications that are incomplete because of minor defects that may be corrected. The public notice will include the deadline for resubmitting corrected applications.
79. Applications specifying the same FM station construction permit are considered mutually exclusive. Non-mutually exclusive applications will be listed in a subsequent public notice to be released by the Bureaus. Such applications will not proceed to auction, but will proceed in accordance with instructions set forth in that public notice. All mutually exclusive applications will be considered under the relevant procedures for conflict resolution. Mutually exclusive applications proposing commercial stations will proceed to auction.
80. Commission staff will communicate only with an applicant's contact person or certifying official, as designated on the applicant's short-form application, unless the applicant's certifying official or contact person notifies the Commission in writing that applicant's counsel or other representative is authorized to speak on its behalf. Authorizations may be sent by e-mail to auction91@fcc.gov.
81. In order to be eligible to bid in this auction, applicants must submit an upfront payment accompanied by an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159). After completing its short-form application, an applicant will have access to an electronic version of the FCC Form 159 that can be printed and sent by fax to the Commission's auction payment lockbox bank, the U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri. All upfront payments must be made as instructed in the
82. Wire transfer payments must be received before 6 p.m. ET on March 21, 2011. No other payment method is acceptable. The Commission will not accept checks, credit cards, or automated clearing house payments.
83. At least one hour before placing the order for the wire transfer (but on the same business day), applicants must fax a completed FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/03) to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232. On the fax cover sheet, applicants must write Wire Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction 91. In order to meet the Commission's upfront payment deadline, an applicant's payment must be credited to the Commission's account for Auction 91 before the deadline.
84. Each applicant is responsible for ensuring timely submission of its upfront payment and for timely filing of an accurate and complete FCC Form 159. To avoid untimely payments, an applicant should coordinate with its financial institution well ahead of the due date regarding its wire transfer, including a discussion of bank closing schedules, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed prior to the deadline. The Commission repeatedly has cautioned auction participants about the importance of planning ahead to prepare for unforeseen last-minute difficulties in making payments by wire transfer. Each applicant also is responsible for obtaining confirmation from its financial institution that its wire transfer to U.S. Bank was successful and from Commission staff that the Commission has timely received the applicant's upfront payment and deposited it into the proper account.
85. A completed FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/03) must be faxed to U.S. Bank to accompany each upfront payment. Proper completion of FCC Form 159 is critical to ensuring correct crediting of upfront payments. Detailed instructions for completion of FCC Form 159 are included in Attachment C to the
86. The Commission has delegated to the Bureaus the authority and discretion to determine appropriate upfront payments for each auction. Upfront payments help deter frivolous or insincere bidding, and provide the Commission with a source of funds in the event that the bidder incurs liability during the auction.
87. Applicants that are former defaulters must pay upfront payments 50 percent greater than non-former defaulters. For purposes of this calculation, the applicant includes the applicant itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2110.
88. Applicants must make upfront payments sufficient to obtain bidding eligibility on the construction permits on which they will bid. The amount of the upfront payment determines a bidder's initial bidding eligibility, the maximum number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. In order to bid on a particular construction permit, a qualified bidder must have selected the construction permit on its FCC Form 175 and must have a current eligibility level that meets or exceeds the number of bidding units assigned to that construction permit. At a minimum, therefore, an applicant's total upfront payment must be enough to establish eligibility to bid on at least one of the construction permits selected on its FCC Form 175, or else the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction. An applicant does not have to make an upfront payment to cover all
89. The Bureaus adopted upfront payments and bidding units for each construction permit in Auction 91. Upfront payment amounts and bidding units are set forth in Attachment A of the
90. In calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant should determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to be active (bid on or hold provisionally winning bids on) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment amount covering that number of bidding units. In order to make this calculation, an applicant should add together the bidding units for all construction permits on which it seeks to be active in any given round. Applicants should check their calculations carefully, as there is no provision for increasing a bidder's eligibility after the upfront payment deadline.
91. If an applicant is a former defaulter, according to 47 CFR 1.2106(a), it must calculate its upfront payment for all of its identified construction permits by multiplying the number of bidding units on which it wishes to be active by 1.5. In order to calculate the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit. If a former defaulter fails to submit a sufficient upfront payment to establish eligibility to bid on at least one of its construction permits selected on its FCC Form 175, the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction.
92. To ensure that refunds of upfront payments are processed in an expeditious manner, the Commission is requesting that all pertinent information be supplied. Applicants can provide the information electronically during the initial short-form application filing window after the form has been submitted. (Applicants are reminded that information submitted as part of an FCC Form 175 will be available to the public; for that reason, wire transfer information should not be included in an FCC Form 175.) Wire Transfer Instructions can also be manually faxed to the FCC, Financial Operations, Auctions Accounting Group, Attn: Gail Glasser, at (202) 418-2843 (fax). All refunds will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159 unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.
93. Approximately ten days before the auction, the Bureaus will issue a public notice announcing all qualified bidders for the auction. Qualified bidders are those applicants with submitted FCC Form 175 applications that are deemed timely-filed, accurate, and complete, provided that such applicants have timely submitted an upfront payment that is sufficient to qualify them to bid.
94. All qualified bidders are automatically registered for the auction. Registration materials will be distributed prior to the auction by overnight mail. The mailing will be sent only to the contact person at the contact address listed in the FCC Form 175 and will include the SecurID® tokens that will be required to place bids, the Integrated Spectrum Auction System (ISAS) Bidder's Guide, and the Auction Bidder Line phone number.
95. Qualified bidders that do not receive this registration mailing will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified bidder that has not received this mailing by noon on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, should call (717) 338-2868. Receipt of this registration mailing is critical to participating in the auction, and each applicant is responsible for ensuring it has received all of the registration material.
96. In the event that SecurID® tokens are lost or damaged, only a person who has been designated as an authorized bidder, the contact person, or the certifying official on the applicant's short-form application may request replacements. Qualified bidders requiring the replacement of these items must call Technical Support at (877) 480-3201, option nine; (202) 414-1250; or (202) 414-1255 (TTY).
97. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet, and telephonic bidding will be available as well. Only qualified bidders are permitted to bid. Each applicant should indicate its bidding preference—electronic or telephonic—on its FCC Form 175. In either case, each authorized bidder must have its own SecurID® token, which the Commission will provide at no charge. Each applicant with one authorized bidder will be issued two SecurID® tokens, while applicants with two or three authorized bidders will be issued three tokens. For security purposes, the SecurID® tokens, the telephonic bidding telephone number, and the Integrated Spectrum Auction System (ISAS) Bidder's Guide are only mailed to the contact person at the contact address listed on the FCC Form 175. Each SecurID® token is tailored to a specific auction. SecurID® tokens issued for other auctions or obtained from a source other than the FCC will not work for Auction 91.
98. All qualified bidders will be eligible to participate in a mock auction on Monday, April 25, 2011. The mock auction will enable qualified bidders to become familiar with the FCC Auction System prior to the auction. Participation by all bidders is strongly recommended. Details will be announced by public notice.
99. The first round of bidding for Auction 91 will begin on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is to be released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction.
100. All construction permits in Auction 91 will be auctioned in a single auction using the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round auction format. This type of auction offers every construction permit for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids on individual construction permits. A bidder may bid on, and potentially win, any number of construction permits. Unless otherwise announced, bids will be accepted on all construction permits in each round of the auction until bidding stops on every construction permit.
101. The Bureaus will use upfront payments to determine each bidder's initial (maximum) eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for Auction 91. The amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder determines initial bidding eligibility, the maximum
102. In order to ensure that an auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. Bidders are required to be active on a specific percentage of their current bidding eligibility during each round of the auction.
103. A bidder's activity level in a round is the sum of the bidding units associated with any construction permits covered by new and provisionally winning bids. A bidder is considered active on a construction permit in the current round if it is either the provisionally winning bidder at the end of the previous bidding round or if it submits a bid in the current round.
104. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction.
105. Auction 91 will be conducted in two stages and employ an activity rule. A bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on construction permits representing at least 75 percent of its current bidding eligibility, during each round of Stage One, and at least 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility in Stage Two. The Bureaus retain the discretion to alter the activity requirements before and/or during the auction as circumstances warrant.
106. Stage One: During the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility will be required to be active on construction permits representing at least 75 percent of its current bidding eligibility in each bidding round. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver or, if the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining, a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round. During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current round activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's provisionally winning bids and bids during the current round) by four-thirds (
107. Stage Two: During the second stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver or, if the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining, a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round. During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current round activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's provisionally winning bids and bids during the current round) by twenty-nineteenths (20/19).
108. CAUTION: Since activity requirements increase in Stage Two, bidders must carefully check their activity during the first round following a stage transition to ensure that they are meeting the increased activity requirement. This is especially critical for bidders that have provisionally winning bids and do not plan to submit new bids. In past auctions, some bidders have inadvertently lost bidding eligibility or used an activity rule waiver because they did not re-verify their activity status at stage transitions. Bidders may check their activity against the required activity level by logging into the FCC Auction System.
109. The auction will start in Stage One. The Bureaus will regulate the pace of the auction by announcement. The Bureaus retain the discretion to change the activity requirements during the auction, including transition the auction from Stage One to Stage Two, to add an additional stage with a higher activity requirement, not to transition to Stage Two, and to transition to Stage Two with an activity requirement that is higher or lower than 95 percent. This determination will be based on a variety of measures of auction activity, including, but not limited to, the number of new bids and the percentages of construction permits (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids.
110. Each bidder in the auction will be provided with three activity rule waivers. Bidders may use an activity rule waiver in any round during the course of the auction. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required minimum activity level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular construction permit. Activity rule waivers can be either proactive or automatic and are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.
111. The FCC Auction System assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to apply an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless (1) there are no activity rule waivers available or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the activity requirement, the FCC Auction System will permanently reduce the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction.
112. A bidder with insufficient activity that wants to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in the FCC Auction System. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rule. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility even if the round has not yet ended.
113. Finally, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an activity waiver (using the apply waiver function in the FCC Auction System) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. However, an automatic waiver applied by the FCC Auction System in a round in which there are no new bids or proactive waivers will not keep the auction open.
114. For Auction 91, the Bureaus will employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. A simultaneous stopping rule means that all construction permits remain available for bidding until bidding closes simultaneously on all construction permits. More specifically, bidding will close simultaneously on all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder submits any new bids or applies a proactive waiver.
115. As explained in the
116. The Bureaus, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureaus, in their sole discretion, may elect to resume starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureaus to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureaus emphasize that exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureaus, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers.
117. The initial schedule of bidding rounds will be announced in the public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction. Each bidding round is followed by the release of round results. Multiple bidding rounds may be conducted in a given day.
118. The Bureaus have the discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureaus may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors.
119. There will be no reserve price for the construction permits offered in Auction 91. After consideration of one commenter's request for a reduction of the proposed minimum opening bid for the FM station construction permit for Blanket, Texas, Channel 284A, the Bureaus adopted a minimum opening bid for MM-FM837-A, Blanket, Texas, of $7,500. After further consideration of the specific circumstances concerning the FM station construction permit at Charlo, Montana, Channel 251C3, as presented by a second commenter, the Bureaus adopted a minimum opening bid of $5,000 for MM-FM808-C3, Charlo, Montana.
120. Another commenter contended that generally the minimum opening bids for re-auctioned allotments are too high, and that those allotments that were unsold in previous auctions should all be assigned a uniform minimum opening bid of $1,000. Similarly, a fourth commenter suggests an across-the-board decrease of 75 percent of the minimum opening bids proposed in the
121. The specific minimum opening bid amounts adopted by the Bureaus for the construction permits available in Auction 91 are set forth in Attachment A of the
122. In each round of Auction 91, eligible bidders will be able to place a bid on a given construction permit in any of up to nine different amounts, if the bidder has sufficient eligibility to place a bid on the particular construction permit. The FCC Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit.
123. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid on the construction permit. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a percentage higher. That is, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be calculated by multiplying the provisionally winning bid amount times one plus the minimum acceptable bid percentage. For example, if the minimum acceptable bid percentage is 10 percent, the minimum acceptable bid amount will equal (provisionally winning bid amount) * (1.10), rounded.
124. The Bureaus will begin the auction with a minimum acceptable bid percentage of 10 percent. The eight additional bid amounts are calculated using the minimum acceptable bid amount and a bid increment percentage.
125. At the end of each bidding round, a provisionally winning bid will be determined based on the highest bid amount received for each construction permit. A provisionally winning bid will remain the provisionally winning bid until there is a higher bid on the same construction permit at the close of a subsequent round. Provisionally winning bids at the end of the auction become the winning bids. Bidders are reminded that provisionally winning bids count toward activity for purposes of the activity rule.
126. The Bureaus will use a random number generator to select a single provisionally winning bid in the event of identical high bid amounts being submitted on a construction permit in a given round (
127. All bidding will take place remotely either through the FCC Auction System or by telephonic bidding. There will be no on-site bidding during Auction 91. Telephonic bid assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. Telephonic bidders were reminded to allow sufficient time to bid by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. The length of a call to place a telephonic bid may vary; applicants should allow a minimum of ten minutes.
128. A bidder's ability to bid on specific construction permits is determined by two factors: (1) The construction permits selected on the bidder's FCC Form 175 and (2) the bidder's eligibility. The bid submission screens will allow bidders to submit bids on only those construction permits the bidder selected on its FCC Form 175.
129. In order to access the bidding function of the FCC Auction System, bidders must be logged in during the bidding round using the passcode generated by the SecurID® token and a personal identification number (PIN) created by the bidder. Bidders are strongly encouraged to print a round summary for each round after they have completed all of their activity for that round.
130. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given construction permit in any of up to nine pre-defined bid amounts, if the bidder has sufficient eligibility to place a bid on the particular construction permit. For each construction permit, the FCC Auction System will list the acceptable bid amounts in a drop-down box. Bidders use the drop-down box to select from among the acceptable bid amounts. The FCC Auction System also includes an upload function that allows bidders to upload text files containing bid information.
131. Until a bid has been placed on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid amount for that construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount. Once there are bids on a construction permit, minimum acceptable bids for a construction permit for the following round will be determined.
132. During a round, an eligible bidder may submit bids for as many construction permits as it wishes (providing that it is eligible to bid), remove bids placed in the current bidding round, or permanently reduce eligibility. If a bidder submits multiple bids for the same construction permit in the same round, the system takes the last bid entered as that bidder's bid for the round. Bidders should note that the bidding units associated with construction permits for which the bidder has removed bids do not count towards the bidder's current activity.
133. In Auction 91, each bidder has the option of removing any bids placed in a round provided that such bids are removed before the close of that bidding round. By using the remove bids function in the FCC Auction System, a bidder may effectively unsubmit any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to withdrawal payments. Removing a bid will affect a bidder's activity for the round in which it is removed,
134. In the
135. The Bureaus will prohibit bid withdrawals in Auction 91. Bidders are cautioned to select bid amounts carefully because no bid withdrawals will be allowed in Auction 91, even if
136. Reports reflecting bidders' identities for Auction 91 will be available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders will know in advance of this auction the identities of the bidders against which they are bidding.
137. Bids placed during a round will not be made public until the conclusion of that round. After a round closes, the Bureaus will compile and post for public access reports of all bids placed, current provisionally winning bids, new minimum acceptable bid amounts for the following round, whether the construction permit is FCC held, and bidder eligibility status (bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), and post the reports for public access.
138. The Commission will use auction announcements to report necessary information such as schedule changes. All auction announcements will be available by clicking a link in the FCC Auction System.
139. Shortly after bidding has ended, the Commission will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed, identifying the winning bidders, and establishing the deadlines for submitting down payments, final payments, and the long-form applications (FCC Forms 301).
140. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing public notice, each winning bidder must submit sufficient funds (in addition to its upfront payment) to bring its total amount of money on deposit with the Commission for Auction 91 to 20 percent of the net amount of its winning bids (gross bids less any applicable new entrant bidding credits).
141. Each winning bidder will be required to submit the balance of the net amount of its winning bids within ten business days after the applicable deadline for submitting down payments.
142. The Commission's rules currently provide that within thirty days after release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must electronically submit a properly completed long-form application (FCC Form 301, Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station), and required exhibits for each construction permit won through Auction 91. Winning bidders claiming new entrant status must include an exhibit demonstrating their eligibility for the bidding credit. Further instructions on these and other filing requirements will be provided to winning bidders in the auction closing public notice.
143. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of the auction (
144. Finally, if a default or disqualification involves gross misconduct, misrepresentation, or bad faith by an applicant, the Commission may declare the applicant and its principals ineligible to bid in future auctions, and may take any other action that it deems necessary, including institution of proceedings to revoke any existing authorizations held by the applicant.
145. After the auction, applicants that are not winning bidders or are winning bidders whose upfront payment exceeded the total net amount of their winning bids may be entitled to a refund of some or all of their upfront payment. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record, as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise. Bidders that drop out of the auction completely (have exhausted all of their activity rule waivers and have no remaining bidding eligibility) may request a refund of their upfront payments before the close of the auction.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 4:10 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director John E. Bowman (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), concurred in by Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Sheila C. Bair, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Maritime Commission.
January 26, 2011-10 a.m.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
Part of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.
1. Proposed Notice of Inquiry Concerning the Effects of Slow Steaming on the U.S. Supply Chain and Environment.
1. Staff Briefing on Economic Conditions and Impact on Stakeholders.
2. Docket No. 96-20: Port Restrictions and Requirements in the United States-Japan Trade.
3. Staff Briefing and Discussion Regarding Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility Requirements.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from Texas City Chemicals, Inc., Texas City, Texas, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On January 6, 2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Texas City Chemicals, Inc., from October 5, 1953, through September 30, 1955, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, New York, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On January 6, 2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Simonds Saw and Steel Co. from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from BWX Technologies, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On January 6, 2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at BWX Technologies, Inc., in Lynchburg, Virginia during the period from January 1, 1985 through November 30, 1994, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
11 a.m.-5 p.m., April 12, 2011 (Closed).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 15, 2011 (Closed); 8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 16, 2011 (Closed).
It is the intent of NIOSH to support broad-based research endeavors in keeping with the Institute's program goals. This will lead to improved understanding and appreciation for the magnitude of the aggregate health burden associated with occupational injuries and illnesses, as well as to support more focused research projects, which will lead to improvements in the delivery of occupational safety and health services, and the prevention of work-related injury and illness. It is anticipated that research funded will promote these program goals.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
11 a.m.-5 p.m., April 19, 2011 (Closed).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 17, 2011; 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., February 18, 2011.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by March 22, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850. 301-796-3794.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Sections 525 through 528 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360aa through 360dd) give FDA statutory authority to do the following: (1) Provide recommendations on investigations required for approval of marketing applications for orphan drugs, (2) designate eligible drugs as orphan drugs, (3) set forth conditions under which a sponsor of an approved orphan drug obtains exclusive approval, and (4) encourage sponsors to make orphan drugs available for treatment on an “open protocol” basis before the drug has been approved for general marketing. The implementing regulations for these statutory requirements have been codified under part 316 (21 CFR part 316) and specify procedures that sponsors of orphan drugs use in availing themselves of the incentives provided for orphan drugs in the FD&C Act and sets forth procedures FDA will use in administering the FD&C Act with regard to orphan drugs. Section 316.10 specifies the content and format of a request for written recommendations concerning the non-clinical laboratory studies and clinical investigations necessary for approval of marketing applications. Section 316.12 provides that, before providing such recommendations, FDA may require results of studies to be submitted for review. Section 316.14 contains provisions permitting FDA to refuse to provide written recommendations under certain circumstances. Within 90 days of any refusal, a sponsor may submit additional information specified by FDA. Based on past experience, FDA estimates that there will be two respondents to §§ 316.10, 316.12, and 316.14 requiring 200 hours of human resources annually.
Section 316.20 specifies the content and format of an orphan drug application which includes requirements that an applicant document that the disease is rare (affects fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States annually) or that the sponsor of the drug has no reasonable expectation of recovering costs of research and development of the drug. Section 316.21 specifies content of a request for orphan drug designation required for verification of orphan-drug status. Section 316.26 allows an applicant to amend the applications under certain circumstances. The Common EMA/FDA Application Form for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation (form FDA 3671) is intended to benefit sponsors who desire to seek orphan designation of drugs intended for rare diseases or conditions from both the European Commission and FDA by reducing the burden of preparing separate applications to meet the regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction. It highlights the regulatory cooperation between the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) mandated by the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). FDA does not believe the new form will result in any increased burden on the respondents and therefore we estimate no additional burden. Based on past experience, FDA estimates there will be 214 respondents requiring 64,200 hours of human resources annually. Section 316.22 specifies requirement of a permanent resident agent for foreign sponsors. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 55 respondents requiring 110 hours of human resources annually. Section 316.27 specifies content of a change in ownership of orphan-drug designation. Based on past experience, FDA estimates 43 respondents requiring 215 hours of human resources annually. Section 316.30 requires submission of annual reports, including progress reports on studies, a description of the investigational plan, and a discussion of changes that may affect orphan status. Based on number of orphan-drug designations, the number of respondents is estimated as 1,652 requiring 4,956 hours of human resources annually. Finally, § 316.36 describes information required of sponsor when there is insufficient quantity of approved orphan drug. Based on past experience, FDA estimates one respondent requiring 45 hours of human resources annually.
The information requested will provide the basis for an FDA determination that the drug is for a rare disease or condition and satisfies the requirements for obtaining orphan drug status. Secondly, the information will describe the medical and regulatory history of the drug. The respondents to this collection of information are biotechnology firms, drug companies, and academic clinical researchers.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diem-Kieu Ngo at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA 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 (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Yvette Waples, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA 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 (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Notice of Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (ACBSCT) Meeting to be Held by Conference Call.
The ACBSCT will be conducting a conference call to discuss:
(1) Final language of recommendations from November 15, 2010, Council meeting; and
(2) Interim Report to Congress.
The conference call will be held on February 4, 2011, at 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. Participants must dial: (800) 988-9536 and enter the corresponding pass code 2741198. Patricia A. Stroup, MBA, MPA, is the call leader. Participants should call no later than 2:50 p.m. EST in order for the logistics to be set up. Participants are asked to register for the conference by contacting Passy Tongele at (301) 443-0437 or e-mail
Any member of the public can submit written materials that will be distributed to Council members prior to the conference call. Parties wishing to submit written comments should ensure that the comments are received no later than February 2, 2011, for consideration. Comments should be submitted to Passy Tongele, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-06, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-0437; fax (301) 594-6095; or e-mail to
Members of the public can present oral comments during the conference call during the public comment period. If a member of the public wishes to speak, the Department should be notified at the time the participant registers. Others members of the public will be allocated time if time permits.
Patricia A. Stroup, MBA, MPA, Executive Secretary, ACBSCT, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, Parklawn Building, Room 12C-06, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-1127; fax (301) 594-6095; or e-mail to
The purpose of this call is to hear discussion from the ACBSCT members on the final language of the eight recommendations approved at the November 15, 2010, Council meeting and to discuss the Interim Report to Congress. Public Law 111-264 states that “* * * the Secretary of Health and Human Services * * * in consultation with the Advisory Council * * * shall submit to Congress an interim report not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act describing (A) the methods to distribute Federal funds to cord blood banks used at the time of submission of the report; (B) how cord blood banks contract with collection sites for the collection of cord blood units; and (C) recommendations for improving the methods to distribute Federal funds described in subparagraph (A) in order to encourage the efficient collection of high-quality and diverse cord blood units.”
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA. The
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, February 22, 2011, 8 a.m. to February 25, 2011, 5 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the
The date and time of the meeting were changed to February 22, 2011, 9 a.m. to February 23, 2011, 5 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 USC, as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB).
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established the NSABB to provide advice, guidance and leadership regarding federal oversight of dual use research, defined as biological research that generates information and technologies that could be misused to pose a biological threat to public health and/or national security.
The meeting will be open to the public, however pre-registration is strongly recommended due to space limitations. Persons planning to attend should register online at:
This meeting will also be webcast. To access the webcast, as well as the draft meeting agenda and pre-registration information, connect to:
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments relevant to the mission of the NSABB
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council, January 27, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to January 28, 2011, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Conference Rooms E1 & E2, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The open session of the meeting, held on January 28, 2011, has been changed to begin at 8 a.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 sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Virology—A Study Section, February 10, 2011, 8 a.m. to February 11, 2011, 5 p.m., Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 which was published in the
The starting time of the meeting on February 10, 2011 has been changed to 8:30 a.m. until adjournment. The meeting dates and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of teleconference meeting.
The Coast Guard is issuing this notice to reschedule the
The teleconference meeting will take place on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST. This meeting may close early if all business is finished.
The Committee will meet via telephone conference, on February 9, 2011. Public participation is welcome and members of the public wishing to participate may contact Commander P.W. Clark at 202-372-1410, for call-in information, or they may participate in person by coming to Room 5-0622, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. As there are a limited number of teleconference lines, public participation will be on a first come basis. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should be sent to Commander P.W. Clark, Designated Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5224), 2100 Second Street, SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-001 or by fax to 202-372-1926 on or before February 7, 2011. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before February 1, 2011. This notice and supporting documentation is available in our online docket, USCG-2010-1050, at
Commander P.W. Clark, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of NOSAC, or Mr. Kevin Pekarek, Assistant Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone 202-372-1386, fax 202-372-1926.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). NOSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on safety and other concerns affecting the offshore oil and gas industry and assists the Coast Guard in formulating U.S. positions for discussion and presentation at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
The agenda for the February 9, 2011, Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Roll call of committee members and the public participating in the teleconference.
(2) Approval of minutes from the November 9, 2010, meeting.
(3) Presentation and discussion of interim reports and recommendations on:
(a) Medical Evacuation of Injured Divers
(b) Marine Portable Quarters
(4) Review and discuss a task statement which requests the Committee review the recommendations from the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 marine casualty investigation and provide safety and environmental improvement recommendations with respect to Coast Guard regulations and policies as appropriate.
(5) Review and discuss a task statement that requests NOSAC review their previous report on recommendations for standards for Offshore Supply Vessels with an International Tonnage Convention tonnage greater than 6000 Gross Tons in light of the recently passed Coast Guard Authorization Act and determine if the recommendations are complete or if additional recommendations should be provided to the Coast Guard for use in the development of regulations for large OSVs.
(6) Period for public comment.
The DFO will use the following procedures to facilitate the meeting.
(1) This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished.
(2) Members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting concerning the matters being discussed. If you would like to make an oral presentation during the teleconference, please notify the DFO listed in the
(3) An individual, whether speaking in a personal or a representative capacity on behalf of an organization, will be limited to a three-minute statement and scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. If a large number of persons register to present comments, this amount of time may be shortened to provide all registered persons an opportunity to present their comments.
Minutes from the meeting will be available for public review and copying 30 days following the meeting at the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Kevin Pekarek at 202-372-1386 as soon as possible.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: OMB 58, Civics and Citizenship Toolkit/Teacher Training Registration; OMB Control No. 1615-New.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Clearance Officer, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-0997 or via e-mail at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning OMB 58, Civics and Citizenship Toolkit/Teacher Training Registration. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020, Telephone number 202-272-8377.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Rita, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available. Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability: Draft comprehensive conservation plan and draft environmental impact statement; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our draft comprehensive conservation plan and draft environmental impact statement (Draft CCP/EIS) for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) for public review and comment. In the Draft CCP/EIS, we described our alternatives, including our preferred alternative, for managing the refuge for 15 years following approval of the final CCP.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by March 7, 2011.
You may submit comments, request a copy of the Draft CCP/EIS, or request more information by any of the following methods.
Charlie Stenvall, Project Leader, (360) 484-3482.
The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 to protect migrating and wintering populations of Brant, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migratory birds, and for conservation purposes. The refuge encompasses approximately 16,000 acres of tidelands, temperate rainforest, ocean beaches, sand dunes, rivers, and small streams. It also preserves several rare remnants of old growth coastal cedar forest, and habitat for spawning wild salmon, hundreds of thousands of migrating shorebirds, and threatened and endangered species such as the Western snowy plover and Marbled murrelet. This notice announces the availability of the refuge's Draft CCP/EIS.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management and conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction for conserving
In March 2008, we distributed Planning Update 1 to our project mailing list and public outlets located near the refuge. We announced the initiation of our planning process, provided background information on the refuge, requested comments on refuge management issues, and invited the public to open house meetings in the update. We also announced the public open house meetings in a press release and on Service Web sites. We held the meetings on March 25 and 26, 2008, in South Bend and Ilwaco, Washington, respectively, to obtain comments on refuge management issues. In April 2008 we published a Notice of Intent in the
We are considering three CCP alternatives for managing the refuge; brief descriptions follow.
Under Alternative 1 the current refuge management programs and operations would not change. The refuge would continue to maintain, and where feasible restore, habitats, including forest stand improvements, wetlands enhancements, and beach dune enhancements. Habitat improvements for imperiled species, State or federally listed as threatened or endangered, would continue. Existing public uses, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education, and boating and camping would continue.
Under Alternative 2, the Service's preferred alternative, current wildlife and habitat management programs would continue, plus this alternative includes the highest level of refuge habitat improvement of the three alternatives. Intensively managed pastures and impoundments would be restored to historic estuarine habitats, and approximately 749 acres of open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh would be created. On the refuge's Leadbetter Point Unit, a predator management program would be implemented to manage avian and mammalian predators and increase the Western snowy plover population to meet recovery plan goals for the species. Grassland restoration on up to 33 acres would include establishment of the early-blue violet; this host plant would serve the future reintroduction of the endangered Oregon silverspot butterfly.
Improvements to the wildlife-dependent public use program would include: A new interpretive trail and wildlife observation deck along the South Bay, connected to the proposed visitor-center/office/maintenance facility to be located on the Tarlett Unit. Waterfowl hunting opportunities, in accordance with the State's season, would expand to include approximately 6,058 acres after the proposed estuarine restoration is completed. A boat launch access point (car-top boats only) would be developed to access the South Bay. An expanded, special-permit-only elk hunt would occur on the Leadbetter Point Unit. Elk and deer hunting would expand in South Bay units in accordance with the State's seasons.
An expansion of the refuge's land acquisition boundary is proposed to include 1,908 acres in the Nemah and Naselle areas; 561 acres in South Bay; and 4,334 acres in the East Hills. We would also consider divesting the Cape Shoalwater and Wheaton properties from the refuge.
Under Alternative 3, intensively managed pastures and impoundments would be restored to historic estuarine habitats, creating approximately 429 acres of open water, intertidal flats, and salt marsh on the refuge. The proposed estuarine restoration project would occur on the Lewis and Porter Point units only. Approximately 30 acres of managed freshwater wetlands would remain on the Riekkola and Tarlatt units. Predator management for protection of the threatened Western snowy plover on the Leadbetter Point Unit would occur on an as needed basis to control avian predators only. Grassland restoration on up to 33 acres would include the successful establishment of the early-blue violet; this host plant would serve the future reintroduction of the endangered Oregon silverspot butterfly.
Wildlife-dependent public use activities under Alternative 3 would include expanded waterfowl hunting in accordance with the State's season, after estuarine restoration efforts are completed. A new interpretive trail and wildlife observation deck along the South Bay would be connected to the proposed visitor-center/office/maintenance facility to be located on the Tarlett Unit. Expansion of hunting opportunities would occur at the Leadbetter Point Unit to include a permit-only regulated elk hunt. Elk and deer hunting opportunities would occur in the South Bay units in accordance with the State's seasons.
An expanded land acquisition boundary is proposed to include: 561 acres in South Bay and 4,334 acres in the East Hills. We would also consider divesting the Cape Shoalwater and Wheaton properties from the refuge.
You can request copies of the Draft CCP/EIS on CD-ROM from Charlie Stenvall, Project Leader, Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, 3888 SR 101, Ilwaco, WA 98624; phone (360) 484-3482. The Draft CCP/EIS will also be available for viewing and downloading on the Internet at
• Ilwaco Timberland Regional Library, 158 1st Ave. North, Ilwaco, WA 98624.
• South Bend Timberland Library, West 1st and Pacific, South Bend, WA 98586.
• Ocean Park Timberland Library, 1308 256th Pl., Ocean Park, WA 98640.
• Astoria Public Library, 450 10th St., Astoria, OR 97103.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP/EIS.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Horizon Hobby, Inc. on January 11, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain radio control hobby transmitters and receivers and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents Koko Technology Ltd. of Guangdong, China and Cyclone Toy & Hobby of Guangdong, China.
The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;
(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and
(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2779”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on January 14, 2011, a Consent Decree was lodged in
Under the Consent Decree, Blue Tee will arrange for the purchase of a specified 80 acre parcel of property with natural resources equivalent to those injured, lost and destroyed by the releases of hazardous substances at the smelters. That property will be transferred to The Nature Conservancy, a non profit entity that will maintain the property and preserve it in perpetuity. Blue Tee will also pay to the Trustees a total of $180,298.27 to reimburse the Trustees for past assessment costs, and future restoration planning costs and operation and maintenance costs for the property.
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.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, 500 State Ave. Suite 360, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-6730. The Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) intends to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and conduct Public Scoping Meetings for the proposed housing of inmates under the Criminal Alien Requirement 12 (CAR 12) solicitation, at a facility located in either Hinton, Oklahoma; McRae, Georgia; Baldwin, Michigan; or Scott County, Mississippi.
The mission of the United States Department of Justice, BOP, is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prison and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. The BOP accomplishes its mission through the appropriate use of community correction, detention, and correctional facilities that are either: Federally-owned and operated; federally-owned and non-federally operated; and non-federally owned and operated.
The BOP is facing a period of growth in its inmate population. Projections show the federal inmate population increasing from approximately 212,000 inmates at the end of fiscal year 2010 to over 231,756 inmates by the end of fiscal year 2013. As such, the demand for bed space within the federal prison system continues to grow at a significant rate. To accommodate a portion of the growing inmate population, the BOP proposes to contract with a privately-owned and operated correctional facility that can house approximately 1,750 low-security, adult male inmates, that are predominantly criminal aliens.
Proposals received by the BOP from private contractors include existing facilities located in Hinton, Oklahoma; McRae, Georgia; Baldwin, Michigan; and a new facility proposed for development in Scott County, Mississippi. The BOP has preliminarily evaluated these proposals and determined that the prospective facility/sites appear to be of sufficient size to provide space for inmate housing, programs, administrative services and other support facilities associated with the correctional facility. The DEIS to be prepared by the BOP will analyze the potential impacts of correctional facility construction and/or operation at these locations.
In the process of evaluating the sites, several aspects will receive detailed examination including, but not limited to: Topography, geology/soils, hydrology, biological resources, utility services, transportation services, cultural resources, land uses, socio-economics, hazardous materials, and air and noise quality, among others.
In developing the DEIS, the options of “no action” and “alternative sites” for the proposed facility will be fully and thoroughly examined.
During the preparation of the DEIS, there will be opportunities for public involvement in order to determine the issues to be examined in the DEIS. Four Scoping Meetings will be held for the proposed action: The first at 6 p.m., February 9, 2011 at the Hinton Fire Station, 115 E. Main Street, Hinton, Oklahoma; the second at 7 p.m., February 15, 2011 at the Morton City Board Room, 19 West 1st Avenue, Morton, Mississippi; the third at 6 p.m. February 17, 2011 at McRae City Hall, 301 N. 1st Avenue, McRae, Georgia; and the final at 6 p.m. on February 24, 2011 at Webber Township Hall, 2286 Spring Time Street in Baldwin, Michigan.
The meeting locations, dates, and times will be well publicized and will be arranged to allow for public involvement, as well as interested agencies and organizations to attend. The meetings will be held to allow interested persons to formally express their views on the scope and significant issues to be studied as part of the DEIS process. The meetings will provide for timely public comments and understanding of federal plans and programs with possible environmental consequences as required by the NEPA of 1969, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Public notice will be given concerning the availability of the DEIS for public review and comment at a later date.
All are encouraged to provide comments on the proposed action and alternatives at the Public Scoping Meetings and anytime during the public scoping period and until March 11, 2011. There are three ways in which comments may be submitted: (1) By attending one of the scoping meetings, (2) by mail or (3) by FAX.
Questions concerning the proposed action and the DEIS may be directed to: Richard A. Cohn, Chief or Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Capacity Planning and Site Selection Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).
Through this notice, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announces the availability of approximately $500 million in grant funds authorized in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Reconciliation Act) from the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grants funding source to provide community colleges and other eligible institutions of higher education with funds to expand and improve their ability to deliver education and career training programs that can be completed in two years or less, are suited for workers who are eligible for training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers program, and prepare program participants for employment in high-wage, high-skill occupations. ETA intends to fund grants ranging from $2.5 million to $5 million for individual applicants and from $2.5 million to $20 million for consortium applicants with this SGA.
The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments, in connection with the Workforce Investment Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Reconciliation Act) is described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications is April 21, 2011.
Melissa Abdullah, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-3346.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice and Request for Comments—LSC Elimination of the Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming Migrant Service Areas.
The Legal Services Corporation will eliminate the Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming migrant service areas: MNV, MSD, and MWY, effective April 1, 2011, because any eligible migrant population in these states can be more effectively and efficiently served through the respective state's basic field-general grant.
Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2011.
Written comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail to Reginald J. Haley, Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; or
Reginald J. Haley, Office of Program Performance, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007; or by email at
The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) mission is to promote equal access to justice and to provide for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income persons. Pursuant to its statutory authority, LSC designates service areas in U.S. states, territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia for which it provides grants to legal aid programs to provide free civil legal services, primarily through “basic field-general” grants based on poverty populations.
In some regions, LSC designates migrant service areas for grants that are designed to specifically serve the legal needs of eligible migrant farmworker populations. The funding for migrant service areas is taken out of the funding for the basic field-general service areas also covering those populations based on the estimated number of eligible migrants as a portion of the total poverty population.
For many years LSC has designated migrant service areas in Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. LSC has been informed that the eligible migrant populations in Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming are not sufficient in numbers to maintain a separate migrant service area in those states. LSC has reviewed this matter and determined that, based on the available information; it would be more effective and efficient to serve the legal needs of the eligible migrant populations in Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming through the basic field-general grants in those states rather than providing separate migrant grants.
LSC provides grants through a competitive bidding process, which is regulated by 45 CFR part 1634. In 2010, LSC implemented a competitive grants process for 2011 calendar year funding that included, inter alia, the Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming migrant service areas. LSC determines the term of grants after applications have been received. For 2011, LSC awarded a three-month migrant grant for Nevada to Nevada Legal Services, for South Dakota to Dakota Plains Legal Services and for Wyoming to Legal Aid of Wyoming. These grants are effective January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2011.
LSC intends to eliminate the Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming migrant service areas beginning April 1, 2011. Funding for the eligible migrant populations of Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming will be restored to those states' basic field-general grants. LSC expects that the recipients of those grants, i.e., Nevada Legal Services, Dakota Plains Legal Services, and Legal Aid of Wyoming, will continue to provide services to the eligible migrant populations as part of their basic field-general grants.
LSC invites public comment on this decision. Interested parties may submit comments to LSC within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. More information about LSC can be found at LSC's Web site:
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, is soliciting comments concerning renewal of the Application for Domestic Indemnity. A copy of this collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Alice Whelihan, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 726, Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5574 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5603.
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) “Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in “AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)” (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) “Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) “The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Week of January 24, 2011.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative)
Request by Petitioners for a Suspension of Renewal Proceedings Pending Completion of Rulemaking in Docket No. PRM-54-6. (Tentative)
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 (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Angela Bolduc, Chief, Employee/Labor Relations and Work Life Branch, at 301-492-2230, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
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
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 an Open Meeting on January 25, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
Item 1: The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules to implement Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires shareholder advisory votes to approve the compensation of executives, or say-on-pay votes, and the frequency of shareholder say-on-pay votes. Section 951 also requires shareholder advisory votes to approve certain agreements and understandings concerning executive compensation that is based on or otherwise relates to the acquisition, merger, consolidation, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of an issuer, and requires enhanced disclosure of these golden parachute arrangements.
Item 2: The Commission will consider whether to propose rule amendments that would implement Section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act regarding the definition of “accredited investor.”
Item 3: The Commission will consider whether to propose a rule under the Advisers Act establishing reporting obligations for advisers to private funds to implement the requirements of Sections 404 and 406 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend its fees schedule as it relates to PULSe workstations. 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 introduce fees for an on-floor version of the PULSe workstation and to extend the waiver of the PULSe Routing Intermediary fee.
By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of CBOE and CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”). In addition, the PULSe workstation provides a user with the capability to send options orders to other U.S. options exchanges and stock orders to other U.S. stock exchanges through a PULSe Routing Intermediary (“away-market routing”).
The first purpose of this proposed rule change is introduce fees for a new version of the PULSe workstation that will be configured for use on the CBOE trading floor by CBOE Trading Permit Holders (the “PULSe On-Floor Workstation”). For administrative reasons, the PULSe On-Floor Workstation will be licensed from CBOE to a CBOE Trading Permit Holder.
The second purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the waiver of the PULSe Routing Intermediary fee. Currently the Exchange has waived the Routing Intermediary fee through December 31, 2010. The Exchange is proposing to extend this waiver through March 31, 2011. Thus this fee will be assessed beginning April 1, 2011.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
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.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Qari Hussain, also known as Qari Hussain Mehsud, also known as Qari Hussain Ahmad Mehsud, also known as Ustad-e-Fidayeen poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The meeting will be held February 11, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Capitol View Business & Conference Center, Rotunda Terrace Conference Room, 9th Floor, 101 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20001. Metro using the red line Union Station exit. Clear security at RTCA NAC welcome desk in the lobby.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda will include:
• Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
• Official Statement of Designated Federal Official.
• Review and Approval of September 23, 2010 Meeting Summary.
• Chairman's Report.
• FAA Report.
• Subcommittee Report: NAC Subcommittee and Work Groups.
• Break.
• Future of Aviation Advisory Committee NextGen Recommendations.
• Discussion of FAA Equipage Tasking.
• FAA's 2011 NextGen Implementation Plan.
• Understanding NextGen.
○ Committee Interactive Discussion.
• Anticipated Issues for NAC Consideration and Action at May 19, 2011 meeting.
• Adjourn.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting: Airport Security Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control Systems.
The meeting will be held February 8, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036 in the MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Hilton-ATA Room.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 833-9339, fax (202) 833-9434, Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
• Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
• Review/Approve Summary—Third Meeting.
• Report on Security Construction Guidelines Process.
• Workgroup Reports.
• Credentialing.
• PACS.
• Biometrics.
• Communications.
• Video.
• Other Input from Members.
• Assignments for Final Review.
• Other Business.
• Establish Agenda for Next Meeting.
• Date and Place of Next Meeting.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B).
The meeting will be held February 22-25, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., unless stated otherwise in the agenda.
The meeting will be held at the RTCA Conference Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 186, Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting. The agenda will include:
• All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.
• All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.
• All Day, WG-6, Application Technical Requirements, Colson Board Room.
• All Day, Requirements Focus Group (RFG), MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.
• All Day, WG-6, Application Technical Requirements, Colson Board Room.
• Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
• Review of Meeting Agenda.
• Review and Approval of the 52nd Meeting Summary, RTCA Paper No. 007-11/SC186-305.
• Joint SC186/EUROCAE WG51 Business.
○ Consider for Approval—New Document—
○ Review of EUROCAE WG-51 Activities.
○ Ad-Hoc Committee Proposal for Revised Application Development Process.
○ Date, Place, and Time of Next Meeting.
○ ADS-B IM Coordination with SC-214/WG-78 for Data Link Rqts Discussion and Status.
○ ADS-B Coordination with SC-206 for Wake Vortex Discussion and Status.
• SC186 Business.
○ FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program Status.
○ Working Group Reports.
• WG-1—Operations and Implementation.
• WG-2—TIS-B MASPS—no report.
• WG-3—1090 MHz MOPS—no report.
• WG-4—Application Technical Requirements.
• WG-5—UAT MOPS—no report.
• WG-6—ADS-B MASPS.
• RFG—Requirements Focus Group.
• Revised Terms of Reference (TOR) Discussion.
• New Business.
• Other Business.
• Review Action Items/Work Programs.
• Adjourn Plenary.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 10, 2011.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-1268 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kenna Sinclair, ANM-113, (425) 227-1556, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver, (202-267-4059). Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 10, 2011.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-1284 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kenna Sinclair, ANM-113, (425) 227-1556, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver, (202-267-4059). Office of Rulemaking (ARM-207), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by February 22, 2011.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2010-0176.
Erin Robertson, (202) 366-4814, or Dale Gray, (202) 366-0978, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
a. Transfer of funds from a State to the FHWA pursuant to U.S.C. Title 23, § 104(k)(3);
b. Transfer of funds from a State to a Federal Agency other than FHWA;
c. Transfer of funds from a State to another State;
d. Transfer of funds between programs; and,
e. Transfer of funds between projects.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before February 22, 2011.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Jessica Cicchino, PhD, Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., W46-491, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Cicchino's phone number is 202-366-2752 and her e-mail address is
Motorcycle rider training is a part of most States' motorcycle safety programs, and funds are set aside under Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU in part to help States increase their motorcycle training. A study conducted by Billheimer (1998) found that trained riders with less than 500 miles of riding experience had a lower crash rate than untrained riders during the 6 months after training. Other studies conducted on the effectiveness of motorcycle rider training in the United States, however, have not found an effect of motorcycle rider training on crashes. Thus, the extent to which motorcycle rider training reduces crash involvement is unclear.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans on using information from surveys and archival records to examine the impact of entry-level motorcycle rider training on safe motorcycle riding, as one component of
Respondents will be asked to complete a survey three times during this study. The second survey will be completed 6 months after the first, and the third survey will be completed 18 months after the first. Surveys will be conducted electronically over the Internet when possible, with a pen-and-paper option available if preferred by the respondent.
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(iii) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
(c) In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
(b) To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally
(c) Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop and submitto the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan, consistent withlaw and its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodicallyreview its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulationsshould be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency'sregulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatoryobjectives.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to theavailability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the UnitedStates, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or anyother person.
• extended compliance dates that take into account the resources available to small entities;
• performance standards rather than design standards;
• simplification of reporting and compliance requirements (as, for example, through streamlined forms and electronic filing options);
• different requirements for large and small firms; and
• partial or total exemptions.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The Fish and Wildlife Service adds one refuge to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing and increases the activities available at seven other refuges, along with pertinent refuge-specific regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2010-2011 season.
This rule is effective January 21, 2011.
Leslie A. Marler, (703) 358-2397.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 closes national wildlife refuges in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that such uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System or our/we) mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant modifications to refuge-specific regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purposes or the Refuge System's mission.
Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 32). We regulate hunting and sport fishing on refuges to:
• Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);
• Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource(s);
• Protect other refuge values;
• Ensure refuge visitor safety; and
• Provide opportunities for quality fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.
On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined in the “Statutory Authority” section below. We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, seasons, bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits, methods of hunting or sport fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and other provisions as appropriate. You may find previously issued refuge-specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. In this rulemaking, we are also standardizing and clarifying the language of existing regulations.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges.
Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act, built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “organic act” for the Refuge System, are similar to those that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. These uses are: Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the Refuge System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.
We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the Refuge System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired refuges through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans and specific plans,
In the September 15, 2010,
This ban of lead sinkers is not new to any of these refuges. In the case of Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, they have banned lead sinkers since 2004 in their freshwater ponds, where there is a greater likelihood of lead split shot being ingested by wildlife. They do allow the use of lead sinkers in tidal creeks because to hold bait in a tidal situation anglers need heavier weights, and heavier nontoxic weights are not as available in the marketplace. There is also less likelihood of weights in tidal waters being ingested (larger size, deeper water).
Seney National Wildlife Refuge has banned lead sinkers since 2002. They have several fish-eating predators (bald eagle, osprey, kingfisher, otter, loon) that are susceptible to incidental lead ingestion on the refuge along with swans that may ingest lead weights while feeding in shallow waters. From 1987-2004, lead toxicosis accounted for 22 percent of the 204 Michigan common loon deaths that were necropsied by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Rose Lake Wildlife Disease Lab.
Patuxent Research Refuge banned lead sinkers as of April 12, 2010 (it was effective in the 2009-10 rulemaking). We are making no change to the regulations as a result of these comments.
We disagree that the comment period is insufficient. The process of opening refuges is done in stages, with the fundamental work being done on the ground at the refuge and in the community where the program is administered. In these stages, the public is provided other opportunities to comment, for example, on the comprehensive conservation plans, the compatibility determinations, and the hunt plans and accompanying NEPA documents. The final stage is when we publish the proposed rule in the
We make every attempt to collect all of the proposals from the refuges nationwide and process them expeditiously to maximize the time available for public review. We believe that a 30-day comment period, through the broader publication following the earlier public involvement, gives the public sufficient time to comment and allows us to establish hunting and fishing programs in time for the upcoming seasons. Many of these rules also relieve restrictions and allow the public to participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities on a number of refuges. Even after issuance of a final rule, we accept comments, suggestions, and concerns for consideration for any appropriate subsequent rulemaking.
We are and have been phasing out the use of lead shot by hunters on refuge lands. However, we are doing this phase-out of lead shot in a coordinated manner with the respective State wildlife agency. The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to make refuge regulations as consistent with State regulations as practicable. See additional discussion on the lead shot issue in Response 1. There were no changes to this rulemaking as a result of these comments.
We designed hunting opportunities provided on Cape May NWR to result in minimal disturbance to trust resources. Minimizing disturbance factors and potential impacts are a primary consideration in season and regulation development. Because hunters may only harvest turkey during the spring in the Great Cedar Swamp Division on 4,492 acres, fewer biological impacts would occur than if we allowed turkey hunting in the Delaware Bay Division as well. We allow turkey hunting in limited areas of the refuge in order to reduce the cumulative negative impacts to wildlife and conflicts among other user groups on the refuge. No changes were made to the regulation as a result of this comment.
The decision to open a refuge to hunting involves numerous steps where each refuge manager determines, after completing a compatibility determination, hunting and/or fishing opening package, appropriate NEPA documentation, section 7 consultation, and consultation with State fish and game agencies, the conduct of the hunting or fishing opportunity. While we make every effort to be consistent with State regulations, there are instances when it is appropriate that we be more restrictive than the State. Our regulations at 50 CFR 32.2(d) state that, “Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of the laws and regulations of the State wherein any area is located
For example, States may typically allow a longer hunting/angling season or larger bag limits than do many refuges. Most refuges have shorter seasons not only to ensure healthy wildlife populations, but to also allow other users opportunities to visit and observe wildlife on our refuges (
The commenter also referred to a condition that required hunters wishing to participate in a hunt to submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). We recently secured OMB approval of nine new forms allowing the refuges to keep track of various activities on the refuges. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Finally, on Bald Knob NWR all hunters must possess the refuge brochure, which when signed becomes their refuge hunting permit. Their signature indicates that they have read and understood the refuge hunting regulations and willingly agree to allow law enforcement officers to inspect or search their equipment used during the hunt. We made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
When contacted by the commenter, he/she did not inquire about the cumulative impacts assessment, but rather about the general process of the rulemaking, including the 2003 Fund for Animals litigation. We explained to the commenter that this rulemaking was a compilation of the changes needed by refuges for this particular season and that the bulk of the economic analysis is done, appropriately, at the field level. We directed the commenter to contact individual refuges if they wished to receive the NEPA documentation created at the refuge level. The commenter did so, received the information that he/she was seeking, and supports the expansion of hunting in Minnesota Valley NWR. The commenter further stated that he/she felt there should be more information available to the public about proposed hunting regulations, specifically the readily available environmental assessment of each refuge. As discussed in the preamble of the rule, the decision to open or expand a refuge is a public process. All elements of that decision, including the hunt plan, compatibility determination, and appropriate NEPA analysis, are the subject of a public review and comment process and are available upon request. The decision to post online individual refuge-specific environmental analyses lies with the refuge manager; however, we will make the suggestion to refuge managers that they do so in the future to facilitate additional public inspection of documents after the appropriate public review process has ended and we have made a decision. We made no changes to this rulemaking as a result of this comment.
This rule is effective upon publication in the
This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that are applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. We are doing this to better inform the general public of the regulations at each refuge, to increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges will usually find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge or posted on signs.
We have cross-referenced a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR parts 26, 27, and 32 to assist hunting and sport fishing visitors with understanding safety and other legal requirements on refuges. This redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of improving safety and compliance in our hunting and sport fishing programs.
The changes for the 2010-11 hunting/fishing season noted in the chart above are each based on a complete administrative record which, among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a compatibility determination, and the appropriate NEPA analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. These documents are available upon request.
For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at:
In this rule we made some of the revisions to the individual refuge units to comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain language in regulations; as such, these particular revisions do not modify the substance of the previous regulations. These types of changes include using “you” to refer to the reader and “we” to refer to the Refuge System, using the word “allow” instead of “permit” when we do not require the use of a permit for an activity, and using active voice (
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination on the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, use fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule adds one national wildlife refuge to the list of refuges open to hunting, increases hunting activities on six national wildlife refuges, and increases fishing activities at one national wildlife refuge. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these national wildlife refuges will change. If the refuges establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of such activities, it would mean an estimated
To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the refuge that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national estimates from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $1.3 million in recreation-related expenditures (Table 2). By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of these recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.67) derived from the report “Economic Importance of Hunting in America” and a national impact multiplier for fishing activities (2.79) derived from the report “Economic Importance of Fishing in America” yields a total economic impact of approximately $3.5 million (2009 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2007). Using a local impact multiplier would yield more accurate and smaller results. However, we employed the national impact multiplier due to the difficulty in developing local multipliers for each specific region.
Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most of this spending would be “new” money coming into a local economy; therefore, this spending would be offset with a decrease in some other sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies would be no more than $3.5 million, and most likely considerably less. Since 80 percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in hunting and fishing activities, their spending patterns would not add new money into the local economy and, therefore, the real impact would be on the order of about $695,000 annually.
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may be impacted from some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local communities around national wildlife refuges qualify as small businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect approximately $695,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The maximum increase ($3.5 million if all spending were new money) at most would be less than 1 percent for local retail trade spending.
This final rule reflects a change for Rappahannock River Valley NWR as being in three different counties in Virginia: Caroline, Essex, and Richmond. The proposed rule incorrectly stated the refuge was located in Northumberland County.
With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will have more than a small impact from the spending change near the affected refuges. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States and, therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending at national wildlife refuges. Therefore, this rule will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.
Since this rule applies to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule will not have significant takings implications. This regulation affects only visitors at national wildlife refuges and describes what they can do while they are on a refuge.
As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we worked with State governments.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The regulation clarifies established regulations and results in better understanding of the regulations by refuge visitors.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule increases activities at seven refuges and opens one new refuge, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.
This regulation does not contain any information collection requirements other than those already approved by the Office of Management and Budget
We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 43 CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to publication of amendments to refuge-specific hunting and fishing regulations since they are technical and procedural in nature, and the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8). Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each proposal. This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document (516 DM 3.2A).
Prior to the addition of a refuge to the list of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32, we develop hunting and fishing plans for the affected refuges. We incorporate these refuge hunting and fishing activities in the refuge CCPs and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these CCPs and step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. We invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA compliance are available from the refuges at the addresses provided below.
Individual refuge headquarters have information about public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps of their respective areas. To find out how to contact a specific refuge, contact the appropriate Regional offices listed below:
Leslie A. Marler, Management Analyst, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System is the primary author of this rulemaking document.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i.
1. We prohibit hunting within 100 yards (90 m) of the fenced-in refuge work center area, hiking trail, and refuge boat ramp.
2. We prohibit marking trees and using flagging tape, reflective tacks, and other similar marking devices.
3. We allow take of incidental species as listed in the refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) during any hunt with those weapons legal during those hunts.
4. Hunters must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) when hunting.
5. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a license and permit. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
6. We prohibit overnight mooring or storage of boats.
7. We require hunters to check all harvested game at the conclusion of each day at one of the refuge check out stations.
8. A hunter may only use approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)). We restrict hunting weapons to shotguns with shot size no larger than No. 6 or rifles no larger than .22 standard rimfire or legal archery equipment.
9. We prohibit the use of mules, horses, and ATVs.
10. We allow dogs for upland game hunting except in Middle Swamp. We allow dogs only in Middle Swamp the last 2 weeks of upland game season.
1. Conditions B1 through B9 apply.
2. We require tree stand users to use a safety belt or harness.
3. We prohibit damaging trees or hunting from a tree that contains an inserted metal object (see § 32.2(i)). We require hunters to remove all tree stands and blinds daily (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
4. We prohibit participation in organized drives.
5. We prohibit hunting by aid or distribution of any feed, salt, or other mineral at any time (see § 32.2(h)).
1. We allow fishing year-round, except in the waterfowl sanctuary, which we close from December 1 through March 1.
2. With the exception of the refuge boat ramp, we limit access from ½ hour before legal sunrise to
3. We allow a rod and reel and pole and line. We prohibit all other methods of fishing.
4. We prohibit the taking of frogs and turtles (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit bow fishing.
6. We prohibit the use of airboats, hovercrafts, and inboard-water-thrust boats such as, but not limited to, personal watercraft, watercycles, and waterbikes.
7. We require a refuge Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383) for commercial fishing. Commercial anglers may use nets, seines, baskets, and boxes legal for use within the State of Alabama.
8. We prohibit mooring or storing of boats from
1. You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt brochure (permit) when hunting.
6. All waterfowl hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our waterfowl hunt must submit a Waterfowl Lottery Application (FWS Form 3-2355). Consult the refuge brochure for details.
3. All youth gun hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our youth gun hunt must submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2356). Consult the refuge brochure for details.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
* * *
2. You may possess only nontoxic shot while hunting in the field (see § 32.2(k)).
3. We prohibit hunting within 50 yards (45 m) of any building, road, or levee open to public use.
4. We allow hunting/angling on the refuge only in those areas posted or designated as open. The public hunting area is generally described as south of the Bill Williams Road and east of Arizona State Rt. 95 plus the south half of Section 35, T 11N-R 17W as posted. We close the isolated grow-out cove near the visitor center to fishing as posted.
5. We allow hunting/angling in accordance with State regulations only for the listed species.
6. You may retrieve fish or game from an area closed to hunting or entry only upon specific consent from an authorized refuge employee.
10. All refuge visitors must remove all personal items from the refuge at the end of each day's activity,
1. Conditions A4 through A11 apply.
2. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 44A, we allow hunting on the refuge only in those areas south of the Bill Williams River Road and east of Arizona State Rt. 95 plus the south half of Section 35, T 11N-R 17W as posted.
3. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 16A, we allow hunting for desert bighorn sheep only in those areas north of the Bill Williams River.
1. Conditions A4 through A11 apply.
3. We designate all refuge waters as wakeless speed zones (as defined by State law).
2. Conditions A1 through A3 apply.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
1. We require refuge hunting permits. The permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable, and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign, possess, and carry the permits at all times.
2. We allow hunting of duck, goose, coot, dove, and snipe daily until 12 p.m. (noon) throughout the State seasons, except for season closures on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt and for the exception provided in A3.
3. We allow hunting for goose from
4. We allow hunting for woodcock daily throughout the State seasons, except for season closures during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
5. We prohibit commercial hunting/guiding.
6. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot shells for hunting while in the field (see § 32.2(k)) in quantities of 25 or less. The possession limit includes shells located in/on vehicles and other personal equipment. The field possession limit for shells does not apply to goose hunting after the closing of the duck season in January.
7. We prohibit hunting closer than 100 yards (90 m) to another hunter or hunting party.
8. You must remove decoys, blinds, boats, and all other equipment (see § 27.93 of this chapter) daily by 1 p.m.
9. Waterfowl hunters may enter the refuge at 4 a.m.
10. Boats with the owner's name and address permanently displayed or valid registration may be left on the refuge from March 1 through October 31. We prohibit the use of boats from 12 p.m. (midnight) to 4 a.m. during duck season.
11. Hunters may use and possess only biodegradable materials to mark trails.
12. We prohibit building or hunting from permanent blinds. We prohibit driving or screwing any metal object into a tree or hunting from a tree in which a metal object has been driven or screwed to support a hunter (see § 32.2(i)).
13. We prohibit cutting of holes or manipulation of vegetation (i.e., cutting bushes, mowing, weed-eating, herbicide use, etc.) and hunting from manipulated areas (see § 27.51 of this chapter).
14. We allow use of dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
15. We allow waterfowl hunting from refuge roads and levees.
16. Any hunter born after 1968 must carry a valid hunter education card. An adult at least age 21 must supervise hunters under age 16 who have a valid hunter education card and remain within sight and normal voice contact with the youth. Hunters under age 16 do not need to have a card if they are under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of an adult (at least age 21) holder of a valid hunting license. An adult may supervise up to two youths for migratory bird and upland game hunting but may supervise only one youth for big game hunting. We will honor home State hunter education cards.
17. We prohibit target practice or nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
18. We allow vehicle use only on established roads and trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter). We limit vehicle access on the Mingo Creek unit to ATV use only, only on marked ATV trails, September 1 through February 28, and only to provide access for hunting beyond Parking Areas. Hunters may use conventional vehicles on the Farm Unit from March 1 through November 14 only. Hunters may only use ATVs from September 1 through February 28 and only to provide access for hunting beyond Parking Areas. We prohibit driving around a locked gate, barrier, or beyond a sign closing a road to vehicular traffic (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
19. We prohibit entry into or hunting in waterfowl sanctuaries from November 15 through February 28.
20. Hunters must adhere to all public use special conditions and regulations on the annual hunt brochure/permit.
21. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Ski, etc.).
22. We prohibit the possession or use of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)).
1. Conditions A1, A5, A10 through A12, and A16 through A22 apply.
2. Hunters may use shotguns only with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges.
3. We allow squirrel hunting September 1 through February 28 on the Mingo Creek Unit and on the Farm Unit, except for season closure on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We prohibit dogs, except for the period of December 1 through February 28.
4. We allow rabbit hunting in accordance with the State season on the Mingo Creek Unit and on the Farm Unit, except for season closure on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We prohibit dogs, except for the period of December 1 through February 28.
5. We allow quail hunting in accordance with the State season except for season closure on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
6. We allow hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs on all refuge hunt
7. We prohibit the use of horses and mules.
8. Hunters may take beaver, muskrat, nutria, armadillo, feral hog, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the device allowed for that hunt subject to State seasons.
9. We prohibit hunting from refuge roads except by waterfowl hunters.
10. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle.
11. We limit nighttime use to fishing, frogging, and/or raccoon/opossum hunting, and the angler or hunter must possess the appropriate tackle or gear.
1. Conditions A1, A5, A10 through A12, A16 through A22, and B8 through B11 apply.
2. We divide the refuge into two hunting units: Farm Unit and Mingo Creek Unit.
3. The archery/crossbow hunting season for deer begins on the opening day of the State season and continues throughout the State season in the Mingo Creek Unit and Farm Unit except for the season closure on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We provide annual season dates and bag limits on the hunt brochure/permit (signature required).
4. Muzzleloader hunting season for deer will begin in October and continue for a period of up to 9 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit.
5. The modern gun hunting season for deer will begin in November and continue for a period of up to 9 days on the Farm Unit with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit. We close the Mingo Creek Unit.
6. The fall archery/crossbow hunting season for turkey will begin on the opening day of the State season and continue throughout the State season on the Mingo Creek Unit only.
7. We prohibit spring and fall gun hunting for turkey.
8. Immediately record the zone 002 on your hunting license and later at an official check station for all deer and turkey harvested on the refuge.
9. You may use only shotguns with rifled slugs, muzzleloaders, and legal pistols for modern gun deer hunting.
10. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried by a single individual. Hunters may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries prior to November 15, except for stands used by Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders (signature required), which must be removed by the last day of the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. Hunters must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Hunters must permanently affix their name and address to their deer stands on the refuge.
11. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle or use of a vehicle as a deer stand.
12. We prohibit the use of dogs.
13. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
14. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road right-of-ways.
15. Refuge lands are located in State-designated Flood Prone Region B, and we will close them to all deer hunting when the White River Gauge at Augusta reaches 31 feet (9.3 m), as reported by the National Weather Service at
16. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders on the Farm Unit during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt and only for the purposes of deer hunting. We close the refuge to all other entry and public use during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
17. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entry and hunting from November 15 to February 28 except for Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit holders who may hunt the sanctuary when the season overlaps with these dates.
1. Conditions A10, A18 through A21, B11, and C16 apply.
2. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entry and fishing/frogging from November 15 to February 28. We also close the Farm Unit to all entry and fishing during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. We prohibit commercial fishing.
4. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit mooring houseboats to the refuge bank on the Little Red River.
1. We require refuge hunt permits. The permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable and anyone on refuge land in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. We provide annual season dates for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum hunting in the refuge hunting brochure/permit.
3. We allow take of nutria, beaver, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the device allowed for that hunt subject to State seasons.
4. Any hunter born after 1968 must carry a valid hunter education card. An adult age 21 or older must supervise and remain within sight and normal voice contact with hunters under age 16 who have a valid hunter education card. Hunters under age 16 do not need to have a card if they are under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of an adult (age 21 or older) holder of a valid hunting license. An adult may supervise up to two youths for upland game hunting but may supervise only one youth for big game hunting. We will honor home State hunter education cards.
5. We prohibit target practice or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
6. You may take opossum when hunting raccoon.
7. We require dogs for night hunting of raccoon and opossum. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
8. When hunting, you may only use shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges.
9. We prohibit boats from November 1 through February 28, except on that portion of the refuge open for public fishing with electric motors and Ditch 28.
10. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or gravel road right-of-ways.
11. We prohibit ATVs (see § 27.31(f) of this chapter).
12. We prohibit horses and mules.
13. We limit nighttime use to fishing, frogging, and/or raccoon/opossum hunting, and the angler or hunter must possess the appropriate tackle or gear.
14. We prohibit driving around a locked gate, barrier, or beyond a sign
15. We prohibit the possession or use of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)).
16. You must adhere to all public use special conditions and regulations on the annual hunt brochure/permit.
1. Conditions B1, B3 through B5, and B9 through B16 apply.
3. Hunters may use only bows or crossbows.
5. Hunters may possess or use only biodegradable materials to mark trails.
8. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried by a single individual. Hunters may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Hunters must permanently affix their name and address to their deer stands on the refuge.
12. Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m.
1. Conditions B9, B11 through B14, and B16 apply.
2. Anglers may launch boats only in designated areas.
3. We prohibit airboats, personal watercraft, Jet Skis, and hovercraft (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
4. We allow frogging from the beginning of the State frogging season through October 31.
5. We allow the take of largemouth bass in accordance with State regulations.
6. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
7. We require a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383) for all commercial fishing activities on the refuge.
1. We require refuge hunting permits. These permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable, and anyone on the refuge in possession of hunting equipment must sign and carry the permit at all times.
2. We allow hunting of duck, goose, coot, dove, and snipe daily until 12 p.m. (noon) throughout the State seasons, except for refuge-wide season closures during Quota Gun Deer Hunt and the exception provided in A3.
3. We allow hunting for goose from
4. We allow hunting for woodcock daily throughout the State seasons except for season closures during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
5. We prohibit commercial hunting and/or guiding.
6. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot while hunting in the field (see § 32.2(k)).
7. You must remove decoys, blinds, boats, and all other equipment (see § 27.93 of this chapter) daily by 1 p.m.
8. Waterfowl hunters may enter the refuge at 4 a.m.
9. Boats with the owner's name and address permanently displayed or valid registration may be left on the refuge from March 1 through October 31. We prohibit boats on the refuge from 12 p.m. (midnight) to 4 a.m. during duck season.
10. Hunters may possess or use only biodegradable materials to mark trails.
11. We prohibit building or hunting from permanent blinds. We prohibit driving or screwing any metal object into a tree or hunting from a tree in which a metal object has been driven or screwed to support a hunter (see § 32.2(i)).
12. We prohibit cutting of holes or other manipulation of vegetation (e.g., cutting bushes, mowing, weed-eating, herbicide use, and other actions) or hunting from manipulated areas (see § 27.51 of this chapter).
13. We allow use of dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
14. We allow waterfowl hunting on flooded refuge roads.
15. Any hunter born after 1968 must carry a valid hunter education card. An adult at least age 21 must supervise and remain within sight and normal voice contact with hunters younger than age 16 who have a valid hunter education card. Hunters younger than age 16 do not need to have a card if they are under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of a holder of a valid hunting license of at least age 21. An adult may supervise up to two youths for migratory bird and upland game hunting but may supervise only one youth for big game hunting. We will honor home State hunter education cards.
16. We prohibit target practice or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
17. We prohibit ATVs except from September 1 through February 28, on designated roads, trails, or established parking areas, and only to provide access for hunting. We prohibit driving around a locked gate, barrier, or beyond a sign closing a road to vehicular traffic (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
18. We prohibit entry into or hunting in waterfowl sanctuaries from November 15 through February 28.
19. You must adhere to all public use special conditions and regulations on the annual hunt brochure/permit.
20. We close all other hunts during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit (signature only required) holders to enter the refuge during this hunt and only for the purpose of deer hunting.
21. We prohibit airboats, hovercraft, and personal watercraft (Jet Ski, etc.) (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
1. Conditions A1, A5, A9 through A11, and A15 through A21 apply.
2. We allow squirrel hunting September 1 through February 28 on all refuge hunt units except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We prohibit dogs, except during the period December 1 through February 28.
3. Rabbit season corresponds with the State season on all refuge hunt units except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We prohibit dogs except during the period December 1 through February 28.
4. Quail season corresponds with the State season on all refuge hunt units except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow dogs.
5. We allow hunting of raccoon and opossum with dogs on all refuge hunt units. We require dogs for hunting of raccoon/opossum at night. We provide annual season dates in the refuge hunting brochure/permit. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
6. We prohibit horses and mules.
7. You may take beaver, muskrat, nutria, armadillo, feral hog, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the device allowed for that hunt.
8. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled refuge roads except by waterfowl hunters during flooded conditions.
9. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle.
10. You may use only shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges when hunting.
11. We limit nighttime use to fishing, frogging, and/or raccoon/opossum hunting, and the angler or hunter must possess appropriate tackle or gear.
1. Conditions A1, A5, A9 through A11, A15 through A21, B6 through B9, and B11 apply.
2. We divide the refuge into the following three hunting units: Unit I—refuge lands between Highway 79 and Interstate 40; Unit II—all refuge lands east of Highway 33 between Interstate 40 and Highway 18 at Grubbs, Arkansas; and Unit III—all refuge lands west of Highway 33, from Interstate 40 to Highway 64.
3. Archery/crossbow hunting season for deer begins on the opening day of the State season and continues throughout the State season in all refuge hunting units except for refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We provide annual season dates and bag limits on the hunt brochure/permit.
4. Muzzleloader hunting season for deer will begin in October and will continue for a period of up to 9 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit.
5. Modern gun deer hunting will begin in November and continue for a period of up to 11 days in all hunting units with annual season dates and bag limits provided on the hunt brochure/permit.
6. The fall archery/crossbow hunting season for turkey will begin on the opening day of the State season and continue throughout the State season in Hunt Units I, III, and those Unit II lands that are located within the State fall archery/crossbow turkey zone. We close Unit II lands outside the fall archery/crossbow turkey zone. We prohibit turkey hunting during the refuge-wide season closure during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We do not open for fall gun hunting for turkeys.
7. The spring gun hunt for turkey will begin on the opening day of the State season and continue throughout the State season in Hunt Units I and III. We close Unit II lands with the exception of those refuge lands included in the combined Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area/Cache River National Wildlife Refuge quota permit hunts administered by the State.
8. Immediately record the zone 095 on your hunting license and later at an official check station for all deer and turkey harvested on the refuge.
9. Hunters may only use shotguns with rifled slugs, muzzleloaders, or legal pistols for modern gun deer hunting on the Dixie Farm Unit Waterfowl Sanctuary, adjacent waterfowl hunt area, and the Plunkett Farm Unit Waterfowl Sanctuary.
10. We allow only portable deer stands capable of being carried by a single individual.
11. We prohibit use of a vehicle as a deer stand.
12. You must permanently affix the owner's name and address to all deer stands on the refuge.
13. Hunters may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries prior to November 15, and from the rest of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
14. We prohibit the use of dogs.
15. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
16. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road right-of-ways.
17. We will close refuge lands located in State-designated Flood Prone Region B to all deer hunting when the White River gauge at Augusta reaches 31 feet (9.3 m), as reported by the National Weather Service at
18. We will close refuge lands located in State-designated Flood Prone Region C to all deer hunting when the Cache River gauge at Patterson exceeds 10 feet (3 m), as reported by the National Weather Service at
19. We will close refuge lands located in Flood Prone Region D to all deer and turkey hunting when the White River gauge at Clarendon reaches 28 feet (8.4 m), as reported by the National Weather Service at
1. Conditions A9, A17, A19, A21, and B11 apply.
2. We close waterfowl sanctuaries to all entrance and fishing/frogging from November 15 to February 28. We prohibit refuge-wide entry and fishing during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt.
3. We require a Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383) for all commercial fishing activities on the refuge.
4. We prohibit the take or possession of turtles and/or mollusks (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit the mooring of houseboats to refuge property.
1. We allow hunting of duck, goose, and coot during the State waterfowl season except during scheduled quota refuge Gun Deer Hunts.
2. Hunting of duck, goose, and coot ends at 12 p.m. (noon) each day.
3. We allow only portable blinds. You must remove all duck hunting equipment (portable blinds, boats, guns, and decoys) (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the hunt area by 1:30 p.m. each day.
4. You may possess only approved nontoxic shells when hunting (see § 32.2(k)) in quantities of 25 or less each day during waterfowl season; hunters may not discharge more than 25 shells per day.
5. We close areas of the refuge posted with “Area Closed” signs and identify them on the refuge hunt brochure map as a waterfowl sanctuary. Waterfowl sanctuaries are closed to all public entry and public use during waterfowl hunting season.
6. No person will utilize the services of a guide, guide service, outfitter, club, organization, or other person who provides equipment, services, or assistance on Refuge System lands for compensation. Failure to comply with this provision subjects each hunter in the party to a fine if convicted of this violation.
7. Hunters must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt brochure permit while hunting. These hunt brochure permits are available at the refuge office, brochure dispensers at multiple locations throughout the refuge, and area businesses.
8. We prohibit possession and/or use of herbicides.
9. We prohibit marking trails with tape, ribbon, paint, or any other
10. We prohibit possession or use of alcoholic beverage(s) while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit consumption or possession of opened container(s) of alcoholic beverage(s) in parking lots, on roadways, and in plain view in campgrounds.
11. All persons born after 1968 must possess a valid hunter education card in order to hunt.
12. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a valid hunting license. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
13. We allow only all-terrain vehicles/utility-type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs) for hunting and fishing activities. We restrict ATVs/UTVs to designated times and designated trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter) marked with signs and paint. We identify these trails and the dates they are open for use in the refuge hunt brochure. We limit ATVs/UTVs to those having an engine displacement size not exceeding 700cc. We limit ATV/UTV tires to those having a centerline lug depth not exceeding 1 inch (2.5 cm). You may use horses on roads and ATV/UTV trails (when open to motor vehicle and ATV/UTV traffic respectively) as a mode of transportation for on-refuge, hunting and fishing activities.
14. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 m) of roads and trails open to motor vehicle use (including ATV/UTV trails).
15. We prohibit target practice with any firearm, archery tackle, or crossbow or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
16. We allow camping only at designated primitive campground sites identified in the refuge hunt brochure, and we restrict camping to individuals involved in wildlife-dependent refuge activities. Campers may stay no more than 14 days during any 30 consecutive-day period in any campground and must occupy camps daily. We prohibit all disturbances, including use of generators, after 10 p.m. You must unload all hunting weapons (see § 27.42(b) of this chapter) within 100 yards (90 m) of a campground.
17. You may take beaver, nutria, feral hog, and coyote during any daytime refuge hunt with weapons and ammunition allowed for that hunt. There is no bag limit. You may not transport or possess live hog.
18. We prohibit blocking of gates, roadways, and boat ramps (see § 27.31(h) of this chapter).
19. We allow the use of retriever dogs.
20. We prohibit the use or possession of any electronic call or other electronic device used for producing or projecting vocal sounds of any wildlife species.
1. Conditions A4 through A18 and A20 apply.
2. We allow hunting for the species listed above on the refuge during State seasons for this zone through January 31. We list specific hunting season dates annually in the refuge hunt brochure. We close upland game hunting during refuge quota deer hunts. We annually publish dates for these quota deer hunts in the refuge hunt brochure.
3. We do not open for spring squirrel hunting season, summer/early fall raccoon hunting season, or spring bobcat hunting season.
4. We prohibit possession of lead ammunition except that you may use rimfire rifle lead ammunition no larger than .22 caliber for upland game hunting. We prohibit possession of shot larger than that legal for waterfowl hunting. During the deer and turkey hunts, hunters may use lead ammunition legal for taking deer and turkey. We prohibit buckshot for gun deer hunting.
5. You may use dogs for squirrel and rabbit hunting from the opening of furbearer (as defined by State law) hunting season through January 31. You may also use dogs for quail hunting and for raccoon/opossum hunting during open season on the refuge for these species. At other times, you must keep dogs and other pets on a leash or confined (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. Conditions A6 through A11, A13 through A18, and A20 apply.
3. We close archery deer hunting during the quota gun deer hunts.
4. The refuge will conduct no more than two muzzleloader deer hunts and no more than four quota modern gun deer hunts.
5. We restrict hunt participants for quota hunts to those drawn for a quota permit (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application; FWS Form 3-2356). The permits are nontransferable and permit fees are nonrefundable. If conditions prevent the hunts from occurring, there will not be any refunds or permits carried over from year to year. Hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in July.
6. The muzzleloader and modern gun deer hunt bag limit is two deer with no more than one buck on each hunt.
7. Hunters must check all harvested deer during quota hunts at refuge deer check stations on the same day of the kill. We identify the check station locations in the refuge hunt brochure. Carcasses of deer taken must remain intact (except you may field dress) until checked.
8. You may only use portable deer stands erected no earlier than 2 days before the opening of the State deer season and you must remove them no later than February 2 each year (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
9. We prohibit the use of deer decoy(s).
13. The refuge will conduct no more than three quota permit spring turkey gun hunts. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany the youth hunter age 15 and younger.
14. An adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany and be within sight and normal voice contact of hunters age 15 and younger. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
15. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, boat, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name and address clearly written in a conspicuous location.
1. Conditions A6, A8, A9, A13, A16, and A18 apply.
2. We prohibit fishing in the waterfowl sanctuary area during the waterfowl hunting season, with the exception of the main channel of the Ouachita and Saline Rivers and the borrow pits along Highway 82. We post the waterfowl sanctuary area with “Area Closed” signs and identify those areas in refuge hunt brochures.
3. We allow fishing only in areas accessible from the Oauchita and Saline Rivers and Eagle, Jones, and Pereogeethe Lakes during the refuge quota gun hunts.
4. You must reset trotlines when receding water levels expose them.
5. We prohibit consumption or possession of opened container(s) of alcoholic beverage(s) in parking lots, on
6. We allow ATVs only for hunters with disabilities. We require a refuge ATV permit (Special Use Permit; FWS Form 3-1383) issued by the refuge manager.
11. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 m) of roads open to motor vehicle use and nature trails.
13. We allow the use of nonmotorized boats during the refuge fishing/boating season (March 1 to October 31), but we prohibit hunters leaving boats on the refuge overnight (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
1. Conditions B1 and B4 through B13 apply.
2. We allow archery/crossbow hunting for white-tailed deer. We provide annual season dates in the hunt brochure/permit (name, address, signature required).
1. Conditions B6, B7, and B9 apply.
1. We allow hunting of duck, goose, and coot during the State waterfowl season. We do not open during the September teal season.
3. We allow only portable blinds. Hunters must remove portable blinds, boats, and decoys from the hunt area by 1:30 p.m. each day (see § 27.93 of this chapter). Exception: Hunters may store boats in designated areas identified on refuge brochure.
5. We close areas of the refuge by posting “Area Closed” signs and identifying them on the refuge hunt brochure map as Sanctuary and closed to all public entry and public use. Exception: We open the area identified as North Sanctuary on refuge hunt brochure map to all authorized public use activities from 2 days prior to opening of deer archery season through October 31. We close the South Waterfowl Sanctuary from December 1 until the end of waterfowl season.
7. You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt brochure permit while hunting. These hunt brochure permits are available at the refuge office, brochure dispensers at multiple locations throughout the refuge, and area businesses.
9. We prohibit marking trails with tape, ribbon, paint, or any other substance other than biodegradable paper flagging, reflective twist ties, or reflective tacks (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
10. We prohibit possession or use of alcoholic beverage(s) while hunting (see § 32.2(j)). We prohibit consumption or possession of opened container(s) of alcoholic beverage(s) in parking lots and roadways.
12. All youth hunters age 15 and younger must remain within sight and normal voice contact of an adult age 21 or older, possessing a valid hunting license. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.
13. We allow only all-terrain vehicles/utility-type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs) for hunting activities. We restrict ATVs/UTVs to designated times and designated trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter) marked with signs and paint. We identify those trails and the dates they are open for use in the refuge hunt brochure. We limit ATVs/UTVs to those having an engine displacement size not exceeding 700cc. We limit ATV/UTV tires to those having a centerline lug depth not exceeding 1 inch (2.5 cm). You may use horses on roads and ATV/UTV trails (when open to motor vehicle and ATV/UTV traffic respectively) as a mode of transportation for on-refuge, hunting activities. You may use ATVs/UTVs on unmarked roads and levees in the North Sanctuary beginning 2 days prior to the opening of deer archery season through October 31.
14. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 m) of roads and trails open to motor vehicle use (including ATV/UTV trails).
15. We prohibit target practice with any firearm, archery tackle, or crossbow or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
16. We prohibit blocking of gates, roadways, and boat ramps (see § 27.31(h) of this chapter).
17. You may take beaver, nutria, feral hog, and coyote during any daytime refuge hunt with weapons and ammunition legal for that hunt. There is no bag limit. We prohibit transportation or possession of live hog.
1. Conditions A4 through A17, and A19 apply.
3. We do not open for the spring squirrel hunting season, summer/fall raccoon hunting season, or the spring bobcat hunting season.
4. When upland game hunting, we prohibit possession of lead ammunition except that you may use rimfire rifle lead ammunition no larger than .22 caliber. We prohibit possession of shot larger than that legal for waterfowl hunting. During the deer and turkey hunts, we allow use of lead ammunition legal for taking deer and turkey. We prohibit buckshot for gun deer hunting.
5. You may use dogs for squirrel and rabbit hunting from December 1 through January 31. You may also use dogs for quail hunting and for raccoon/opossum hunting during open season on the refuge for these species. At other times, you must keep dogs and other pets on a leash or confined (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
1. Conditions A5 through A11, A13 through A17, and A19 apply.
2. We allow muzzleloader deer hunting during the first State muzzleloader season for this zone (see State regulations for appropriate zone).
3. Bag limit for the muzzleloader deer hunt is two deer, with no more than one buck.
4. You may use only portable deer stands erected no earlier than 2 days before the opening of the State deer season, and you must remove them no later than February 2 each year (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
5. We prohibit the use of deer decoy(s).
8. We do not open for the fall turkey archery season or spring turkey gun season.
9. We do not open for the gun deer season or the second (and December) muzzleloader deer season.
10. An adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany and be within sight or normal voice contact of hunters age 15 and younger. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.
11. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, boat, or game
1. We allow hunting of migratory game birds during the State waterfowl seasons, except we close during scheduled quota refuge gun deer hunts.
3. We allow only portable blinds. You must remove portable blinds, boats, and decoys from the hunt area by 1:30 p.m. each day (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
5. You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt brochure permit while hunting. These hunt brochure permits are available at the refuge office, brochure dispensers at multiple locations throughout the refuge, and area businesses.
7. We prohibit marking trails with tape, ribbon, paint, or any other substance other than biodegradable paper flagging, reflective twist ties, or reflective tacks (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
11. We allow only all-terrain vehicles/utility-type vehicles (ATVs/UTVs) for hunting and fishing activities. We restrict ATVs/UTVs to designated times and designated trails (see § 27.31 of this chapter) marked with signs and paint. We identify those trails and the dates they are open for use in the refuge hunt brochure. We limit ATVs/UTVs to those having an engine displacement size not exceeding 700cc and a total width not to exceed 63 inches (160.02 cm). We limit ATV/UTV tires to those having a centerline lug depth not exceeding 1 inch (2.5 cm). You may use horses on roads and ATV/UTV trails (when open to motor vehicle and ATV/UTV traffic respectively) as a mode of transportation for on-refuge, hunting and fishing activities.
12. We prohibit hunting within 150 feet (45 m) of roads and trails open to motor vehicle use (including ATV/UTV trails).
13. We prohibit target practice with any firearm, archery tackle, or crossbow or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
14. We allow camping only at designated primitive campground sites identified in the refuge hunt brochure. We restrict camping to the individuals involved in refuge wildlife-dependent activities. Campers may stay no more than 14 days during any consecutive 30-day period in a campground and must occupy the camps daily. We prohibit all disturbances, including use of generators, after 10 p.m. You must unload all hunting firearms and crossbows (see § 27.42(b) of this chapter) within 100 yards (90 m) of a campground.
15. You may take beaver, nutria, feral hog, and coyote during any daytime refuge hunt with weapons and ammunition allowed for that hunt. We prohibit the use of dogs to take these species. There is no bag limit. You may not transport or possess live hog.
16. We prohibit blocking of gates, roadways, and boat ramps (see § 27.31(h) of this chapter).
17. We allow the use of retriever dogs.
18. We prohibit the use or possession of any electronic call or other electronic device used for producing or projecting vocal sounds of any wildlife species.
1. We allow hunting on the refuge during State seasons for this zone for the species listed above through January 31. We list specific hunting season dates annually in the refuge hunt brochure. We close upland game hunting during refuge quota deer hunts. We annually publish dates for these quota deer hunts in the refuge hunt brochure.
2. We do not open to spring squirrel hunting season, summer/early fall raccoon hunting season, or the spring bobcat hunting season.
3. Conditions A4 through A16, and A18 apply.
4. We prohibit possession of lead ammunition when hunting, except that you may use rimfire rifle lead ammunition no larger than .22 caliber for upland game hunting. We prohibit possession of shot larger than that legal for waterfowl hunting. During the deer and turkey hunts, we allow use of lead ammunition legal for taking deer and turkey. We prohibit buckshot for gun deer hunting.
5. You may use dogs for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum hunting from the opening of furbearer (as defined by State law) hunting season through January 31. At other times you must keep dogs and other pets on a leash or confined (see § 26.21(b) of this chapter).
2. Conditions A4 through A9, A11 through A16, and A18 apply.
4. We allow muzzleloader deer hunting during the early State muzzleloader season for this deer management zone. The bag limit for the refuge muzzleloader hunt is two deer, with no more than one buck.
5. The refuge will conduct no more than three quota gun deer hunts.
6. We restrict hunt participants for quota hunts to those drawn for a quota permit. These permits are nontransferable and permit fees are nonrefundable. If conditions prevent the hunts from taking place, there will be no refunds or permits carried over from year to year. Hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in July.
7. The quota Gun Deer Hunt bag limit is two deer, with no more than one buck (one buck and one doe).
8. You must check all deer at the refuge deer check station on the same day of kill. You must keep carcasses of deer taken intact (you may field dress) until checked.
12. You may use only portable deer stands erected no sooner than 2 days before the opening of the State deer season, and you must remove them no later than February 2 each year (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
13. We prohibit the use of deer decoy(s).
14. The refuge will conduct no more than two quota permit spring turkey gun hunts. Specific hunt dates and application procedures will be available at the refuge office in January. We restrict hunt participants on these hunts to those selected for a quota permit, except that one nonhunting adult age 21 or older and possessing a valid hunting license must accompany a youth hunter.
15. An adult age 21 or older possessing a valid hunting license must accompany and be within sight and normal voice contact of hunters age 15 and younger. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter during big game hunts.
16. We prohibit leaving any tree stand, ground blind, boat, or game camera on the refuge without the owner's name and address clearly written in a conspicuous location.
1. We require refuge hunting permits. The permits (found on the front cover of the annual hunt brochure/permit—signature required) are nontransferable and anyone on refuge land in possession
5. Hunters may enter the refuge at 4 a.m.
6. We prohibit ATVs.
7. Any hunter born after 1968 must carry a valid hunter education card. An adult age 21 or older must supervise hunters younger than age 16 who have a valid hunter education card and remain within sight and normal voice contact with the adult. Hunters younger than age 16 do not need to have a card if they are under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of a holder of a valid hunting license of at least age 21. An adult may supervise up to two youths for migratory bird and upland game hunting but may supervise only one youth for big game hunting. We honor home State hunter education cards.
8. Hunters may possess or use only biodegradable materials to mark trails (see § 27.93 of this chapter).
9. We prohibit target practice or any nonhunting discharge of firearms (see § 27.42 of this chapter).
10. We prohibit driving around a locked gate, barrier, or beyond a sign closing a road to vehicular traffic (see § 27.31 of this chapter).
11. We prohibit the possession or use of alcoholic beverages while hunting (see § 32.2(j)).
1. Conditions A1 and A3 through A11 apply.
2. You may use only shotguns with approved nontoxic shot (see § 32.2(k)) and rifles chambered for rimfire cartridges when hunting.
3. We provide annual season dates for squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum hunting on the hunt brochure/permit. We allow dogs.
4. You may take nutria, beaver, feral hog, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the device allowed for that hunt, subject to State seasons, on these species.
5. We require dogs for night hunting of raccoon/opossum. We prohibit field trials and organized training events.
6. We prohibit horses and mules.
7. We limit nighttime use to raccoon/opossum hunting and the hunters must possess appropriate gear.
8. We close all other hunts during the Quota Gun Deer Hunt. We allow only Quota Gun Deer Hunt permit (signature only required) holders to enter the refuge during this hunt and only for the purpose of deer hunting.
1. Conditions A1, A3 through A11, and B4 through B8 apply.
2. We prohibit hunting from mowed and/or graveled road right-of-ways.
7. We only allow portable deer stands capable of being carried by a single individual. Hunters may erect stands 7 days prior to the refuge deer season and must remove them from the waterfowl sanctuaries by December 1. Hunters must remove all stands on the remainder of the refuge within 7 days of the closure of archery season (see § 27.93 of this chapter). You must permanently affix the owner's name and address on stands left on the refuge.
8. We prohibit hunting from a vehicle or use of a vehicle as a deer stand.
9. We prohibit the possession or use of buckshot for hunting on all refuge lands.
1. Conditions A4, A6, A10, B6, and B7 apply. We allow fishing from March 15 through October 31 from
5. We allow bank fishing.
6. We prohibit the take or possession of frogs, mollusks, and/or turtles (see § 27.21 of this chapter).
7. Anglers may launch boats only in designated areas.
8. Anglers must remove all boats daily from the refuge (see § 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit airboats, personal watercraft, and hovercraft.
1. We require all refuge users to sign and possess a refuge user brochure/permit (signature required).
2. We allow duck hunting from legal shooting hours until 12 p.m. (noon).
3. We allow retriever dogs for migratory game bird hunting.
4. You must remove blinds, blind material, and decoys (see § 27.93 of this chapter) from the refuge by 1 p.m. each day.
5. You may take duck and coot during the State season in designated areas.
6. North Unit waterfowl season and youth waterfowl hunts are concurrent with State season dates.
7. We restrict the South Unit waterfowl season to the Jack's Bay hunt area as indicated in the refuge user brochure/permit. We open to hunting every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday of the concurrent State season dates, including State youth waterfowl hunt dates.
8. Waterfowl hunters may enter and access the refuge no earlier than 4 a.m.
9. We prohibit boating December 1 through January 31 in the South Unit Waterfowl Hunt Area, except from 4 am to 1 pm on designated waterfowl hunt days.
10. We prohibit marking trails with materials other than biodegradable paper flagging or reflective