Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Security Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established for the California Walnut Board (Board) for the 2010-11 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0177 to $0.0174 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board locally administers the marketing order that regulates the handling of walnuts grown in California. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Jeff Smutny, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA;
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the order, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable walnuts for the entire marketing year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. The marketing year begins on September 1 and ends on August 31.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 4,500 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 58 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. Small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.
USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports that the average yield for the 2009-10 crop was 1.96 tons per acre and the value of the 2009-10 crop was $1,690 per ton. Approximately 90 percent of California's walnut farms are smaller than 100 acres. A 100-acre farm with an average yield would have produced about 196 tons of walnuts during 2009-10. At $1,690 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $331,240. Based on these numbers, the majority of growers had receipts of less than $750,000. According to information supplied by the industry, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,000,000 during the 2009-10 marketing year. Therefore, the majority of California's walnut growers and handlers could be considered small entities according to SBA's definition.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2010-11 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0177 to $0.0174 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2010-11 expenditures of $6,812,100 and an assessment rate of $0.0174 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts, which is $0.0003 lower than the rate previously in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2010-11 marketing year is estimated at 391,500,000 kernelweight pounds. Thus, the $0.0174 rate should provide $6,812,100 in assessment income and be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
Major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2010-11 marketing year include: $4,400,000 for domestic market development, $1,042,000 for production research, $577,500 for employee
The Board recommended decreasing the assessment rate due to an expected increase in the quantity of assessable walnuts in the 2010-11 marketing year.
Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative expenditure levels but ultimately decided that the recommended levels were reasonable to properly administer the order. The assessment rate of $0.0174 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts was derived by dividing anticipated expenses of $6,812,100 by expected 2010-11 shipments of California walnuts. Merchantable shipments for the year are estimated at 391,500,000 kernelweight pounds, which should provide $6,812,100 in assessment income and allow the Board to cover its expenses.
Unexpended funds may be retained in a financial reserve, provided that funds in the financial reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. If not retained in a financial reserve, unexpended funds may be used temporarily to defray expenses of the subsequent marketing year, but must be made available to the handlers from whom they were collected within five months after the end of the year, according to § 984.69 of the order.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2010-2011 season could range between $1.42 and $1.88 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2010-2011 season as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.9 and 1.2 percent.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the cost savings may be passed on to growers. The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 11, 2010, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before November 15, 2010. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change. To view the interim rule, go to
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning the Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 984, which was published at 75 FR 55944 on September 15, 2010, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is amending its regulations that govern licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel. These amendments include changes that enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing process for spent nuclear fuel storage. Specifically, they extend and clarify the term limits for storage cask Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) and independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) specific licenses. The amendments also provide consistency between the general and specific ISFSI license requirements, and allow general licensees subject to these regulations to implement changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC (a “previously loaded cask”).
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
Keith McDaniel, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
On April 29, 2002, the Virginia Power and Electric Company (Dominion) submitted an application to renew Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License SNM-2501 for the Surry ISFSI. SNM-2501 authorizes the storage of spent nuclear fuel in casks at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant. In the renewal application, Dominion requested an exemption from the 20-year license renewal term specified in 10 CFR 72.42(a) and sought approval for a 40-year license renewal term. Similarly, on February 27, 2004, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. submitted an application for the renewal of H. B. Robinson's ISFSI license which requested an exemption from the provisions of § 72.42(a), so that the license renewal period for the H. B. Robinson's ISFSI could be extended from 20 to 40 years.
The NRC staff determined the 40-year renewal exemption request to be a policy decision, not a technical one, because the safety evaluation indicated sufficient technical information had been provided in the application to grant the 40-year renewal period. As a result, a Commission paper (SECY-04-0175) entitled, “Options for Addressing the Surry Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation License-Renewal Period Exemption Request,” was submitted on September 28, 2004, to request Commission approval of the Surry 40-year renewal exemption request.
On November 29, 2004, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-04-0175, which authorized the NRC staff to approve a 40-year license renewal term for the Surry ISFSI, with appropriate license conditions to manage the effects of aging. The SRM further directed the NRC staff to: (1) Initiate a program to review the technical basis for future rulemaking; (2) provide recommendations on the license term for part 72 CoCs for spent nuclear fuel cask storage systems; and (3) apply the Commission-approved guidance for part 72 renewals to future specific license exemption requests without further Commission approval. In response to this direction, the staff submitted a Commission paper (SECY-06-0152) entitled, “Title 10
In an SRM, dated August 14, 2006, the Commission authorized the staff to proceed with rulemaking proposals described in SECY-06-0152. In addition, the Commission specifically directed the staff to address the following points in the rulemaking: (1) Clarify the start of the 20-year term limit for cask designs approved under general license provisions; (2) identify whether the cask vendor or licensee is responsible for applying for the CoC renewals; (3) discuss possible conflicts that could arise for storage cask designs that are granted a license term extension and that have been approved for transport with a different license term; (4) discuss how the cask expiration dates are tracked at each general license site so that it is clearly understood when the CoC for each cask design must be renewed; and (5) clarify the difference between CoC “approval” and “renewal.”
As this rulemaking commenced, the NRC staff identified a related issue regarding its approval of Amendment 4 to CoC 72-1026, which revised cask monitoring and surveillance requirements for the BNG Fuel Solutions W-150 storage cask. Subsequent to the approval, the certificate holder requested guidance from the NRC on the implementation of the changes authorized by the CoC amendment to previously loaded casks. In addition to this request, the NRC staff became aware of the belief among some general licensees that changes authorized by CoC amendments can be applied to previously loaded casks without prior NRC approval, if an analysis under § 72.48 is performed.
The NRC staff determined that under the current regulations, changes authorized by CoC amendments cannot be applied to previously loaded casks without express NRC approval, if such change results in a change to the terms or conditions of the CoC under which the cask was loaded. A previously loaded cask is bound by the terms and conditions (including the technical specifications) of the CoC applicable to that cask when the licensee loaded the cask. Therefore, under the current regulations, general licensees that want to apply changes approved by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask must request an exemption from the
In the SRM for COMSECY-07-0032, dated December 12, 2007, the Commission stated that it did not object to the staff expanding the scope of the proposed rulemaking to include the following two issues: (1) To extend the terms of specific ISFSI licenses, for both initial and renewal terms, to not to exceed 40 years; and (2) to allow a general licensee to apply changes for a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask without express NRC approval, while still ensuring that this action protects public health and safety.
In the August 14, 2006, SRM for SECY-06-0152, the Commission directed the NRC staff to be as transparent as possible in developing the proposed rule package, including making draft text available for comment to stakeholders, and holding public meetings, if necessary, before formal submission of the proposed rule to the Commission. In response, the NRC staff held public meetings on November 7, 2006, and February 29, 2008, to discuss the technical basis of the rulemaking with stakeholders. In addition, on August 4, 2008, the NRC staff made preliminary draft rule text available for comment to stakeholders on Regulations.gov (Docket ID NRC-2008-0361). The only external stakeholders that submitted comments were the Nuclear Energy Institute and Florida Power and Light. The comments generally supported the rulemaking. The “Discussion” section of this document includes NRC responses to significant stakeholder comments.
The NRC published the proposed rule, “License and Certificate of Compliance Terms” in the
The NRC is revising part 72 requirements for specific and general ISFSI licensees and part 72 requirements pertaining to CoCs to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing process.
For specific ISFSI licenses, the Commission is codifying a technical approach consistent with that applied in granting the 40-year exemptions for the Surry and H. B. Robinson specific ISFSI license renewals, so that all specific ISFSI licensees will have the flexibility to request initial and renewal terms not to exceed 40 years while ensuring safe and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel.
For CoCs, the Commission is also allowing the flexibility for CoC applicants and CoC holders to request, respectively, initial terms and renewal terms not to exceed 40 years. The response to Question “C” of this section discusses the technical basis for this change. Under this change, applicants and CoC holders will be required to demonstrate that design and operational programs are suitable for the requested term. The NRC staff has developed a standard review plan (SRP) for renewal applications. The final rule amendments also clarify the term (length) of the general license, particularly as the general license term relates to CoC renewals (
For both specific licenses and CoCs, the final rule adds a requirement that renewal applicants must provide TLAAs and a description of an AMP (
The NRC is replacing the term “reapproval,” which is used to describe the process of extending the CoC terms, to “renewal” for consistency with specific license terminology. Question “E” of this section discusses the rationale for this change.
The final rule will also allow general licensees to implement changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask, provided that the loaded cask then conforms to the CoC amendment codified by the NRC in § 72.214 and thus, continues to ensure the safe and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel. Question “N” of this section discusses the rationale for this change.
The final rule will affect part 72 specific and general licensees and CoC holders and applicants for a CoC.
The NRC is amending § 72.42 to increase the initial terms and renewal terms for specific ISFSI licenses from not to exceed 20 years to not to exceed 40 years. This increase is consistent with the NRC staff's findings regarding the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage, as documented in the renewal exemptions issued to the Surry and H. B. Robinson ISFSIs. During the review for the Surry and H. B. Robinson renewal applications, the NRC staff evaluated the technical data resulting from an NRC-supported research program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), formerly Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and also considered experience with spent fuel storage casks used at Surry. Under the INL research program, INL opened a storage cask after the fuel had been stored for approximately 15 years. At Surry, several casks were also opened after less than 15 years of storage as a result of some faulty weather covers, which were corrected. Summaries of the findings regarding the condition of the fuel and cask components follow:
(1) Cladding creep is a time-dependent change in the dimension of the cladding resulting from high temperature and stress. It was considered as a potential degradation mechanism during storage. Confirmatory inspection of the spent fuel stored at INL verified that no cladding creep had occurred. The spent fuel in storage at Surry also supports this finding. The NRC staff expects very little to no fuel degradation at the end of an extended licensing period. The established limits for cladding temperature during storage accompanied by a continually decreasing level of cladding stress and temperature, further remove creep as a degradation mechanism. Assessment of these factors indicates that cladding creep will not be an issue during a 40 year term.
(2) The NRC staff also expects limited degradation of other internal components because there are no significant corrosive influences in the inert environment, either for the fuel or for other components. The INL inspection verified that there was no indication of corrosion for any internal canister components. The NRC staff has also concluded that radiation levels are too low to significantly alter the properties of the metals for any storage canister components.
(3) The other external components of the storage systems (which are exposed to weathering effects) would already be covered by an inspection and corrective action program, or routine maintenance, to ensure that any degradation will be identified and assessed for its importance to safety, and will be addressed through corrective actions to ensure continued safe operation of the storage system.
Based on these findings, the Commission concludes that, with
This final rule amends § 72.42 by extending the term allowed for specific ISFSI licenses from not to exceed 20 years to not to exceed 40 years. This extension applies to both the initial terms and renewal terms. Any request for a term greater than 40 years would be processed as an exemption under § 72.7. The NRC does not plan to ordinarily grant license term requests for greater than 40 years. As discussed in Question “C” of this section, the NRC believes that terms that do not exceed 40 years are reasonable and provide adequate protection of public health and safety, if the applicant demonstrates to the NRC appropriate aging management and maintenance programs.
If an applicant requests a specific license term greater than 40 years, that applicant would have to provide information on the long-term material degradation of spent fuel storage casks, as well as associated aging management activities, to justify safe operation during such an extended period, and the NRC would need to evaluate this information.
The NRC is changing the word “reapproval” to “renewal” in the final rule to be consistent with the terminology used in other license requirements under part 72. Currently, § 72.240 uses “reapproval” to describe the process of extending the terms of CoCs. However, this terminology differs from other sections in part 72. For example, § 72.42 uses the word “renewal” to define the process for extending the term of specific ISFSI licenses, and § 72.212(a)(3) uses “renewals” to define the process for the continued use of storage casks of a particular design under a general license. Although “reapproval” and “renewal” are similar words, they are subject to different regulatory interpretations. “Renewal” typically implies a process whereby the term of an existing license or CoC is extended. As such, a renewal reaffirms the original design basis, perhaps with some modifications. “Reapproval,” on the other hand, implies a process to reevaluate the original design basis in accordance with current review standards, which may be different from the standards in place when the cask design was initially certified.
In addition, the Statements of Consideration (SOC) for the final rule (55 FR 29184; July 18, 1990) that added the general license provisions to part 72 stated that “the procedure for reapproval of cask designs was not intended to repeat all the analyses required for the original approval.” The referenced SOC also reported that, “the Commission believes that the staff should review spent fuel storage cask designs periodically to consider any new information, either generic to spent fuel storage or specific cask designs, that may have arisen since issuance of the Certificate of Compliance.” Clearly, measures would need to be taken if the “new information” involves safety concerns. These measures would depend on the nature of the safety concerns and the cask design. Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) may be generated during the renewal process to prompt applicants for CoC renewals to address such safety concerns.
The NRC recognizes that a cask design certified years ago may not meet the latest standards, yet that design may be fully acceptable to continue to store spent fuel already loaded into casks of that design. If the cask design were subject to a reapproval process, and as such, to current standards, there is the possibility that certain components of the original design would not meet the current standards. Under this scenario, general licensees would be forced to remove the cask from service and repackage the spent fuel. Obviously, there are significant safety considerations if spent fuel were to be repackaged. When considering repackaging, safety considerations associated with the repackaging operation should be weighed against any safety concerns with leaving the spent fuel in its existing storage container. Although the NRC continuously updates its review standards, no compelling safety concerns have been identified to date that warrant the removal of spent fuel from a cask design that does not meet the latest review standards.
Thus, the NRC concludes that the review of extending the term of a currently approved cask design is more in the nature of a renewal, because it is based on the cask design standards in effect at the time the CoC was approved, rather than a reapproval, which is based on the current standards. By replacing the word “reapproval” with the word “renewal,” the final rule revisions will remove ambiguity from the process for extending the terms of CoCs.
Stakeholders asked for a definition of TLAAs when they reviewed the initial guidance document for the Surry and H. B. Robinson specific ISFSI license renewals. TLAA is a process to assess systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to safety which have a time-dependent operating life. This final rule adds a definition of TLAA to the part 72 definitions section, § 72.3, and makes revisions to §§ 72.42(a)(1) and 72.240(c)(2), respectively, because TLAAs will be required for the renewal of a specific license and for the renewal of a spent fuel storage cask CoC.
An AMP is a program for addressing aging effects that may include prevention, mitigation, condition monitoring, and performance monitoring. The final rule adds a definition of AMP to the part 72 definitions section, § 72.3, because SSCs must be evaluated to demonstrate that aging effects will not compromise the SSCs' intended functions during the renewal period.
The NRC is amending §§ 72.42 and 72.240 to require that applicants for specific license and CoC renewals describe a program, in their applications, for the management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect SSCs. In this regard, degradation of the SSCs at an ISFSI, such as degradation due to corrosion and radiation, are time-dependent mechanisms and are expected to be addressed in renewal applications. AMP requirements will ensure that SSCs will perform as designers intended during the renewal period. AMP requirements will be reflected in the terms, conditions and technical specifications of the renewed CoC and thus made applicable to the general licensee per § 72.212(b). For specific licensees, AMP requirements will be reflected in the terms and conditions of the renewed specific license.
The final rule changes the 20-year general license term limit for the storage of spent fuel in casks fabricated under a CoC to be consistent with the revisions to CoC initial and renewal terms (which
Under § 72.210, a general license for the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI at power reactor sites is issued to those persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. The general license is limited to that spent fuel which the general licensee is authorized to possess at the site under the part 50 or 52 license for the site. The general license is further limited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved and fabricated under the provisions of subpart L of part 72; the approved cask designs are listed in § 72.214. Currently, the general licensee's authority to use a particular cask design under an approved CoC terminates 20 years after the date that the general licensee first uses the particular cask to store spent fuel, unless the cask's CoC is renewed, in which case the general license terminates 20 years after the CoC renewal date. In the event the cask's CoC were to expire, any loaded spent fuel storage casks of that design will need to be removed from service after a storage period not to exceed 20 years.
This final rule amends §§ 72.3 and 72.212(a)(3) to clarify the term of the general license and to match the term of the general license to the term of the applicable CoC. The final rule also amends § 72.3 by adding a definition for the phrase “the term certified by the cask's Certificate of Compliance,” which is defined to mean, for a CoC that is not renewed, the period of time commencing with the CoC effective date and ending with the CoC expiration date, and for a renewed CoC, the period of time commencing with the most recent CoC renewal date and ending with the CoC expiration date.
The final rule amends § 72.212(a)(3) to clarify that the term of the general license runs through any renewal periods, unless otherwise specified in the CoC. In addition, the final rule also amends § 72.212(a)(3) to clarify that the general license term for those casks placed into service during the final renewal term of a CoC (
The following scenarios are provided as illustrative examples:
In short, the general license term for any given cask will be, at a minimum, for a storage period not to exceed “the term certified by the cask's CoC” (as that term is defined in § 72.3). The rationale for extending the general license through any CoC renewal term is two-fold. First, the extension of the general license through a CoC renewal term is premised upon the licensee implementing all appropriate aging management requirements. Second, the NRC concluded that the occupational risks of taking a cask out of service and repackaging the spent fuel into another storage cask exceed the risks of leaving the spent fuel in the original cask.
The Commission raised this issue in its SRM for SECY-06-0152, dated August 14, 2006. The NRC staff does not foresee any possible conflicts. The current regulations in part 72 encourage, but do not require, storage cask designs to have a compatible, approved transportation cask. So called “dual use” systems must be separately certified under the requirements in 10 CFR part 71 (transportation) and part 72 (storage). Typically, the only common item between these systems is the inner canister, which holds the spent fuel contents.
Part 71 certificates for transportation packages are issued for a 5-year term whereas part 72 CoCs are issued for much longer periods (under the current regulations, all approved CoCs have 20-year terms; under this final rule, the CoC term is extended to a not to exceed 40-year term). For each transportation cask certified under 10 CFR part 71, the CoC specifies “approved contents.” The description of the approved contents for a spent fuel transportation package defines the acceptable fuel types and
If the condition of spent fuel, or its storage canister, was believed to have degraded during extended storage such that it no longer met the criteria for approved contents, a licensee would have other alternatives for transport of that spent fuel. A new or modified approved transportation cask might be used, or the fuel might be repackaged, to place it in an acceptable configuration.
Section 72.212(b)(2) of the final rule will require general licensees to register use of each cask with the Commission no later than 30 days after using that cask to store spent fuel. To register casks, licensees must submit their name and address, reactor license and docket numbers, the name and title of a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under the general license, the cask certificate number, the amendment number, if applicable, cask model number, and the cask identification number. With this information, the Commission will know the loading and expiration dates of each cask. This information will also enable the NRC to schedule any necessary inspections and will permit the NRC to maintain an independent record of use for each cask.
The final rule retains the structure of the current rule, which emphasizes that the certificate holder (the cask vendor) applies for cask renewal. If the certificate holder chooses not to apply for the renewal of a particular cask design or is no longer in business, a licensee, a licensee's representative, or another certificate holder may apply for renewal in its place. If the applicant for CoC renewal seeks to fabricate this cask design, it must satisfy the applicable requirements of part 72, including establishment and maintenance of the requisite quality assurance (QA) program (general licensees may rely upon previously established part 50 or 71 QA programs if they meet the requirements of §§ 72.140 and 72.174).
The NRC does not include a definition for “terms, conditions, and specifications” in the final rule because these words are generic in nature, and are used in other parts of the NRC's regulations without definition.
This final rule amends § 72.212(b) to clarify that general licensees may apply changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask provided that the licensee demonstrates, through a written evaluation, that the cask meets the terms and conditions of the subject CoC amendment (
If a general licensee elects to apply the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask, then the cask, after the changes have been applied, must conform to the terms and conditions (including the technical specifications) of the CoC amendment. Partial or selective application of some of the authorized changes, but not others, requires prior NRC approval (in this case, the general licensee would apply for an exemption). The basis for allowing licensees to apply the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask without prior approval from the NRC is that the cask will remain in an analyzed condition if, after the changes have been applied, it conforms to the terms and conditions of the CoC amendment. The NRC has previously stated, “a spent fuel storage cask will be relied on to provide safe confinement of radioactive material independent of a nuclear power reactor's site, so long as conditions of the Certificate of Compliance are met” (54 FR 19381; May 5, 1989). However, partial or selective application of a CoC amendment's changes could result in a cask that would be in an unanalyzed condition.
In a related issue, the NRC agrees with an industry comment raised in response to the publication of the draft preliminary rule text (73 FR 45173; August 4, 2008). The draft preliminary rule text required that a general licensee ensure that once the changes authorized by a CoC amendment had been applied to a previously loaded cask, that the cask then “fully conforms” to the terms and conditions of the CoC amendment. The industry comment raised the concern that the phrase “fully conforms” was overly restrictive and requiring conformance with all the changes authorized by a CoC amendment would not be feasible or logical in certain instances, namely, in those cases where the amended CoC requirements do not apply to that particular general licensee site or ISFSI (
In light of this comment, the final rule language now requires that the cask, once CoC amendment changes have been applied, “conforms” to the terms and conditions of the CoC amendment. Thus, CoC amendment requirements for PWR fuel need not be met at a BWR plant.
Similarly, if the CoC amendment includes changes to the Technical Specifications for loading, general licensees may have difficulty demonstrating that the previously loaded cask complies with the new loading requirements. As revised by this final rule, § 72.212(b)(5) will require general licensees to perform written evaluations prior to applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a previously loaded cask. If the evaluation indicates that the loading conditions under the initial or older CoC amendment would not affect the ability of the previously loaded cask to meet the storage or unloading requirements of the newer CoC amendment, then the cask would be considered as conforming with the terms and conditions of the newer CoC amendment without having to meet the new loading requirements.
No, later CoC amendments do not encompass earlier amendments unless the language of the later CoC amendment expressly indicates otherwise. Generally, when the NRC reviews an amendment to a CoC, the NRC staff considers the changes associated with the amendment request only and limits its review to the
The principal requirement of § 72.48 regarding changes to cask designs is that the desired changes do not result in a change in the terms, conditions, or specifications incorporated in the CoC. A previously loaded cask is bound by the terms, conditions, and technical specifications of the CoC applicable to that cask at the time the licensee loaded the cask. Thus, under § 72.48, a licensee may only make those cask design changes that do not result in a change to the terms, conditions, or specifications of the CoC under which the cask was loaded. The final rule will not amend § 72.48, but will amend § 72.212 by authorizing a general licensee to apply the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask, provided that after the changes have been applied, the cask conforms to the terms and conditions, including the technical specifications, of the CoC amendment.
Adoption of the most recent CoC amendment depends on the nature of the changes between the CoC amendment under which the cask system was fabricated and the most recent amendment. CoC amendments are routinely requested by cask manufacturers or vendors (also referred to as the certificate holders) to account for advances in cask design and technology. Some amendments will be associated with cask hardware changes. A cask system that was purchased under an older amendment may or may not be able to be modified to a cask system that meets the most recent amendment.
As revised by this final rule, § 72.212(b)(5) will require that general licensees perform written evaluations demonstrating that the cask, once loaded with spent fuel, will conform to the terms, conditions and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214. In the case of an unloaded cask fabricated under the initial or earlier CoC amendment, the cask cannot be loaded under a later CoC amendment if the § 72.212(b)(5) evaluation shows that the cask, once loaded, will fail to meet the terms, conditions and specifications of the later CoC amendment. If the evaluation demonstrates that the terms, conditions and specifications of the later CoC amendment are met, then the cask can be loaded under the later CoC amendment.
The NRC has developed NUREG-1927 “Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Licenses and Dry Cask Storage System Certificates of Compliance.” This SRP provides guidance to the NRC staff in reviewing licensees' programs for managing the effects of aging on spent fuel storage casks or ISFSI sites. Aging analyses and AMPs are two components of an overall program for managing the effects of aging. Because applicants will need to submit a TLAA and a description of their program to manage the effects of aging when applying for renewal of either CoCs or specific licenses under the final rule, this SRP will also assist potential applicants in identifying parameters to be included in a renewal application and measures necessary to ensure that the cask or ISFSI can be operated during the renewal period without undue risk to the public health and safety. The SRP will be published following the publication of this final rule.
The NRC understands the burden arising from changing the paragraph designations of a regulation. However, the NRC is rearranging the provisions of § 72.212(b) to better organize regulatory requirements. For example, the final rule will group recordkeeping requirements at the end of § 72.212(b) rather than dispersing them among other requirements, as is currently the case. The NRC's intent for rearranging § 72.212(b) is to make this provision more user-friendly. These changes are documented in Table 1 located in Section IV (Item 4) of this document (Discussion of Final Amendments by Section under the discussion pertaining to § 72.212).
Under final § 72.212(b)(2), general licensees must submit a cask registration letter no later than 30 days after using that cask to store spent fuel. One registration letter may be submitted for a campaign that loads more than one cask, provided that the letter lists the cask certificate number, the amendment number, the cask model number, and the cask identification number of each cask covered by the campaign.
In addition, under final § 72.212(b)(4), general licensees must submit a cask registration letter no later than 30 days after applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a previously loaded cask. One registration letter may be submitted for a campaign that applies CoC amendment changes to more than one cask, provided that the letter lists the cask certificate number, the amendment number to which the cask will conform, the cask model number, and the cask identification number of each cask covered by the campaign.
For those cask storage systems for which renewals are not planned, general licensees should plan ahead to remove these cask storage systems from service at or before the termination of the general license (
Section 72.214 lists one expiration date for each CoC. Amendments under a CoC may have different effective dates; however, they share the same certificate number and docket number. Therefore, when the NRC renews a CoC, all amendments to that CoC are renewed as well.
CoCs are generic designs and approved by rulemaking. The renewed CoC will be available to all persons who hold a general license under § 72.210.
The NRC does not believe that the part 54 CLB is the appropriate basis for TLAAs in support of CoC renewals. The NRC does not believe that it is appropriate for the CLB to be applied to cask CoC renewals, which are generic. The CLB is typically the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a specific licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements, including the plant specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to regulatory commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect.
The NRC decided not to finalize the draft RIS 2007-26 because § 72.212(b) provides a path forward for implementation of later CoC amendments to previously loaded casks. An Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM), dated September 15, 2009, was issued in conjunction with the publication of the proposed rule to provide guidance to NRC inspectors for exercising enforcement discretion concerning deficiencies related to implementing changes, authorized by CoC amendments to previously loaded casks, that occurred prior to issuance of the EGM.
This section presents a summary of the public comments received on the proposed rule and supporting documents, the NRC's response to the comments, and changes made in the final rule and supporting documents as a result of these comments.
The NRC received five comment letters on the proposed rule. These comments came from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Department of Energy, Exelon Nuclear, Decommissioning Plant Coalition, and the Prairie Island Indian Community. Three of the commenters supported the new regulation, while two of the commenters expressed concern about the proposed regulation. The commenters opposed to the proposed regulation were primarily concerned about the increased license term extension from 20 to 40 years for specific ISFSI licensees. One of these commenters also had questions about the environmental review process. The other commenters provided comments on different topics within the proposed rule, including the proposed CoC terms, the CoC renewal process, the CoC amendment process, TLAAs, and spent fuel storage in general. These commenters made observations about these topics and recommended areas within the proposed rule where the NRC could make improvements. Two commenters suggested revisions to the proposed rule language and the SOC.
Copies of the public comments are available for review in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. A review of the comments and the NRC responses follow:
A commenter agreed with the proposed amendments and stated that they are in the public interest and are consistent with scientific evidence. The commenter also noted that the proposed regulation would reduce the costs incurred by licensees and the NRC as a result of preparing and reviewing applications and exemption requests. The commenter stated that the proposed rule would provide the NRC and regulated entities with greater regulatory certainty.
The NRC agrees with the comment.
A commenter suggested that the proposed revisions would negatively and directly impact their community and expressed opposition to extending specific ISFSI licenses by 40 years. The commenter also indicated that the proposed rule, along with the “scrapping” of Yucca Mountain, would lead to permanent spent fuel storage at nuclear power reactor sites. In addition, the commenter urged that the 20-year initial and renewal terms should remain unchanged. The commenter suggested that a 20-year term better protects the public because the casks are monitored more frequently.
The NRC acknowledges the concerns raised by the commenter. The Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that spent fuel can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts at ISFSIs during the extended license terms authorized by the final rule. This reasonable assurance is partly based on the technical data gained from an NRC supported research program and field data. Details are discussed in the response to Question “C” of the “Discussion” section of this document. Furthermore, this final rule would require all licensees to identify time-dependent degradations of the ISFSI SSCs when they apply for license renewal. If any aging issues which could adversely affect SSCs are identified, the final rule requires the license renewal applicant to describe an AMP in its license renewal application. The AMP will address the prevention and mitigation of aging effects. The NRC staff will evaluate the AMP and will only approve the renewal application if the AMP is deemed adequate.
An AMP would require licensees to monitor the casks and take other measures to ensure public health and safety. AMP requirements will be reflected in the terms and conditions of the renewed specific license, which are enforceable by NRC. The NRC will monitor the licensee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the license through the NRC's inspection program. The NRC concluded that, with appropriate aging management and maintenance programs, a license term up to 40 years is reasonable and provides adequate protection of public health and safety.
A commenter stated that the proposed rule, “like the proposed revision of the Waste Confidence Rule,” validated the commenter's earlier concerns raised during the initial licensing process for the ISFSI located near its Tribal boundary and “exposes the false assurances that the ISFSI is an interim or temporary solution.” The commenter added that the Commission's position is to “simply streamline approvals for extending the term that spent fuel can be stored at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs.” The commenter suggested that “regulatory requirements should be further enhanced rather than relaxed.”
The NRC has not made any regulatory or policy decision which states that the storage of spent fuel at ISFSIs obviates the need for a permanent repository of spent fuel and other high-level waste. The establishment of such a repository is a national policy decision and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The extension of specific license terms in § 72.42 does not relax any regulatory requirements. The rationale for extending the terms for specific ISFSI licenses, for both initial terms and
A commenter stated that the term “unloaded cask” in the fifth paragraph of Section II, “Discussion,” Question “E”, of the proposed rule is unclear. The commenter asked whether the term “unloaded cask” is limited to a cask that has never been loaded or if it also includes a cask that has been used but subsequently unloaded of stored fuel. The commenter added that the review of a generic CoC renewal should not depend on whether or not a particular cask is unloaded. The commenter requested that the NRC delete the final sentence of the fifth paragraph of Section II, “Discussion,” Question “E.”
In the context of the response to Question “E”, the NRC considered the term “unloaded cask” to be either a cask that has never been loaded or one that was loaded and then subsequently unloaded. In any event, the NRC agrees with the comment. When a CoC is renewed by the NRC, it is the cask design that is being renewed. It does not matter whether the cask is loaded or not. Therefore, clarifying changes have been made to the response to Question “E”, including the deletion of the sentence which contains the term “unloaded cask.”
Two commenters requested that NRC clarify Section II, “Discussion,” Questions “I” and “V” and Section III, “Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section,” Item 4 and § 72.212(a)(3) of the proposed rule. These sections of the SOC and § 72.212(a)(3) address the relationship between the term of a general license, the CoC term and renewal, and the date an individual cask is loaded.
One of the commenters stated that “[i]ndustry believes that each individual cask should be permitted to be operated for the full design life of the cask, including the full renewal period.” The commenter stated that aging management requirements would be implemented during the renewal period. This commenter then provided two examples: the first, “a cask loaded under an active CoC with a 20-year initial term and not renewed should be permitted to be operated under a general license for 20 years from the date of initial use, no matter when that cask is placed into service;” and the second, “a cask loaded under an active CoC with a 20-year initial term and renewed for 40 years should be permitted to be operated under a general license for 60 years from the date of initial use, no matter when that cask is placed into service.”
The commenter then asserted that each cask is fabricated to meet a specific design life and that the “successful renewal of the CoC extends that design life provided all design and maintenance parameters that were part of the renewal approval are met.” The commenter further asserts that the design life “does not begin for each individual cask until the cask is loaded,
The second commenter made a similar comment, stating that the “cask life should be solely based on the qualification of the cask, and not on the CoC expiration date.” The commenter then suggested that “the NRC consider evaluating the lifespan of the fuel storage system based on date of loading (
The NRC agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the comments. The part 72 regulations do not define the term “design life.” Rather, the part 72 regulatory scheme is based on licenses, specific and general, and the terms of those licenses. The general license term is premised upon the CoC in effect at the time the cask was placed into service (
The NRC agrees with the first commenter's statement regarding the implementation of aging management requirements during the renewal period. The NRC further agrees with the first commenter's first example regarding a cask fabricated under a 20-year CoC term, which is not renewed. Under both the current regulation and the regulation as revised by this final rule, the general license term for such a cask would be 20 years, regardless of when during the 20-year CoC term the cask is placed into service. Of course, after the CoC expires, casks of that design could no longer be placed into service.
The NRC disagrees with the second example and the commenter's rationale to support that example. The commenter states “a cask loaded under an active CoC with a 20-year initial term and renewed for 40 years should be permitted to be operated under a general license for 60 years from the date of initial use,
The intent of the amendments implemented by the final rule is that the use of a cask is determined by the general license term, which in turn is determined by the term specified in the applicable CoC in effect at the time the cask is placed into service; the general license term is not determined by adding all the successive CoC renewal terms to the initial CoC term. The term of the general license for any cask placed into service during a CoC renewal term is based upon the length of the renewal term (renewal date to expiration). Thus, if a CoC is renewed for 40 years and a cask fabricated under that CoC is placed into service during the 39th year of the renewal term, the
According to the commenter, if the initial term of the CoC was 20 years, and the CoC was then renewed twice, each time for 40 years, then a cask placed into service on the last day of the second renewal period would have a general license of 100 years (essentially, 100 years beyond the CoC expiration date). It is not the intent of the NRC to allow for such extended, cumulative license terms.
The NRC disagrees with the second commenter, who stated that “cask life should be solely based on the qualification of the cask, and not on the CoC expiration date.” In this regard, the NRC will allow for casks already in service,
In response to these comments, this final rule amends § 72.212(a)(3) to include clarifying language regarding general license terms and similarly, adds a definition of the phrase “the term certified by the cask's Certificate of Compliance” to the part 72 definitions section, § 72.3.
A commenter requested that the NRC clarify the QA program requirements for general licensees that seek to fabricate casks (as discussed in Section II, “Discussion,” Question “L” of the proposed rule). The commenter asked whether a general licensee that seeks to fabricate a cask under its part 50 QA program may apply its part 50 QA program as long as it governs part 72 activities.
Section 72.140 sets forth the requirements of a part 72 QA program. Under § 72.140(d), a QA program previously approved by the Commission as satisfying the requirements of Appendix B to part 50 or subpart H of part 71 will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of § 72.140(b), provided that the general licensee or other applicant meets the recordkeeping requirements of § 72.174. In filing the description of the QA program required by § 72.140(c), a general licensee who seeks to fabricate casks under a renewed CoC must notify the NRC, in accordance with § 72.4, of its intent to apply its previously-approved QA program to part 72 activities. The notification shall identify the previously-approved QA program by date of submittal to the Commission, docket number, and date of Commission approval.
A commenter suggested that the word “terms” in the phrase “terms, conditions, and specifications” may be confused with the word “term” as in the “term certified in the cask CoC.” The commenter requested that the NRC revise Section III, “Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section,” Item 4 to address this issue. The commenter requested that the NRC add a definition to § 72.3 for the phrase “term certified by the cask's Certificate of Compliance.”
The NRC agrees that clarification is needed. The NRC added the following definition to § 72.3:
“
One commenter asked if a “cask user or user's representative” renews a CoC, then would that user or user's representative become the CoC holder and, as a result, obtain all CoC holder responsibilities. In particular, the commenter questioned whether the user or user's representative would assume responsibility for cask Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updating and reporting requirements under § 72.48.
In the SOC for the July 18, 1990, final rule which promulgated subparts K and L of part 72, the NRC stated its expectation that the cask vendor, if still in business and fabricating the subject cask design, would apply for cask renewal (55 FR 29184; July 18, 1990). If the certificate holder is no longer in business or chooses not to apply for the renewal of a particular cask design, then a cask user or user's representative (
A commenter objected to a sentence in the first paragraph of Section II, “Discussion,” Question “O” that stated, “However, partial or selective application of a CoC amendment's changes would result in a cask that would be in an unanalyzed condition.” The commenter asserted that this sentence was a “significant overstatement” as not all partial or selective application of a CoC amendment's changes would result in the cask being in an unanalyzed condition. The commenter requested that the sentence be deleted or that the first instance of “would” be replaced with the word “could.”
The NRC agrees with the comment that, depending on the nature of changes in the amendment, partial or selective application of a CoC amendment's changes may not always result in the cask being in an unanalyzed condition. To minimize the possibility of the cask being in an unanalyzed condition, however, the general licensee is required to apply for
“However, partial or selective application of a CoC amendment's changes could result in a cask that would be in an unanalyzed condition.”
A commenter suggested that the NRC should consider including in CoC amendments language addressing whether or not the CoC amendment encompasses all requirements of the initial CoC and previous amendments. The commenter asserted that such CoC amendment language would “significantly simplify” the adoption process for general licensees, “especially in cases where only the contents have changed and no cask hardware modifications are involved.”
The approach suggested by the commenter is not within the scope of this rulemaking because the commenter's recommended language would be placed within the text of the CoC amendment, not the NRC regulations. Moreover, the NRC has considered a process that requires the application of every part 72 CoC amendment to include a basis which proposes the applicability of the proposed amendment to previously loaded casks. The NRC staff's acceptance of the proposed applicability and its basis would then be documented in the CoC amendment and in the accompanying Safety Evaluation Report (SER). However, the NRC staff has concluded that conducting the requisite analyses to evaluate each prior CoC amendment in relation to the new amendment would impose more burdens on both the NRC and applicants as compared to the process in the final rule.
With respect to Section II, “Discussion,” Question “W” of the proposed rule, a commenter asked whether, after the renewal of a CoC, subsequent amendments to that CoC continue the existing amendment numbering or if the numbering for these amendments “start over” as the first amendment against the renewed CoC.
After a CoC is renewed, subsequent amendments to that CoC will continue with the existing numbering. For example, if there are seven amendments under a CoC before renewal, the next amendment, under the same CoC after renewal, will be Amendment No. 8.
A commenter provided comments as requested under Section II, “Discussion,” Question “AA” of the proposed rule. Question “AA” is not included in the SOC of this final rule because it was intended only to solicit comments on the particular items identified. Question “AA” solicited public comment on whether or not the evaluation required by proposed § 72.212(b)(5) should be reviewed and approved by the NRC. The commenter does not support NRC review of “evaluations performed pursuant to § 72.212(b)(5) to apply a later CoC amendment to previously loaded casks.” The commenter suggested that NRC review of these evaluations would be “inappropriate and contrary to the concept of a general licensee.” The commenter stated that the NRC approves CoC amendments and that § 72.212 evaluations, and revisions to these evaluations, “are reviewed by NRC under the inspection program, at NRC's discretion.”
The NRC agrees with the comment. The amendments implemented by this final rule do not require any prior NRC review or approval of the evaluations conducted by a general licensee pursuant to § 72.212(b)(5). After a general licensee has made the findings required by § 72.212(b)(5)(i)-(iii), it may apply the changes authorized by a later CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask. Of course, the NRC may review these evaluations through the NRC inspection program.
A commenter described the proposed language in § 72.212(b)(7) that states, “and revise it to add a requirement to evaluate any changes to the site parameters determination and analyses required by § 72.212(b)(6),” as unnecessary and requested that the language of § 72.212(b)(7) be simplified. The commenter recommended that the NRC revise § 72.212(b)(7) from “paragraph (b)(5) of this section” to “paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this section.”
The NRC agrees with the comment that § 72.212(b)(7) could be clarified by modifying the first sentence. Therefore, the NRC revised the first sentence of § 72.212(b)(7) as follows:
“Evaluate any changes to the written evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this section using the requirements of § 72.48(c).”
A commenter stated that the proposed 30-day timeframes for licensees to notify the NRC of the initial use of a cask and the application of a later CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask will cause the licensee an “unnecessary administrative burden.” Specifically, the commenter argued that the proposed rule language would require licensees to send two separate notifications into the NRC: (1) For new casks, licensees would need to notify the NRC within 30 days of deployment; and (2) for previously loaded casks, licensees would need to notify the NRC within 30 days of applying the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask. The commenter noted that applying the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to previously loaded casks is usually part of a larger campaign that includes deploying new casks. The commenter stated that allowing “120 days for both notifications would allow general licensees to combine these two notifications into one, in most cases.”
The NRC does not agree that the requirement to prepare two letters, one covering loading the new casks, and the second covering the application of the changes authorized by a later CoC amendment to previously loaded casks, is particularly burdensome. The NRC staff has concluded that the 30-day timeframe is a reasonable requirement.
The NRC acknowledges that applying the changes authorized by a later CoC amendment to previously loaded casks may be connected to a cask loading campaign. If the general licensee is loading new casks fabricated under a given CoC amendment and the changes authorized by that CoC amendment are also applied to previously loaded casks at the same time as explained by the commenter, one registration letter may be sufficient for that whole campaign, provided that the letter lists the cask certificate number, the appropriate CoC amendment number, the cask model number, and the cask identification number of each cask, both new and previously loaded.
The commenter states that the § 72.212(b)(5) report, which would cover both the loading of the new casks and the implementation of the changes to the previously loaded casks, would
A commenter requested that the NRC remove the word “all” from the first sentence of § 72.212(b)(4) to be consistent with the discussion provided in Section II, Question “O” of the proposed rule.
The NRC agrees with the comment that, in order to be consistent, the word “all” should be removed in the first sentence of § 72.212(b)(4). The NRC revised § 72.212(b)(4) accordingly.
A commenter stated that § 72.212(b)(4) is unclear with regard to when the 30-day “clock” starts for licensees to notify the NRC. The commenter added that § 72.212(b)(4) is inconsistent with the wording used in § 72.212(b)(2). The commenter suggested the following language to replace the first sentence in § 72.212(b)(4): “Register each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later than 30 days after applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial or an earlier amended CoC.”
The NRC disagrees with the comment. The 30-day clock starts after the application of changes authorized by the CoC amendment to the previously loaded cask (a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier CoC amendment). The language suggested by the commenter is not sufficient because there is no direct nexus between the phrase “each cask” with the phrase “the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial or an earlier amended CoC.” The NRC concludes that the regulatory language of § 72.212(b)(4) is clear and will not be revised other than the deletion of the word “all” from the first sentence (as described in the response to Comment No. 15).
A commenter stated that the proposed wording of § 72.212(b)(7) is unnecessarily complex and recommended the following language: “Changes to the written evaluations required by § 72.212(b)(5) of this section shall be reviewed in accordance with § 72.48(c), as applicable.” As an alternative, the commenter recommended that the NRC change the first word of this section of the proposed rule from “evaluate” to “review.” The commenter suggested this revision because some general licensees could interpret the word “evaluate” as requiring a full § 72.48 evaluation, regardless of the nature of the change to the document.
The NRC disagrees with the comment. In response to Comment 13 the NRC revised § 72.212(b)(7) to read as follows:
“Evaluate any changes to the written evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this section using the requirements of § 72.48(c).”
Both the language of the proposed rule and the above revised language follow the same logic and pattern as the regulatory language in effect before this final rule's effective date (§ 72.212(b)(2)(ii) (2009)). The intent of this amendment was only to renumber the provision from § 72.212(b)(2)(ii) to § 72.212(b)(7) and make related clarifying changes (such as the reference to § 72.212(b)(6)). It is not the NRC's intent to change the substantive meaning of this provision, and as such, the NRC does not agree with changing the word “evaluate” to “review.”
A commenter stated that the addition of the phrase “and, for those casks to which the licensee has applied the changes of an amended CoC, the amended CoC” to § 72.212(b)(11) is unnecessary. The commenter suggested the following language instead: “Maintain a copy of the CoC and each amended CoC(s) applicable to casks loaded and deployed at the ISFSI, and the documents referenced in such Certificates for each cask model used for the storage of spent fuel until use of the cask model is discontinued.”
The NRC disagrees with the comment because CoC amendments may have a different design basis from the initial CoC as well as each other. Consequently, it is necessary for general licensees to maintain the initial CoC (along with documents referenced in the initial CoC) for those casks operating under the terms and conditions of the initial CoC and for those casks operating under the terms and conditions of a given CoC amendment, to maintain that CoC amendment (along with documents referenced in the amended CoC).
A commenter stated that the rule applies to facilities that have one or more operating reactors. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation would create unneeded burdens for permanently shut-down reactor sites. The commenter suggested that the NRC modify the proposed language in § 72.212(b) to address this issue, but did not provide alternative language. Specifically, the commenter raised concerns about the application of changes authorized by a later CoC amendment to a cask loaded under the initial CoC amendment or an earlier CoC amendment thereto (a “previously loaded cask”).
Part 72 does not draw a distinction between an operating facility and a decommissioned facility. The part 72 regulations make a distinction between specific licenses and general licenses. Under § 72.210, a holder of a part 50 or 52 power reactor license holds a part 72 general license. Section 72.212 sets forth the conditions of a general license. If a decommissioned facility does not have an active part 50 or 52 license, it would then not have a part 72 general license; most likely, the facility would be operating under a specific part 72 license. The application of changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask is not applicable to a specific license ISFSI, as those provisions of the final rule only apply to general licenses.
In the case of a decommissioned facility that does operate under a part 50 or 52 license, and thus, has a part 72 general license, this rule would apply to the same extent as it would for any other part 50 or part 52 licensee. In this regard, there is no reason to treat a generally licensed ISFSI at a decommissioned site any differently
The commenter may have assumed that this rule requires general licensees to apply the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to any previously loaded casks within the licensee's control. This is not correct. Under this final rule, the application of the changes authorized by a CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask is at the discretion of the general licensee; unless otherwise directed by the NRC, the general licensee can choose to continue to use the cask in accordance with the CoC under which the cask was loaded.
A commenter asked the NRC to clarify when aging management requirements apply to casks, such as a cask placed into service during the renewal term of a CoC.
Aging management requirements only apply after the cask is in service for the length of time equal to the term certified by the cask's initial CoC. For example, if the term of the initial CoC is 20 years, and a cask is placed into service at the end of the 19th year, then the general licensee would need to begin implementing the appropriate aging management requirements at the end of the 39th year, assuming the CoC was renewed. The appropriate time to initiate the aging management requirements will be identified in the NRC approval of a CoC renewal application. Specifically, the aging management requirements will be made conditions or specifications of the CoC and thus applicable to general licensees per § 72.212(b). The response to Question “H” in Section II was revised in light of this comment.
A commenter stated that the TLAAs for CoC renewals should be based on the CLB for the cask. The commenter described the CLB for the cask as the “original regulatory framework (
The amendments to this final rule do not include a definition for CLB. The cask designs approved, both initially and for renewal, under the provisions of subpart L of part 72 are generic in nature. The CLB is appropriate for site specific licensing actions, not generic cask designs.
The certificate holder must submit the TLAA when it applies for renewal of a given CoC (for a CoC renewal that encompasses CoC amendments that each may have different design basis, the certificate holder will have to address how the TLAA applies to each CoC amendment covered by the CoC). The TLAA is an implicit part of any new storage canister evaluation even though it is not explicitly identified in the existing regulations. This may be illustrated by consideration of operationally induced degradation. Specifically, applicants must consider operationally induced degradation and its effects as part of the new design engineering process. Such an evaluation becomes part of the applicants' demonstration that a new cask design will perform as specified throughout its initial license period.
For a renewal, the applicant bears the same burden of showing that the materials of construction (or components) will perform as required during the extended operational period. This extended operational life may not have been addressed in the original design consideration. Consequently, TLAAs (and other issues) were explicitly identified in the proposed regulations. The evaluation effort for renewal shifts its focus from material selection, as would be the case for a new design certification, to existing material condition/degradation assessment. The NRC staff determined that this subtle but important distinction be clearly identified.
A commenter requested that the NRC clarify what is meant by the term “site aging issues,” as stated in Section II, “Discussion,” Question “AA” of the proposed rule. The commenter stated that CoC holders should identify the cask design features that are subject to age-related degradation and address them in a bounding manner for use of a cask beyond the initial CoC term. The commenter suggested that cask users review the CoC holder's aging analysis and perform their own analyses to supplement or supersede the CoC holder's generic analysis.
To clarify the NRC's intent, the statement in the response to Section II, “Discussion,” Question “AA” of the proposed rule should have read: “Site specific aging issues” rather than “site aging issues.” The NRC asked whether the requirement for an AMP for CoC renewals should fully address possible aging issues related to a general licensee's specific site (
The NRC agrees with the comment that CoC holders should identify the cask design features that are subject to age-related degradation and address them in a bounding manner for use of a cask beyond the initial CoC term. The NRC further agrees that general licensees should review the CoC holder's aging analysis and perform their own analyses to supplement or impose upon themselves a more restrictive analysis, but they cannot supersede the CoC holder's analysis. Therefore, the general licensees' analyses would address possible aging issues at their sites.
Question “AA” is not included in the SOC of this final rule because it was intended only to solicit comments on the particular items identified.
A commenter stated that AMP requirements, aging analyses, and other technical documents should be evaluated for a 20-year license renewal term instead of the proposed 40-year license renewal term.
The basis for the NRC to increase specific ISFSI license terms from not to exceed 20 years to not to exceed 40 years is discussed in Question “C” of the “Discussion” section of the proposed rule. The NRC staff concluded that, with appropriate aging management and maintenance programs, license terms up to 40 years are reasonable and provide adequate protection of public health and safety.
A commenter disagreed with the proposed rule's allowance for unlimited specific license renewals. The commenter expressed concern that the “indefinite nature of the length of time” the NRC describes for storage at an ISFSI could create a “national landscape of ISFSIs” at decommissioned sites. The commenter added that indefinite storage of fuel at ISFSIs is in conflict with “the Commission's long held policy that it
Please
A commenter agreed with the NRC that, with appropriate aging management and maintenance programs, 40-year licenses “are reasonable and protect public health and safety and the environment.”
The NRC acknowledges the commenter's support for the not to exceed 40-year license terms.
A commenter stated that it is unclear how the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be met. The commenter asked if licensees are required to submit an environmental report with their 40-year license renewal. The commenter concluded that license renewals should include a public environmental review process, such as a draft environmental assessment posted for public comment.
The NRC implements its obligations under NEPA through its regulations in 10 CFR part 51. When a licensee applies for the renewal of a specific ISFSI license, the licensee is required to submit an environmental report under § 51.60(b)(1)(iii).
Under §§ 51.26, 51.27, 51.28, 51.29, 51.73 and 51.74, if the NRC prepares an environmental impact statement (EIS), the most comprehensive of the NEPA analyses, public participation would be required (the above provisions concern publication of a notice of intent, scoping, a request for comments on the draft EIS, and distribution of the draft EIS). If the NRC staff does not prepare an EIS, as determined by NRC staff's environmental assessment (EA), it will issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The NRC may issue the FONSI in draft form, which will include a request for public comments (§ 51.33). Issuing a draft FONSI is discretionary with the NRC. After a FONSI is finalized, it must be published in the
A commenter stated that, contrary to the first sentence of Section II, “Discussion,” Question “K” of the proposed rule, the current regulations do not require general licensees to maintain or submit a cask loading schedule to the NRC. The commenter requested that the NRC delete this language or revise the wording.
The intent of the response to Question “K” of the proposed rule was to inform readers that general licensees keep track of loading and expiration dates of each loaded cask. The NRC understands, however, that this is not an express regulatory requirement. As such, the NRC has rephrased Question “K” to ask how the NRC tracks cask expiration dates and has made clarifying changes to the response to Question “K.” The registration letters required by the regulations, as amended by this final rule, provide the NRC with the requisite information to track cask expiration dates.
A commenter suggested that in Section II, “Discussion,” Question “T” of the proposed rule, the regulation should include a provision to permit licensees with existing § 72.212 reports to maintain the current regulatory numbering system and not have to revise these reports to reflect the redesignated sections within the proposed regulation.
The NRC disagrees with the comment that a provision be added to the regulations. There is no requirement to revise past § 72.212 reports to reflect the redesignation of provisions in § 72.212(b) resulting from the amendments of this final rule. Past § 72.212 reports can remain formatted to the regulation that was in effect at the time the report was written. Section 72.212 reports written after the effective date of this final rule must conform to the redesignations in the final rule.
A commenter stated that the phrase “no later than 30 days after using (loading) that cask” in Section II, “Discussion,” Question “U” of the proposed rule and § 72.212(b)(2) is too vague. The commenter suggested replacing the above language with the following: “placing the cask in storage at the ISFSI” to clearly establish a start date.
In response to the commenter, the NRC is not going to change the rule text; this rule language has been in effect since 1990 without any controversy. Rather, the NRC is clarifying its response to Question “U” of this document by removing the term “loading” from the response. It is the NRC's position that the 30-day clock starts when the loaded cask has been deployed in the ISFSI.
A commenter stated that the phrase “casks of that design” as used in § 72.212(a)(3) is unclear. The commenter recommended that the phrase be clarified or revised to be consistent with the language used earlier in the section, “cask[s] fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance.” The commenter added that if the same meaning is not intended, then the NRC should define the two phrases in § 72.3.
The NRC agrees with the comment that the terminology in § 72.212(a)(3) is not consistent; the NRC intended for the meaning to be the same in both instances. The NRC has revised § 72.212(a)(3) and it no longer contains the phrase “casks of that design.”
A commenter asked whether “cask user or user's representative,” as used in § 72.212(a)(3), is equivalent to the term “any licensee,” as used in § 72.240(a). The commenter concluded that if these terms are equivalent, then the NRC should use the same term in both sections of the rule.
The final rule makes several revisions to § 72.212(a)(3), including deletion of the language referring to “any cask user or user's representative.” The NRC staff concluded that this language was redundant of the language in § 72.240(a). This final rule also revises § 72.240(a) to allow a licensee, a licensee's representative, or another certificate holder to apply for a cask renewal in the event that the original
A commenter requested that in § 72.212(b)(8), the NRC change “§ 50.59(c)(2)” to “§ 50.59(c).” The commenter suggested that the review of cask storage activities may require a full evaluation under § 50.59, which includes § 50.59(c)(1).
The NRC agrees with the comment. Section 72.212(b)(8) has been changed accordingly.
A commenter asked whether the phrase “a new protected area” in section § 72.212(b)(9)(iii) only applies to an ISFSI located outside a nuclear power plant's protected area. The commenter requested that the NRC clarify this phrase.
The phrase “a new protected area” in § 72.212(b)(9)(iii) applies only to an ISFSI that is physically separate from a reactor's protected area. As a further point of clarification, all references to “new protected area(s)” in § 72.212(b)(9) apply only to an ISFSI physically separate from a reactor's protected area. The NRC notes that the phrase “new protected area” has been part of the regulatory language after the rule was promulgated in 1990. The intent of this final rule is only to renumber § 72.212(b)(5)(iii) to § 72.212(b)(9)(iii). As additional background, the March 27, 2009, power reactor security rule (74 FR 13926, 13970) revised § 72.212(b)(5)(iii) to update the cross reference to the applicable part 73 section and add the word “personnel” before the word “searches.”
A commenter stated that § 72.212(b)(12) uses the terms “cask supplier” and “cask vendor.” The commenter suggested that these terms are inconsistent with the term “CoC holder,” which the NRC uses elsewhere in the proposed rule. The commenter concluded that the terminology should be consistent throughout the rule.
The NRC agrees with the comment that the terminology should be consistent. Therefore, the NRC has replaced the terms “cask supplier” and “cask vendor” in § 72.212(b)(12) with the term “CoC holder.”
The final rule adds definitions for “Aging management program,” “Term certified by the cask's Certificate of Compliance,” and “Time-limited aging analyses.”
The amendment to § 72.24(c) requires applicants seeking initial specific licenses or specific licensees seeking renewals to demonstrate in sufficient detail that the design of the ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) is capable of performing the intended functions for the term requested in the application.
The amendment to § 72.42(a) extends the term for both an initial specific license and a license renewal from a term of not to exceed 20 years to a term not to exceed 40 years. The final rule also adds a requirement that specific licensees seeking renewals submit a TLAA and a description of the AMP. Any license renewal application will be required to include an analysis that considers the effects of aging on SSCs important to safety for the requested renewal term.
The amendment to § 72.42(b) requires license renewal applications to include design bases information as documented in the most recently updated FSAR, as required by § 72.70.
The final rule makes several changes to § 72.212. The final rule revises § 72.212(a)(3) to clarify the term of the general license and to match the term of the general license to the term of the applicable CoC. The final rule amendment also clarifies that the term of the general license runs through any renewal periods, unless otherwise specified in the CoC. In addition, the final rule also amends § 72.212(a)(3) to clarify the general license term for those casks placed into service during the final renewal term of a CoC or during the term of a CoC that was not renewed. The final rule amendment also states that, upon expiration of the general license, all casks subject to that general license must be removed from service.
The final rule amends § 72.212(b) by redesignating and reorganizing the provisions of that section. The following table cross references the amended regulations with the regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this final rule. Use of “modified” in Table 1 refers to a section whose content has been modified. Remaining table entries are either new provisions or provisions that have been redesignated but whose content is unchanged.
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(1)(i) as § 72.212(b)(1) and makes minor editorial changes to this provision.
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(1)(ii) as § 72.212(b)(2) and further revises the provision to add a requirement that general licensees, when registering a cask no later than 30 days after loading, include the CoC amendment number, if applicable.
The final rule adds a new provision, § 72.212(b)(3), that requires general licensees to ensure that each cask used by the general licensee conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214. Partial or selective application of the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC, without prior NRC approval, may result in a cask that is in an unanalyzed condition and is therefore, prohibited.
The final rule adds a new provision, § 72.212(b)(4), that requires general licensees to register those previously loaded casks no later than 30 days after applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC.
The final rule revises § 72.212(b)(2)(i) by requiring general licensees to prepare written evaluations before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a previously loaded cask. Thus, the revised rule requires a written evaluation before loading the cask with spent fuel and an additional written evaluation before any changes authorized by a CoC amendment are applied to a previously loaded cask. The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(2)(i) as § 72.212(b)(5).
The final rule revises § 72.212(b)(2)(i) to state that the written evaluation must establish that the cask, once loaded with spent fuel or after changes authorized by an amended CoC have been applied, will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or amended CoC listed in § 72.214, and redesignates current § 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) as § 72.212(b)(5)(i). The final rule redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) and (C) as §§ 72.212(b)(5)(ii) and (iii), respectively.
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(3) as § 72.212(b)(6) and revises this provision to add a reference to an amended CoC and to update the cross-reference to paragraph (b)(5).
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(2)(ii) as § 72.212(b)(7) and revises this provision to add a requirement to evaluate any changes to the site parameters determination and analyses required by § 72.212(b)(6), using the requirements of § 72.48.
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(4) as § 72.212(b)(8).
The final rule revises current § 72.212(b)(5) to reflect changes made by the final rulemakings dated October 24, 2008, and March 27, 2009, and redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(5) and (b)(6) as §§ 72.212(b)(9) and (b)(10), respectively (
The final rule redesignates current § 72.212(b)(7) as § 72.212(b)(11) and revises this provision to add references to an amended CoC. The final rule also adds language to clarify that a licensee must comply with the technical specifications of the CoC, in addition to the terms and conditions of the CoC. Further, the revised language requires the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the amended CoC for those casks to which the licensee has applied the changes of an amended CoC. The revised language further provides that licensees must also comply with the requirements of any AMP put into effect as a condition of the NRC approving a CoC renewal application.
The final rule redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(8)(i), (b)(9), and (b)(10) as §§ 72.212(b)(12), (b)(13), and (b)(14), respectively.
The final rule redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), and 72.212(b)(1)(iii) as §§ 72.212(c), (d), and (e), respectively, and makes conforming cross-reference changes.
The final rule revises § 72.230(b) by adding language that establishes the term for a period not to exceed 40 years. The final rule further amends § 72.230(b) by replacing the words “for a period of at least 20 years” with “the term proposed in the application.”
The final rule revises § 72.236(g) by adding language that requires spent fuel storage casks to be designed to store spent fuel safely for the term proposed in the application, eliminating the current language that requires the cask design to store spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years.
The final rule revises § 72.238 by adding language that establishes the term for a CoC to be “not to exceed 40 years.”
The final rule revises the heading of § 72.240 and the language of §§ 72.240(a), (b), and (d) by replacing the word “reapproval” with “renewal.” The final rule further revises § 72.240(a) to establish that the CoC renewal term shall be “not to exceed 40 years.” The final rule also revises § 72.240(a) to clarify that in the event that a certificate holder does not apply for a CoC renewal, any general licensee that uses this cask model under the general license issued under § 72.210, any licensee's representative, or another
The final rule adds a new § 72.240(c) to require the safety analysis report accompanying the renewal application to include design bases information as documented in the most recently updated FSAR, a TLAA of SSCs important to safety, and a description of the program for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety. The final rule redesignates § 72.240(c) as § 72.240(d) and revises this provision to add a requirement that any CoC renewal application must demonstrate compliance with the QA provisions of subpart G of part 72. The final rule also revises the last sentence of the provision to improve its readability.
The final rule adds a new § 72.240(e) that states the NRC may, as part of the approval of a CoC renewal application, revise the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC to require that the licensee implement an AMP.
This final rule redesignates § 72.212(b)(5) as § 72.212(b)(9). On October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63545, 63573), the NRC issued a final rule, “Protection of Safeguards Information,” that revised § 72.212 by adding a new § 72.212(b)(5)(v) and redesignated the existing § 72.212(b)(5)(v) as § 72.212(b)(5)(vi). The new § 72.212(b)(5)(v) added language requiring a general licensee to “protect Safeguards Information against unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the requirements of § 73.21 and the requirements of § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this chapter, as applicable.” The redesignated § 72.212(b)(5)(vi) was otherwise unchanged and continued to require “for the purpose of this general license, the licensee is exempt from §§ 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and 73.55(h)(5) of this chapter.” These two cross referenced paragraphs dealt with reactor security requirements to (1) neutralize threats by interposing armed security personnel between the adversaries and reactor vital areas and (2) use force to prevent or impede attempted acts of theft of special nuclear material or radiological sabotage; and the NRC has historically not applied these requirements to ISFSI general licensees.
On March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13925, 13970), the NRC published a final rule, “Power Reactor Security Requirements,” which included a conforming change to the security requirements contained in § 72.212(b)(5)(ii)-(v). The changes to § 72.212(b)(5)(ii)-(v) in the March 2009 final rule were intended to clarify these regulations to better use plain language and to update the exemption cross references to the reactor security regulations contained in § 73.55, due to the extensive revision of § 73.55.
In the March 2009 final rule, the NRC revised § 72.212(b)(5)(v) to update the exemption language to read “[f]or the purpose of this general license, the licensee is exempt from requirements to interdict and neutralize threats in § 73.55 of this chapter.” However, the amendatory language in the 2009 final rule (74 FR 13970, Item 8) which read “[i]n § 72.212, paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), and (b)(5)(v) are revised to read as follows:” should instead have read “[i]n § 72.212, paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv),
Accordingly, to correct these errors, this final rule removes § 72.212(b)(5)(vi) (which was put in place by the October 24, 2008, final rule) and reinstates the provision added by the October 24, 2008, rule and then deleted by the March 27, 2009, rule, as a new § 72.212(b)(9)(vi). The remaining provisions of § 72.212(b)(5) are redesignated from § 72.212(b)(5)(i)-(v) to § 72.212(b)(9)(i)-(v).
For the purpose of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Commission is amending 10 CFR part 72 under one or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule would be subject to criminal enforcement.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is clarifying the terms for spent fuel storage cask designs, or CoCs, and ISFSI licenses. In addition, the final action also allows part 72 general licensees to implement changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC (a “previously loaded cask”). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. For this reason, the NRC concludes that the Act does not apply to this final rule.
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, not to prepare an environmental impact statement for this final rule because the Commission has concluded on the basis of an environmental assessment that this final rule would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment and, on the basis of this environmental assessment, has made a finding of no significant impact. The amendments are procedural in nature whereby extended license and CoC terms and the implementation of CoC amendments to previously loaded casks could be achieved by exemptions under the current regulations. They will not have a significant incremental effect on the environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant impact to the public from this action.
This conclusion was published in the environmental assessment that was made available for comment for 75 days after publication of the proposed rule at the NRC Public Document Room, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. No comments were received on the content of the environmental assessment. The environmental assessment is also available in ADAMS, accession number ML100710441.
This rule contains new or amended information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Send comments on any aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available in the NRC Public Document Room, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, and in ADAMS, Accession Number ML100710139. As part of the proposed rule, the NRC sought public comments on the draft regulatory analysis. The NRC did not receive any comments that addressed the regulatory analysis.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The majority of companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 72.62, and the finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52) does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I. These amendments do not require the addition, elimination, or modification of structures, systems, or components of an ISFSI or of the procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistle blowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
(1) Involve structures, systems, and components important to safety within the scope of the license renewal, as delineated in subpart F of this part, or within the scope of the spent fuel storage certificate renewal, as delineated in subpart L of this part, respectively;
(2) Consider the effects of aging;
(3) Involve time-limited assumptions defined by the current operating term, for example, 40 years;
(4) Were determined to be relevant by the licensee or certificate holder in making a safety determination;
(5) Involve conclusions or provide the basis for conclusions related to the capability of structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety functions; and
(6) Are contained or incorporated by reference in the design bases.
(c) The design of the ISFSI or MRS in sufficient detail to support the findings in § 72.40 for the term requested in the application, including:
(a) Each license issued under this part must be for a fixed period of time to be specified in the license. The license term for an ISFSI must not exceed 40 years from the date of issuance. The license term for an MRS must not exceed 40 years from the date of issuance. Licenses for either type of installation may be renewed by the Commission at the expiration of the license term upon application by the licensee for a period not to exceed 40 years and under the requirements of this rule. Application for ISFSI license renewals must include the following:
(1) TLAAs that demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested period of extended operation; and
(2) A description of the AMP for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety.
(b) Applications for renewal of a license should be filed in accordance with the applicable provisions of subpart B of this part at least 2 years before the expiration of the existing license. The application must also include design bases information as documented in the most recently updated FSAR as required by § 72.70. Information contained in previous applications, statements, or reports filed with the Commission under the license may be incorporated by reference provided that these references are clear and specific.
5. In § 72.212, revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) and add paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall commence upon the date that the particular cask is first used by the general licensee to store spent fuel, shall continue through any renewals of the Certificate of Compliance, unless otherwise specified in the Certificate of Compliance, and shall terminate when the cask's Certificate of Compliance expires. For any cask placed into service during the final renewal term of a Certificate of Compliance, or during the term of a Certificate of Compliance that was not renewed, the general license for that cask shall terminate after a storage period not to exceed the length of the term certified by the cask's Certificate of Compliance. Upon expiration of the general license, all casks subject to that general license must be removed from service.
(b) The general licensee must:
(1) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission using instructions in § 72.4 at least 90 days before first storage of spent fuel under this general license. The notice may be in the form of a letter, but must contain the licensee's name, address, reactor license and docket numbers, and the name and means of contacting a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel under this general license. A copy of the submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
(2) Register use of each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later than 30 days after using that cask to store spent fuel. This registration may be accomplished by submitting a letter using instructions in § 72.4 containing the following information: the licensee's name and address, the licensee's reactor license and docket numbers, the name and title of a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license, the cask certificate number, the CoC amendment number to which the cask conforms, unless loaded under the initial certificate, cask model number, and the cask identification number. A copy of each submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
(3) Ensure that each cask used by the general licensee conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214.
(4) In applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC, register each such cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later than 30 days after applying the changes authorized by the amended CoC. This registration may be accomplished by submitting a letter using instructions in § 72.4 containing the following information: the licensee's name and address, the licensee's reactor license and docket numbers, the name and title of a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license, the cask certificate number, the CoC amendment number to which the cask conforms, cask model number, and the cask identification number. A copy of each submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter.
(5) Perform written evaluations, before use and before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC, which establish that:
(i) The cask, once loaded with spent fuel or once the changes authorized by an amended CoC have been applied, will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214;
(ii) Cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion; and
(iii) The requirements of § 72.104 have been met. A copy of this record shall be retained until spent fuel is no longer stored under the general license issued under § 72.210.
(6) Review the Safety Analysis Report referenced in the CoC or amended CoC and the related NRC Safety Evaluation Report, prior to use of the general license, to determine whether or not the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports. The results of this review must be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(7) Evaluate any changes to the written evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this section using the requirements of § 72.48(c). A copy of this record shall be retained until spent fuel is no longer stored under the general license issued under § 72.210.
(8) Before use of the general license, determine whether activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license involve a change in the facility Technical Specifications or require a license amendment for the facility pursuant to § 50.59(c) of this chapter. Results of this determination must be documented in the evaluations made in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(9) Protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the same provisions and requirements as are set forth in the licensee's physical security plan pursuant to § 73.55 of this chapter with the following additional conditions and exceptions:
(i) The physical security organization and program for the facility must be modified as necessary to assure that activities conducted under this general license do not decrease the effectiveness of the protection of vital equipment in accordance with § 73.55 of this chapter;
(ii) Storage of spent fuel must be within a protected area, in accordance with § 73.55(e) of this chapter, but need not be within a separate vital area. Existing protected areas may be expanded or new protected areas added for the purpose of storage of spent fuel in accordance with this general license;
(iii) For the purpose of this general license, personnel searches required by § 73.55(h) of this chapter before admission to a new protected area may be performed by physical pat-down searches of persons in lieu of firearms and explosives detection equipment;
(iv) The observational capability required by § 73.55(i)(3) of this chapter as applied to a new protected area may be provided by a guard or watchman on patrol in lieu of video surveillance technology;
(v) For the purpose of this general license, the licensee is exempt from requirements to interdict and neutralize threats in § 73.55 of this chapter; and
(vi) Each general licensee that receives and possesses power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage shall protect Safeguards Information against unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the requirements of § 73.21 and the requirements of § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this chapter, as applicable.
(10) Review the reactor emergency plan, quality assurance program, training program, and radiation protection program to determine if their effectiveness is decreased and, if so, prepare the necessary changes and seek and obtain the necessary approvals.
(11) Maintain a copy of the CoC and, for those casks to which the licensee has applied the changes of an amended CoC, the amended CoC, and the documents referenced in such Certificates, for each cask model used for storage of spent fuel, until use of the cask model is discontinued. The licensee shall comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC and, for those casks to which the licensee has applied the changes of an amended CoC, the terms, conditions, and specifications of the amended CoC, including but not limited to, the requirements of any AMP put into effect as a condition of the NRC approval of a CoC renewal application in accordance with § 72.240.
(12) Accurately maintain the record provided by the CoC holder for each cask that shows, in addition to the information provided by the CoC holder, the following:
(i) The name and address of the CoC holder or lessor;
(ii) The listing of spent fuel stored in the cask; and
(iii) Any maintenance performed on the cask.
(13) Conduct activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license only in accordance with written procedures.
(14) Make records and casks available to the Commission for inspection.
(c) The record described in paragraph (b)(12) of this section must include sufficient information to furnish documentary evidence that any testing and maintenance of the cask has been conducted under an NRC-approved quality assurance program.
(d) In the event that a cask is sold, leased, loaned, or otherwise transferred to another registered user, the record described in paragraph (b)(12) of this section must also be transferred to and must be accurately maintained by the new registered user. This record must be maintained by the current cask user during the period that the cask is used for storage of spent fuel and retained by the last user until decommissioning of the cask is complete.
(e) Fees for inspections related to spent fuel storage under this general license are those shown in § 170.31 of this chapter.
(b) Casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage of spent fuel under this subpart. An application must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in § 72.4, for a proposed term not to exceed 40 years. A copy of the CoC issued for the cask under part 71 of this chapter, and drawings and other documents referenced in the certificate, must be included with the application. A safety analysis report showing that the cask is suitable for storage of spent fuel, for the term proposed in the application, must also be included.
(g) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to store the spent fuel safely for the term proposed in the application, and permit maintenance as required.
A Certificate of Compliance for a cask model will be issued by NRC for a term not to exceed 40 years on a finding that the requirements in § 72.236(a) through (i) are met.
(a) The certificate holder may apply for renewal of the design of a spent fuel storage cask for a term not to exceed 40 years. In the event that the certificate holder does not apply for a cask design renewal, any licensee using a spent fuel storage cask, a representative of such licensee, or another certificate holder may apply for a renewal of that cask design for a term not to exceed 40 years.
(b) The application for renewal of the design of a spent fuel storage cask must be submitted not less than 30 days before the expiration date of the CoC.
(c) The application must be accompanied by a safety analysis report (SAR). The SAR must include the following:
(1) Design bases information as documented in the most recently updated final safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by § 72.248;
(2) Time-limited aging analyses that demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform their intended function for the requested period of extended operation; and
(3) A description of the AMP for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety.
(d) The design of a spent fuel storage cask will be renewed if the conditions in subpart G of this part and § 72.238 are met, and the application includes a demonstration that the storage of spent fuel has not, in a significant manner, adversely affected structures, systems, and components important to safety.
(e) In approving the renewal of the design of a spent fuel storage cask, the NRC may revise the CoC to include terms, conditions, and specifications that will ensure the safe operation of the cask during the renewal term, including but not limited to, terms, conditions, and specifications that will require the implementation of an AMP.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making minor technical changes to its regulations by removing expired Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs) and cross-references, as well as other expired or obsolete regulations. None of these changes are substantive in nature since the regulations in question have expired and are not currently in effect. This technical amendment is necessary to update our regulations. The rule will not impose any additional burden or restriction on persons or organizations affected by these regulations.
Effective February 16, 2011.
Jackie Smith, (202) 267-9682; Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; e-mail
The FAA periodically issues temporary regulations in 14 CFR called Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFARs). These SFARs are typically necessary for a finite period of time, and usually specify an expiration date within the regulatory text. Additionally, certain subparts have specified expiration dates within the regulatory text. Currently, 14 CFR contains several SFARs, subparts, and sections that have become unnecessary or have expiration dates that have passed. To maintain an accurate body of regulations, we are removing and/or amending SFAR Nos. 36, 80, 92-5, 93, 98, 101-1; Subparts J and M of part 21; Subpart B of part 93; §§ 91.146(b), 121.360, 135.153, 183.61(a)(1), 183.63, and corresponding references. The following tables are presented for the reader's convenience.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency doesn't have to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking when the agency for good cause finds that public notice and procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
The Administrative Procedure Act also states that an agency must publish a substantive rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause.
This regulation is editorial in nature and imposes no additional burden on any person or organization. Therefore, we have determined the action: (1) Is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866; and (2) is not a significant rule under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policy and
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures
Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Airspace, Aviation safety, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Afghanistan, Agriculture, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Canada, Cuba, Ethiopia, Freight, Mexico, Noise control, Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Yugoslavia.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Teachers.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Airmen, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends parts 21, 61, 63, 77, 91, 93, 121, 135, 145, and 183 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44703, 44705, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45703, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44717,
31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44702, 45303
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS SPRUANCE (DDG 111) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective February 16, 2011 and is applicable beginning February 9, 2011.
Lieutenant Jaewon Choi, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066,
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR Part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS SPRUANCE (DDG 111) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Rule 21(a), pertaining to the arc of visibility of the forward masthead light; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the CFR as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polymerized fatty acid esters with aminoalcohol alkoxylates (PFAEAA) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,200, limited to the chemicals listed in Unit 11 of the
This regulation is effective February 16, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 18, 2011, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Deirdre Sunderland, Registration Division (7505P), 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
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 18, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0275, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *” EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for PFAEAA including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with PFAEAA follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The acute oral median lethal dose (LD
In addition, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk to human health or the environment (i.e. 40 CFR 180.960). The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). PFAEAA conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets all of the following criteria, with the exception of the “reactive functional group” criterion (specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e) in this Unit), that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, in order to meet the low risk polymer criteria, the polymer also meets as required the exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e) regarding minimum MW and reactive functional groups. The polymer's number average MW of 1,200 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons, as required by 40 CFR 723.250(e). Further, the polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250(e) requirement that it contain less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000. This subsection also states that the polymer may not contain any reactive functional groups. PFAEAA contain one tertiary amine which makes it ineligible for registration under 40 CFR 180.960; however, the Agency believes that these reactive functional groups are not a safety concern for humans because information provided by the petitioner indicates that the polymer exists in a zwitterionic form in which the tertiary amine nitrogen is internally protonated and not available for further covalent bonding. Additionally, the structure of the polymer and its conformation appear to reduce the compound's basicity and nucleophilicity. This is further supported by a measurement of the isoelectric point (pI) of the polymer.
Available toxicity studies are limited. However, due to their large size (minimum number average molecular weight 1,200 amu) and the general conformance to the 40 CFR 180.960, polymerized fatty acid esters with aminoalcohol alkoxylates are not expected to pass through an intact gastrointestinal tract nor are they anticipated to penetrate intact human skin. Inhalation exposure is not expected. Because of their inability to enter systemic circulation when used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulation PFAEAA are essentially nontoxic. Therefore, the Agency concluded that a standard battery of toxicological studies are not necessary.
Due to its low potential hazard and lack of a hazard endpoint, the Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate.
A reverse mutation assay “Ames Test” with and without activation (Harmonized Test Guideline 870.5100) indicated that a representative chemical, diethylaminoethanol, ethoxylated, reaction products with fatty acid trimers (CAS Reg. No. 1173188-81-2), is non-mutagenic and based on the available information on PFAEAAs; they are not anticipated to be carcinogenic.
1.
2.
The proposed exemption will allow for various types of residential exposure; however, due to the characteristics of these chemicals it is not expected that PFAEAA will be absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or intact human skin nor is it expected to be available via inhalation. Therefore, there is no increased risk from exposure to residential products containing PFAEAA as an inert ingredient. For that reason the Agency believes a residential risk assessment is not necessary.
3.
EPA has not found PFAEAA to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and PFAEAA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that PFAEAA does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Due to large size of the PFAEAA polymers it is unlikely that they will enter systemic circulation from either the gastrointestinal tract or intact human skin. As a result, they are unlikely to elicit a toxic response in infants and children when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. Available toxicity studies confirm this belief and indicate low toxicity; therefore, the Agency did not use a safety factor (SF) analysis for assessing risk. For similar reasons, the additional SF for the protection of infants and children is not necessary.
As indicated in Unit IV, these nonirritant (eye and skin) inert ingredients would be incapable of entering systemic circulation and therefore, unable to elicit a toxic response in adults and infants/children. Taking into consideration all available information on PFAEAA, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to PFAEAA under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 for residues of PFAEAA when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest and formulations applied to animals are safe under FFDCA section 408.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for PFAEAA.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 for the petitioned-for PFAEAA chemicals when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest and formulations applied to animals.
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.
The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents.
These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible Oregon and Washington pear growers to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington.
The referendum will be conducted from February 26 through March 11, 2011. To vote in this referendum, growers must have grown pears in Oregon or Washington during the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 805 SW. Broadway, Suite 930, Portland, Oregon 97205, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237.
Teresa Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA;
Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 927 (7 CFR part 927), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by growers. The referendum shall be conducted from February 26 through March 11, 2011, among eligible Oregon and Washington pear growers. Only growers that were engaged in the production of pears in Oregon or Washington during the period of July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, may participate in the continuance referendum.
USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether growers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. USDA would consider termination of the order if less than two-thirds of the growers voting in the referendum and growers of less than two-thirds of the volume of Oregon and Washington pears represented in the referendum favor continuance of their program. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will not exclusively consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information regarding operation of the order and relative benefits and disadvantages to growers, handlers, and consumers to determine whether continuing the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the ballot materials used in the referendum herein ordered have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 1700 Oregon-Washington pear growers to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after March 11, 2011, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Teresa Hutchinson and Gary D. Olson of the Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR §§ 900.400-900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all growers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents or from their appointees.
Marketing agreements and orders, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Gulfstream GVI airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features include a high speed protection system. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
We must receive your comments by April 4, 2011.
You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Carl Niedermeyer, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Standards Staff, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2279; facsimile (425) 227-1320.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which you have written the docket number. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
On March 29, 2005, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (hereafter referred to as “Gulfstream”) applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Gulfstream Model GVI passenger airplane. Gulfstream later applied for, and was granted, an extension of time for the type certificate, which changed the effective application date to September 28, 2006. The Gulfstream Model GVI airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with an executive cabin interior. The maximum takeoff weight will be 99,600 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 19 passengers.
Under provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Gulfstream Model GVI airplane (hereafter referred to as “the GVI”) meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-119, 25-122, and 25-124. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the GVI because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
In addition to complying with the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GVI must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must also issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under provisions of § 21.101.
The GVI is equipped with a high speed protection system that limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above V
Gulfstream proposes to reduce the speed margin between V
Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition which was originally adopted in Part 4b of the civil air regulations to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Freedom from flutter and the airframe design loads are affected by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for all potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones.
To establish that all potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, the applicant would demonstrate that the dive speed will not be exceeded during pilot-induced or gust-induced upsets in non-symmetric attitudes.
In addition, the high speed protection system in the GVI must have a high level of reliability.
As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the GVI. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the GVI. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
1. In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20 second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), V
(a) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at V
(b) From a speed below V
2. The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin, established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes, unless the airplane is protected by the flight control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers described in Advisory Circular 25-7A, Change 1, section 32, paragraphs c.(3)(i) and (iii) may be used to comply with this requirement.
3. Any failure of the high speed protection system that would affect the speed margin determined by paragraphs 1. and 2. must be improbable (occur at a rate less than 10
4. Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots, and flight manual instructions must be provided to reduce the maximum operating speeds, V
5. Master minimum equipment list (MMEL) relief for the high speed protection system may be considered by the FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB) provided that the flight manual instructions indicate reduced maximum operating speeds as described in paragraph 4., and that no additional hazards are introduced with the high speed protection system inoperative. In addition, the cockpit display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high speed protection system operative.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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:
On two occurrences on Mystère-Falcon 50 aeroplanes in service, it was detected that two pipes of the emergency brake system #2 located near the nose landing gear bearing were swapped.
The swapping of these two pipes implies that when the Left Hand (LH) brake pedal is depressed, the Right Hand (RH) brake unit is activated, and conversely, when the RH brake pedal is depressed, the LH brake unit is actuated. This constitutes an unsafe condition, which may go unnoticed as the condition is latent until the emergency brake system #2 is used. This condition, if not corrected, could ultimately lead to a runway excursion of the aeroplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 4, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
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 November 15, 2010, we issued AD 2010-24-08, Amendment 39-16527 (75 FR 71530, November 24, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 Airplanes.
In AD 2010-24-08, we pointed out that the corresponding EASA AD, AD 2010-0208-E, dated October 12, 2010, requires painting the pipes end of the emergency brake system number 2 and related unions within 7 months after the effective date of that AD. We explained that AD 2010-24-08 did not require that action, and that we might consider additional rulemaking to require this action in the future. We have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary to require that action, and this AD follows from that determination.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an 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.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 248 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2010-24-08 and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,080, or $85 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 39-16527 (75 FR 71530, November 24, 2010) and adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by April 4, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2010-24-08, Amendment 39-16527.
(c) This AD applies to DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing Gear.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
On two occurrences on Mystère-Falcon 50 aeroplanes in service, it was detected that two pipes of the emergency brake system #2 located near the nose landing gear bearing were swapped.
The swapping of these two pipes implies that when the Left Hand (LH) brake pedal is depressed, the Right Hand (RH) brake unit is activated, and conversely, when the RH brake pedal is depressed, the LH brake unit is actuated. This constitutes an unsafe condition, which may go unnoticed as the condition is latent until the emergency brake system #2 is used. This condition, if not corrected, could ultimately lead to a runway excursion of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 7 days after December 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-24-08), do a general visual inspection for correct installation (as defined in Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010) of the emergency brake system number 2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010, except that work required by this AD can only be done by persons prescribed in 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7.
(h) If the emergency brake system number 2 is found installed incorrectly during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, install the emergency brake system number 2 correctly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010.
(i) Within 7 months after the effective date of this AD, paint the pipe ends of the emergency brake system #2 and related unions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2010-0208-E, dated October 12, 2010, has a compliance time of “before the next flight after the effective date of this AD.” This AD requires that the actions be done within 7 days after the effective date of AD 2010-24-08.
(2) EASA AD 2010-0208-E, dated October 12, 2010, allows the flightcrew to inspect the emergency brake system number 2 specified in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010. However, this AD requires the inspection to be performed by certificated maintenance personnel.
(j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(k) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2010-0208-E, dated October 12, 2010; and Dassault Service Bulletin F50-515, dated October 12, 2010; for related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 2011.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT. The airport was moved 1.5 nautical miles (NM) to the northeast. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT. This will also correct the airport name from Poplar Airport.
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2011.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0016; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0016 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0016 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-1”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT. The airport has been moved 1.5 NM northeast of the original airport site. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Poplar Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the Airport. This will also correct the name from Poplar Airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the Poplar Municipal Airport, MT, and within 4 miles each side of the 105° bearing extending from the airport to 10.3 miles southeast of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line from lat. 47°53′25″ N., long. 105°52′50″ W.; to lat. 48°18′00″ N., long. 105°52′50″ W.; to lat. 48°18′00″ N., long. 104°30′00″ W.; to lat. 47°53′25″ N., long. 104°30′00″ W.; to the beginning; excluding that airspace within Federal airways and the Wolf Point, MT, Class E airspace area.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to abandon its separation requirements at launch sites for storing liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, hydrogen peroxide in concentrations equal to or below 91 percent, and refined petroleum-1 (RP-1) unless they are within an intraline distance of another incompatible energetic liquid, or will be co-located on a launch vehicle. The FAA's current separation requirements for storing these energetic liquids unnecessarily duplicate the requirements of other regulatory regimes. The FAA also proposes to reduce the separation distances required for division 1.1 explosives and liquid propellants with trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalents of less than or equal to 450 pounds. The revised separation requirements reflect protection against fragment hazards, the main hazard at these quantities. The FAA would impose a new formula for determining distances to public areas containing a member of the public in the open. Finally, the FAA would reduce the separation distances for division 1.3 explosives as well. The proposed rule would increase flexibility for launch site operators in site planning for the storage and handling of explosives.
Send your comments on or before May 17, 2011.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-0105 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this proposed rule contact Charles Huet, Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7427; facsimile (202) 267-3686, e-mail
Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as codified and amended in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) Subtitle IX—Commercial Space Transportation, chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121 (the Act), authorizes the Department of Transportation and thus the FAA, through delegations, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 49 U.S.C. 70104, 70105. The Act directs the FAA to exercise this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. 49 U.S.C. 70105. The FAA is also responsible for encouraging, facilitating, and promoting commercial space launches by the private sector. 49 U.S.C. 70103.
Authority for this particular rulemaking is derived from 49 U.S.C. 70105, which requires that the FAA issue a license to operate a launch site consistent with public health and safety.
In 2000, the FAA issued regulations governing the storing and handling of explosives as part of its regulations governing the licensing and operation of a launch site.
Since the original rulemaking, the FAA's experience with the requirements has led it to propose changes. At the time it promulgated the original requirements, the FAA anticipated that any new launch sites would be devoted to expendable launch vehicles, and, therefore, relied on the siting requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) Explosive Siting Board's (DDESB)
Changes to definitions would be changes of general effect. Additionally, the FAA proposes to increase the flexibility it has in applying its explosive siting requirements by recognizing that approaches other than those mandated by part 420 may provide a level of safety equivalent to part 420. The FAA also proposes to dispense with separation distance requirements for storing liquid oxidizers and Class I, II and III flammable and combustible liquids. When oxidizers are isolated from incompatible energetic liquids and compliant with the design and operational requirements of other regulatory regimes, they do not pose a risk of fire or explosion. Isolating the storing of liquid oxidizers from a fuel source minimizes the risk associated with chemical explosion due to the mixing of the two. In accordance with current DDESB and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) practice, the FAA proposes to dispense with the hazard groups of tables E-3 through E-6 of appendix E of part 420 as a means of classification because the NFPA classification system is more commonly used. A number of those changes are editorial, but the FAA also proposes to identify the minimum separation distances to public areas and public traffic routes for quantities between less than half a pound and 450 pounds of division 1.1 explosives and liquid propellants with TNT equivalency. The FAA would impose a new formula for determining distances to public areas containing a member of the public in the open. The FAA also proposes to change its separation requirements for division 1.3 explosives.
The FAA proposes to clarify an existing definition and to add four new ones. We would clarify the meaning of “explosive hazard facility.” We would define “energetic liquid,” “liquid propellant,” “maximum credible event,” and “public traffic route.”
The FAA proposes to define “energetic liquids” to mean a liquid, slurry, or gel, consisting of, or containing an explosive, oxidizer, fuel, or combination, that may undergo, contribute to, or cause rapid exothermic decomposition, deflagration, or detonation. “Energetic liquids” would thus include liquid fuels and oxidizers, monopropellant, hybrid, and liquid bipropellant systems.
The FAA would define “liquid propellants” to mean a monopropellant or incompatible energetic liquids co-located for purposes of serving as propellants on a launch vehicle or a related device,
Limiting the use of the term would be more consistent with typical uses of the term “liquid propellants.” Explosive siting experts typically consider the term to mean incompatible energetic liquids that are co-located for purposes of serving as propellants on a launch vehicle. In other words, the same energetic liquid is a propellant if on a rocket, but not if in a storage tank. This special meaning is not obvious, but is understood by those persons who work on these issues. The FAA proposes to confine use of the term to § 420.69, which governs launch pads where solid explosives and energetic liquids are all within intraline distances of each other because they are used as fuels for a launch vehicle.
The FAA proposes to clarify that an “explosive hazard facility” means not only a facility, as identified in the present definition, but a location at a launch site where solid explosives, energetic liquids, or other explosives are stored or handled. Part 420 currently defines an “explosive hazard facility” as a facility at a launch site where solid propellant, liquid propellant, or other explosives are stored or handled. There are circumstances where it is not always clear what satisfies this definition. For example, under this definition, explosive hazard facility could be misinterpreted to only apply to buildings or storage sites. Clarifying that an explosive hazard facility is not only a facility, but is also any other location, would more clearly include hazardous
The FAA proposes to define “maximum credible event” to mean a hypothesized worst-case event, including an accident, explosion, fire, or agent release that is likely to occur from a given quantity and disposition of explosives, chemical agents, or reactive material. A “maximum credible event” is one with a reasonable probability of occurring, taking into account the propagation of the predicted explosion, burn rate, and physical protection such as barriers located around the explosive materials.
Although the FAA cites “public traffic route distance” in § 420.65, there is no definition for the term in the current rule. “Public traffic route” means any road or other mode of transportation on a launch site that serves the general public, and the FAA now proposes to codify that working definition. A “public traffic route” is a public area, but one that may permit shorter separation distances than other public areas due to the ability of a launch site operator to close off the public traffic route and the sporadic presence of members of the public.
Section 420.63 contains general requirements applicable to the preparation of an explosive siting plan, the explosive siting requirements for a launch site located on a federal range, and provision for establishing an equivalent level of safety for explosive siting issues not otherwise addressed by part 420. The FAA proposes only editorial changes to its explosive siting requirements at § 420.63, with two exceptions. The first is that the FAA proposes an explosive site map using a scale sufficient to show distance and structural relationships. The other substantive change would be proposed paragraph (d), which would allow a launch site operator to propose a different separation distance if able to clearly and convincingly demonstrate level of safety equivalent to that required by part 420.
The FAA proposes to require an explosive site map using a scale sufficient to show whether distances and structural relationships satisfy the requirements of this part. The FAA has had difficulty reviewing explosive site maps provided by some launch operators because they employed scales where 1 inch equaled 1500 feet or more. As a result, the maps lacked the fidelity necessary to determine compliance with part 420. The FAA intends by this proposal to ensure the scale is appropriate to the site while still being able to determine compliance.
Proposed § 420.63(d) would permit a launch site operator to separate each explosive hazard facility by distances other than those required by part 420 if the launch site operator could clearly and convincingly demonstrate a level of safety equivalent to that required by this part. Section 420.63(c) currently provides that for explosive siting issues not otherwise addressed by the regulations, a launch site operator must clearly and convincingly demonstrate a level of safety equivalent to that otherwise required by part 420. This has meant that there has been confusion over whether the FAA would permit a demonstration of an equivalent level of safety for explosive materials that part 420 already addresses. Proposed paragraph (d) is necessary to clarify that the FAA intended to permit alternative means of demonstrating an equivalent level of safety to what part 420 addressed as well as to what part 420 did not address. In the discussion accompanying the rulemaking promulgating part 420, the FAA noted that it would allow alternatives to the quantity-distance (Q-D) requirements in the form of, for example, hardening of structures or barricades, if the launch site operator demonstrated that such an approach clearly and convincingly provided an equivalent level of safety.
Section 420.67 addresses both storing and handling of energetic liquids. This is confusing and the FAA proposes to separate storing and handling into two separate sections, relying on proposed § 420.66 for storing and § 420.67 for the handling of energetic liquids. The FAA proposes to reduce its requirements for appropriate separation distances to address only the highly hazardous energetic liquids. The FAA would dispense with separation distance requirements for the storing of liquid oxidizers and RP-1 when they are sufficiently isolated from each other that a mishap associated with one material would not affect the other. This means the FAA would no longer impose separation requirements for RP-1 or for the oxidizers, liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, and hydrogen peroxide in concentrations below 91 percent. These energetic liquids are all currently governed by § 420.67(b) and tables E-3 through E-6 of Appendix E of this part.
The FAA bases this proposal on two factors: first, when isolated from incompatible materials, energetic liquids such as liquid oxygen and RP-1 do not pose a threat of chemical explosion due to accidental mixing, and, second, other federal and local requirements address fire prevention for most industrial chemicals. There are situations where these energetic liquids may contribute to the risks associated with explosions, and the FAA will continue to regulate them in that context under § 420.63(c).
For example, part 420 treats liquid oxygen as an explosive hazard because, when combined with incompatible materials, chemical explosion may occur. However, when stored as required by intraline distance requirements with appropriate mitigation measures to prevent contact with incompatible materials, such an effect should not result. The FAA proposes to reclassify liquid oxygen because current separation requirements always treat liquid oxygen as an explosive hazard, even when stored in the appropriate intraline distance away from the incompatible materials.
When the FAA promulgated part 420, it focused almost entirely on safety measures for expendable launch vehicles, including the safety issues surrounding storing and handling of energetic liquids, such as liquid propellants. The FAA modeled its separation requirements for table E-3's Hazard Groups I through III liquid propellants on the requirements employed at the federal launch ranges, where the majority of FAA licensed launches took place. Accordingly, the FAA followed the 1997 DOD Standard. Consequently, the FAA did not take into account the pervasive use by federal, state and local jurisdictions of requirements that address the storage of these classes of materials. Nor did the commercial space regulations account for the airport requirements governing fuels.
Additionally, state and local codes use standards devised by organizations, such as the CGA, the International Code Council, the International Fire Code Institute, and NFPA. Several states where launch sites are located implement some form of the requirements recommended by these organizations. The exceptions are California, Florida and Texas.
The issue of overlapping requirements was first brought to light by the FAA's experience in regulating the East Kern Airport District (EKAD), the launch site operator of Mojave Air and Space Port. Before Mojave acquired launch customers, it operated as an airport. Consequently, it followed the FAA airport and local fire codes, including the requirements of NFPA. With the advent of reusable launch vehicles, EKAD confronted a host of siting issues, including the storing and handling of liquid oxygen, kerosene, and isopropyl alcohol.
In 2004, the FAA waived EKAD's compliance with § 420.67, which governs the storage and handling of liquid propellants, including liquid oxygen and kerosene, and permitted EKAD to comply with DOD 6055.9-STD instead.
In December 2007, in response to EKAD's request, the FAA again waived explosive siting storage requirements for EKAD by issuing new license terms and conditions. This time, the FAA stated that, for the storage of liquid oxygen, kerosene and isopropyl alcohol, EKAD had to comply with NFPA Standard No. 55 (2005 ed.) and No. 33 (2008 ed.) for separation distances and spill containment. EKAD License Order No. LSO 04-009A (Rev. 1) (Dec. 20, 2007).
Recently, the FAA waived storage requirements of part 420 for liquid oxygen and RP-1 for the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA) for its operation of portions of Cecil Field as a launch site. JAA, License Order No. LSO 09-012 (Jan. 11, 2010). In its evaluation of the request for a waiver, the FAA noted that DDESB adopted NFPA standards for storing conventional liquid fuels and oxidizers such as liquid oxygen and RP-1. DoD 6055.9-STD (2004). A review of the accident and test data of a number of fuels, oxidizers, and monopropellants against NFPA Hazard Instability Rating system defined by
The FAA has a number of reasons for proposing to dispense with separation distance requirements for storing liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, hydrogen peroxide in concentrations equal to or below 91 percent and RP-1. These energetic materials do not create explosive hazards when in isolation,
The FAA's waivers were based on DDESB standards, which are now incorporating the NFPA standards. DDESB standards themselves do not apply to civilian commercial activities. Nonetheless, the federal regulations that do apply adequately address the FAA's concerns.
Part 420, Appendix E, table E-3, currently classifies by hazard group, the following energetic liquids: hydrogen peroxide, hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, RP-1, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and the combination of UDMH and hydrazine. Each group represents different levels of hazard. Group I, which consists of nitrogen tetroxide and RP-1, is a fire hazard. Group II, which consists of hydrogen peroxide and liquid oxygen, is a group of strong oxidizers that may exhibit vigorous oxidation or rapid combustion in contact with materials, such as organic matter, possibly resulting in serious fires. Group III, which consists of hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, UDMH, and the combination of hydrazine and UDMH, presents hazards from the pressure rupture of a storage container resulting in fire, deflagration, or vapor phase explosions. Either pressure rupture of a container or vapor phase explosion can cause a fragment hazard from the container and any protective structure. In accordance with the current DDESB and NFPA practice, the FAA proposes to dispense with these hazard groups because the more commonly used classification system is that of the NFPA. The NFPA classifies energetic liquids based on instability ratings, as noted above in section III B.
The FAA proposes clarifying changes to its requirements for the separation distances for handling divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives under § 420.65 and accompanying tables E-1 through E-4 of appendix E of this part. The FAA proposes to make editorial changes, abandon the use of linear interpolation, provide more increments for the quantities in its tables, and provide formulas for calculating acceptable distances between explosive hazard facilities. The FAA proposes a number of editorial and organizational changes to improve clarity. The FAA would no longer refer to the solid explosives governed by this section as solid propellants because, technically, the provision applies to more than just solid propellants. Currently, § 420.65 states that it applies to solid propellants, which are used in expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) for propulsion. Solid propellants are division 1.3 explosives. Explosives used in an ELV's flight termination system are division 1.1 explosives. Strictly speaking, the latter are not propellants, so the FAA proposes the title and the language of this section more precisely identify what it governs to avoid misunderstanding.
The FAA proposes to no longer permit the use of linear interpolation under § 420.65(d)(4) for any quantities because it was incorrect for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and, given the requirements of the provision, it is unclear when it applies. The lack of clarity is evident from the fact that, on the one hand, this section allows a launch site operator to use linear interpolation for the net explosive weight (NEW) quantities between entries in table E-1. On the other hand, the table itself either rigidly provides a distance of 1,250 feet for all NEW quantities of 30,000 pounds or less,
The FAA would also reorganize the tables that accompany this section for purposes of greater clarity. Currently, appendix E contains a single table, table E-1, for public area and intraline distances for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives. The table identifies quantities in increments starting with zero to 1,000 pounds, and progresses through quantities between 1,000 and 5,000 pounds, and then advances in increments of 10,000 and 100,000 pounds up to 1,000,000 pounds.
The FAA proposes that table E-1 show the minimum separation distances to public areas and public traffic routes for quantities of division 1.1 explosives with a NEW for quantities less than or equal to 450 pounds. Currently, the minimum distance from an explosive hazard facility to a public area for quantities between zero and 30,000 pounds is 1,250 feet, regardless of whether the quantity is, for example, two pounds or 9,000 pounds. This greater level of precision would provide launch site operators greater flexibility while still maintaining appropriate distances to public areas and public traffic routes. The FAA would also provide formulas to calculate distances for quantities that fall between the entries in the table. The formulas would account for NEW of less than 100 pounds and for quantities between 100 and 450 pounds:
The FAA has allowed licensees to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety by using the formulas proposed here. The formulas account for the fact that fragments are the primary hazard associated with division 1.1 explosives for quantities of 450 pounds or less. Air blast can carry or propel fragments, but it is the fragments that cause the damage to persons. The proposed formula in table E-1 would account for the probability that one hazardous fragment would land within a 600 square feet area for a given quantity of division 1.1 explosive. The relationship is a natural logarithmic function when calculating distance based on NEW. When
The relationship is based on data obtained from DDESB TP 16, rev. 2, 2005
Table E-2 would also contain the public traffic route distances for division 1.1 explosives. In § 420.65(d)(3), the FAA already permits a launch site operator to employ the more lenient public traffic route separation distance, but only for division 1.1 explosives. Although a public traffic route is a public area, this section permits a separation distance of 60 percent of the public area distance. Thus, for convenience, proposed table E-2 would show the distance currently permitted by § 420.65(d)(3).
Table E-2 would also contain a formula by which a launch site operator could determine the maximum NEW it could handle in an explosive hazard facility as would be permitted by the proposed § 420.65(e)(3). The proposed formulas reflect the inverse function of the equations provided by current table E-1. Publishing them would allow a launch site operator to calculate the maximum quantities it could have in an existing explosive hazard facility based on distances. This will increase the flexibility of launch site operators who already have constructed sites, but wish to expand their operations into serving as launch sites.
Proposed table E-3 would contain intraline distance formulas currently contained in table E-1 for division 1.1 solid explosives. For division 1.1 explosives, the FAA would decrease the increments between quantities for greater convenience. Also, the proposed table would provide a formula for calculating separation distances for quantities that fall between table entries.
For division 1.3 explosives, proposed table E-4 would contain minimum separation distances to public areas and public traffic routes, and intraline distances. The distances the FAA proposes reflect the exponential relationship, between the quantity of division 1.3 explosives and the necessary separation distances, rather than the inaccurate linear interpolation relationship currently expressed in the rules. Accordingly, the distances would be smaller than those currently required by table E-1.
Proposed § 420.65(d)(3) would require a launch site operator to separate each public area containing any member of the public in the open by a distance equal to −1133.9 + [389 * ln(NEW)] where the NEW is greater than 450 pounds and less than 600,000 pounds. Under current part 420, the FAA does not distinguish between public areas that are buildings, where people are sheltered, and those where people are out in the open. For a net explosive weight up to 30,000 pounds, fragments rather than blast can injure people in the open.
This new requirement would not affect the siting of facilities in relationship to public traffic routes such as roads. The facility could still be sited at sixty percent of the distance to a public area. However, if there were people in the open on a public road during an operation involving division 1.1 explosives or liquid propellants, the members of the public would have to be kept at the distance mandated by the formula. Depending on the net explosive weight, the distance could be less than or greater than the public area or public traffic route distances. The FAA does not consider persons in moving vehicles to be in the open.
The FAA also proposes to permit launch site operators to determine permissible NEW or TNT equivalent weight for existing facilities under proposed paragraph (e). Not all launch sites are built from the ground up. As experience over the past few years demonstrates, airports may apply for a license to operate a launch site. On occasion, the operator will want to use existing facilities for handling of division 1.1 explosives or liquid propellants. The FAA would provide a formula for the operator to calculate the maximum quantity permitted. The formula provided in table E-1 is based on fragment hazard tests that DDESB conducted, which can be found in DDESB TP 16, rev. 2. The formula provided in table E-2 is based on current table E-1 for blast overpressure equations. The operator would have to measure the distance from the explosive hazard facility using the measuring requirements of proposed § 420.70.
Through proposed § 420.66, the FAA will continue to impose storage requirements for hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, and hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of greater than 91 percent because of concerns regarding a greater risk for a chemical explosion associated with these energetic liquids, but will not address quantities below 100 pounds for liquid hydrogen and hydrazine. Under current requirements, table E-3 shows that all three of these energetic liquids belong to Hazard Group III, which means that table E-4 applies. Under the proposed requirements, the distances would not change in proposed table E-8. The FAA recognizes that OSHA addresses liquid hydrogen and hydrazine, but the FAA is not going to rely on OSHA for quantities of liquid hydrogen above 100 pounds because OSHA requires no more than 100 feet for outdoor storage of quantities up to 30,000 gallons. Part 420 separation distances vary depending on quantity. Likewise, OSHA addresses hydrazine, but the separation distances for quantities in excess of 100 pounds remain of concern to the FAA for public safety purposes in that they pose a threat of catastrophic consequences. Even in storage, accidents can happen with these materials. NFPA standards, which are incorporated by other regulators as discussed above, address the storage of hydrogen peroxide in high concentrations, but the FAA will keep
The FAA proposes to create a new § 420.66 to govern the storage of these materials for greater clarity. Current § 420.67, which governs the storage and handling of liquid propellants, already contains most of these requirements. The FAA proposes to relocate the rules governing measurement to proposed § 420.70.
Proposed § 420.66 would apply to hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of greater than 91 percent, hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, or any energetic liquid that is incompatible with and is stored within an intraline distance of any of them. As with the current requirements, a launch site operator would first determine the total quantity of energetic liquids it would store on its launch site. As with the current rule, a launch site operator must convert each of the energetic liquid's quantity from gallons to pounds. The formula would remain unchanged, but we propose to add, in proposed table E-6, conversion factors for additional energetic liquids not currently addressed by table E-3 of the current rule. The FAA obtained the conversion factors for ethyl alcohol,
Currently, table E-5 prescribes separation distances for hydrogen peroxide without specifying the concentration levels to which it applies. Proposed table E-7 would contain separation distances for high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (greater than 91 percent) in quantities above 10,000 pounds. Because the current distances encompass hydrogen peroxide at lower concentrations, the distances proposed would be greater than those currently required. This reflects the 2004 DOD Standard. As noted in the section discussing storage requirements, OSHA imposes process safety management requirements in quantities greater than 7500 pounds and in concentrations of greater than 52 percent by weight.
Proposed table E-8 would contain the requirements of current table E-6 for hydrazine and liquid hydrogen. The FAA proposes to dispense with separation requirements for quantities of liquid hydrogen and hydrazine of less than 100 pounds because OSHA regulates these materials in quantities below 100 pounds. OSHA's regulation of liquid hydrogen includes separation distance, design, and operational procedure requirements. The requirements apply to storage of all liquid hydrogen
Currently, § 420.67(b) requires a launch site operator to determine hazard and compatibility groups and separate liquid propellants from each other and from each public area using the distances identified in tables E-4 though E-7 of Appendix E of this part. The only substantive change the FAA now proposes to this paragraph arises out of the FAA's proposal to dispense with the hazard compatibility groups of table E-3. As noted in the discussion of the storage of liquid propellants, the FAA proposes to dispense with classifying certain liquid propellants as members of Hazard Groups I, II or III. Currently, table E-3 identifies what hazard group a material belongs to, and tables E-4, E-5 and E-6 impose separation distances for each of those hazard groups. These classifications would be unnecessary because the hazard groups only apply to storage distances, and, once we focus only on certain energetic liquids, we no longer would require these broad classifications.
At times, incompatible energetic liquids must be co-located and even mixed to fulfill their intended functions as liquid propellants. Most obviously, many launch vehicles' performance come from the propulsion power provided by liquid bipropellant systems consisting of a liquid fuel and oxidizer. Engine tests also require the handling of energetic liquids when in close enough proximity to create a hazard of an explosion occurring. Once liquid propellants are co-located for these or other operational purposes, different separation distances to the public apply than for the storage of energetic liquids. If incompatible energetic liquids are co-located, the handling distances of § 420.67 apply for determining intraline and public area distances. The FAA also notes that although it proposes to dispense with requirements for NFPA Class I-III flammable and combustible liquids for storage, it will still require that a launch site operator account for them when determining separation distances for combinations.
Section 420.67 would narrow in scope. Currently, it applies as written to liquid propellants at a launch site. In practice, this has meant that when a launch operator is located at an airport, requirements that were originally intended for launch vehicles and engine testing applied to jet fuels and other energetic liquids for which there were already requirements. Section 420.67(a) would limit its applicability to rocket engines. Specifically, it would apply where incompatible energetic liquids are co-located in a launch or reentry vehicle tank or other vessel, such as a propulsion unit, on the vehicle. This would include such obvious applications as a vehicle on a launch
For the reasons provided in the discussion of § 420.65, the FAA proposes to provide tables and formulas for quantities up to 450 pounds rather than requiring a distance of 1,250 feet for all quantities up to 30,000 pounds. As clarified in proposed § 420.67(d)(4), which would clarify and expand upon current § 420.67(b)(5), for explosive hazard facilities of a single customer, a launch site operator must use the greater intraline distance to separate the facilities from each other.
Proposed § 420.67(d)(4) would also clarify that for explosive hazard facilities used by different customers, a launch site operator must use the greater public area distance to separate the explosive hazard facilities from each other. This is implicit in the current requirements because different launch operators are the public with respect to each other. Section 420.5 defines the public as persons not involved in supporting a launch, and includes any other launch operator and its personnel. Accordingly, under the existing rules, if the public area distance created by launch operator A's vehicle at one launch pad was 1250 feet and 700 feet for launch operator B's launch pad, the launch pads would have to be separated by the greater distance of 1,250 feet. An explicit requirement would increase clarity.
Under proposed § 420.67(c)(2), the FAA would permit a launch site operator to use the shorter distances of table E-1 for liquid propellants with explosive equivalencies in quantities below or equal to 450 pounds. In promulgating part 420, the FAA created table E-1 to show separation distance requirements for solid explosives. Table E-1 requires a separation distance of 1,250 feet to a public area for division 1.1 explosives in quantities between zero and 30,000 pounds. As discussed earlier, the FAA now proposes to achieve a higher level of fidelity so that for a site where liquid propellants are handled or co-located more accurate separation distances to public areas would be available for liquid as well as solid propellants. The FAA recognized the need for greater fidelity when it waived § 420.67 for XCOR Aerospace's operations on a runway at Mojave Air and Space Port, where it was fueling its vehicle with liquid oxygen and kerosene. Although the XCOR Aerospace waiver applied to the handling of liquid propellants, table E-1 applied because energetic liquids are translated into their “explosive equivalent” in TNT to determine their equivalence in explosive yield. As the FAA explained when it first proposed part 420, if fuels and oxidizers are located within close enough distances of each other, the distance to the public must account for the hazardous consequences of their potential combination.
For launch vehicles that require strap-on solid rocket motors and are equipped with flight termination systems, liquid propellants are in close proximity to class 1.1 or class 1.3 explosives. Section 420.69 applies on those occasions.
The FAA proposes to revise its requirements for separation distances for co-located division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and liquid propellants. The distances to public areas and public traffic routes will be shorter to correct the FAA's error in § 420.69(b). Current § 420.69 requires that a launch site operator determine the separation distances for solid propellant division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and then determine the separation distances for a liquid propellant combination within an intraline distance. Having determined the separation distance for each, a launch site operator must add the two separation distances together to achieve a minimum distance to a public area. For example, if a launch pad contains 20 pounds of division 1.1 explosives, which generates a public area distance of 529 feet, and liquid oxygen and kerosene with an explosive equivalent of 45,000 pounds, which generates a public area distance of 1,423 feet, the resulting public area distance under current requirements must be the sum of the two distances, which is 1,952 feet.
As the FAA recognized in its discussion of the issue at the time it promulgated this section, a simultaneous explosion of both the solid and liquid propellants, although unlikely, is not improbable.
The FAA proposes a new § 420.70 to contain all the measuring requirements for calculating the distances by which explosive hazard facilities must be separated from each other and from the public. Separation distance requirements are currently spread from §§ 420.65 through 420.69. Consolidating those requirements into a single section, § 420.70, would ensure that a launch site operator would need to look in only one place to find the measuring requirements it must meet. The majority of these requirements are already in part 420. They include the requirements for measuring separation distances for solid propellants, currently located in § 420.65(d)(5), and energetic liquids, currently located in § 420.67(b)(1). New measurement requirements would include requiring a launch site operator to employ straight lines, as would be required by proposed § 420.70(b) measuring from taxiways and runways as required by proposed § 420.70(c), and measuring to a public traffic route by using its nearest side as required by proposed § 420.70(c)(2). The FAA is proposing the new requirements because there has been confusion over which points to use as starting points for measurements. These requirements would reduce any such confusion and
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The FAA has determined that there would be no new information collection associated with the proposed requirement to collect data required for performing launch site location analysis. Approval to collect such information previously was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0644.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. This is not an aviation rulemaking, and the FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed 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 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, the 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 proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.
The FAA proposes to dispense with separation distance requirements for storing liquid oxidizers and Class I, II and III flammable and combustible liquids because they are unnecessarily conservative as explained earlier. The FAA proposes to dispense with the hazard groups of tables E-4 through E-6 of appendix E of part 420 as a means of classification. This would allow for closer siting of explosives without degrading safety. Safety would not be degraded because of the operational controls and design requirements of other standards. In addition, the FAA proposes to identify the minimum separation distances to public areas and public traffic routes for quantities between less than half a pound and 450 pounds of division 1.1 explosives and liquid propellants with TNT equivalency.
Because of these changes launch sites might be able to use the infrastructure of existing airport facilities and, therefore, the proposed rule would be cost relieving. The proposed rule would also allow for the development of more launch sites where the more conservative siting requirements of the current regulation might constrain their development.
Certain proposed changes would add clarity to the current regulations and result in reduced ambiguity and confusion. For instance, clarifying the meaning of explosive hazard facility to state that it can be a location as well as a facility avoids the possibility of misinterpreting the current definition to apply only to buildings or storage sites. The proposed rule would remove ambiguities over the labeling of materials to different users of the same material. The rule would also clarify that the FAA intended to permit alternative means of demonstrating an equivalent level of safety to what part 420 addressed as well as to what part 420 did not address. These changes are expected to be cost neutral.
The proposed rule would add a requirement to § 420.63 that the explosive site map be at a scale sufficient to determine compliance with part 420. The FAA is proposing this to avoid a reiterative process to obtain a map at an appropriate scale. Situations have arisen where the FAA has received maps that were difficult to read. As a result, considerable time was expended determining distances between elements on the map. In this respect, the proposal can be cost relieving. The rule could require some operators to redraw existing maps. However, we expect that with programs like AutoCAD and Geographic Information System (GIS) software, the cost to change the scale will be minimal. We don't believe that anyone would be required to redraw an existing map by hand due to this requirement. The FAA calls for comments regarding whether this provision will be cost relieving, and if not, provide sufficient documentation such that we can provide an accurate cost estimate.
Under current part 420, the FAA does not distinguish between public areas that are buildings, where people are sheltered, and those where people are out in the open. This proposal would result in greater distances for some public areas than are required under current rules, but should not result in increased distances for siting buildings. The operational constraints themselves should not increase costs because a launch site operator currently must ensure under § 420.55 that its customers schedule their hazardous operations so as not to harm members of the public. A site operator may incur minimal costs in performing these new calculations and updating its procedures to reflect any changes in distances. The FAA calls for comments on whether this new requirement will impose costs.
By dispensing with the current separation distance requirements for certain energetic liquids and reducing separation distance requirements for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and liquid propellants the rule would be cost relieving. The FAA proposes this 1) for energetic liquids that are fire hazards rather than explosive hazards because when sufficiently isolated from each other, these liquids do not pose a
Because this proposed rule would relieve launch sites from storage requirements for most energetic liquids and reduce the separation distances requirements for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and liquid propellants, the expected outcome would be reduced cost. The possible benefits would be the proposal might encourage the development of more launch sites. By encouraging existing launch sites to more effectively use their infrastructure and by allowing colocation of launch sites with some existing airports, the proposed rule would provide benefits and be cost relieving. There might also be cost savings if the FAA issues fewer waivers as a result of this rule.
The FAA has, therefore, determined this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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.
The proposed rule does not impose costs on industry because it provides options to launch sites with regards to explosive siting but does not require launch site operators to increase the distances around where they have sited explosives and because other requirements are consistent with industry practice. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the 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 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 is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This rule would have only a domestic impact.
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 proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore the requirements of Title II do not apply.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action 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, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 310f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 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 a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
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 docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in paragraph (1).
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend Chapter III of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 420 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 70101-70121.
2. Amend § 420.5 by revising the definition of
3. Revise § 420.63 to read as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee must ensure the configuration of the launch site follows its explosive site plan, and the licensee's explosive site plan complies with the requirements of §§ 420.65 through 420.70. The explosive site plan shall include:
(1) A scaled map that shows the location of all explosive hazard facilities at the launch site and that shows actual and minimal allowable distances between each explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities, each public area, including the launch site boundary and any public traffic route;
(2) A list of the maximum quantity of energetic liquids, solid propellants and other explosives to be located at each explosive hazard facility, including the class and division for each solid;
(3) A description of each activity to be conducted in each explosive hazard facility; and
(4) An explosive site map using a scale sufficient to show whether distances and structural relationships satisfy the requirements of this part.
(b) A licensee operating a launch site located on a federal launch range does not have to comply with the requirements in §§ 420.65 through 420.70 if the licensee complies with the federal launch range's explosive safety requirements.
(c) For explosive siting issues not addressed by the requirements of §§ 420.65 through 420.70, a launch site operator must clearly and convincingly demonstrate a level of safety equivalent to that otherwise required by this part.
(d) A launch site operator may separate an explosive hazard facility from another explosive hazard facility or a public area by a distance different from one required by this part only if the launch site operator clearly and convincingly demonstrates a level of safety equivalent to that required by this part.
4. Revise § 420.65 to read as follows:
(a) A launch site operator must determine the maximum total quantity of division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives by class and division, in accordance with 49 CFR part 173, Subpart C, to be located in each explosive hazard facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives will be handled.
(b) When division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives are located in the same explosive hazard facility, the total quantity of explosive must be treated as division 1.1 for determining separations distances; or, a launch site operator may add the net explosive equivalent weight of the division 1.3 items to the net weight of division 1.1 items to determine the total quantity of explosives.
(c) A launch site operator must separate each explosive hazard facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives are handled from all other explosive hazard facilities, all public traffic routes, each public area, including the launch site boundary, by a distance no less than that provided for each quantity and explosive division in appendix E of this part as follows:
(1) For division 1.1 explosives, the launch site operator must use tables
(2) For division 1.3 explosives, the launch site operator must use table E-4 of appendix E of this part to determine the distance to each public area, public traffic route, and intraline distance.
(d) A launch site operator must:
(1) Employ no less than the applicable public area distance to separate an explosive hazard facility from each public area, including the launch site boundary.
(2) Employ no less than an intraline distance to separate an explosive hazard facility from all other explosive hazard facilities used by a single customer.
(3) Separate each public area containing any member of the public in the open by a distance equal to −1133.9 + [389 * ln(NEW)] where the NEW is greater than 450 pounds and less than 600,000 pounds.
(e) A launch site operator may:
(1) For a division 1.1 explosive only, employ no less than the public traffic route distance of tables E-1 and E-2 of appendix E of this part, to separate an explosive hazard facility from a public area that consists only of a public traffic route.
(2) Use the applicable equation provided by tables E-1, E-2, E-3, and E-4 of appendix E of this part to determine the separation distance for NEW quantities that fall between table entries.
(3) Use a distance to calculate maximum permissible NEW using the applicable equation of tables E-1, E-2, E-3, and E-4 of appendix E of this part.
5. Add § 420.66 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of greater than 91 percent;
(2) Hydrazine;
(3) Liquid hydrogen; or
(4) Any energetic liquid that is:
(i) Incompatible with any of the energetic liquids of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section; and
(ii) Stored within an intraline distance of any of them.
(5) A launch site operator must measure each distance as required by § 420.70.
(b)
(1) For each explosive hazard facility, a launch site operator must determine the total quantity of all energetic liquids in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. The quantity of energetic liquid in a tank, drum, cylinder, or other container is the net weight in pounds of the energetic liquid in the container. The determination of quantity must include any energetic liquid in associated piping to any point where positive means exist for:
(i) Interrupting the flow through the pipe, or
(ii) Interrupting a reaction in the pipe in the event of a mishap.
(2) A launch site operator must convert the quantity of each energetic liquid from gallons to pounds using the conversion factors provided in table E-6 of appendix E of this part and the following equation:
(3) Where two or more containers of compatible energetic liquids are stored in the same explosive hazard facility, the total quantity of energetic liquids is the total quantity of energetic liquids in all containers, unless:
(i) The containers are each separated from each other by the distance required by paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) The containers are subdivided by intervening barriers that prevent mixing, such as diking. Where two or more containers of incompatible energetic liquids are stored within an intraline distance of each other, paragraph (d) of this section applies.
(c)
(1) To determine each intraline, public area, and public traffic route distance, a launch site operator must use the following tables in appendix E of this part:
(i) Table E-7 for hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of greater than 91 percent; and
(ii) Table E-8 for hydrazine and liquid hydrogen.
(2) For liquid hydrogen and hydrazine, a launch site operator must use the “intraline distance to compatible energetic liquids” for the energetic liquid that requires the greater distance under table E-8 of appendix E of this part as the minimum separation distance between compatible energetic liquids.
(d) Determination of distances for incompatible energetic liquids. If incompatible energetic liquids are stored within an intraline distance of each other, a launch site operator must determine the explosive equivalent in pounds of the combined liquids as provided by paragraph (d)(2) of this section unless intervening barriers prevent mixing.
(1) If intervening barriers prevent mixing, a launch site operator must separate the incompatible energetic liquids by no less than the intraline distance that tables E-7 and E-8 of appendix E of this part apply to compatible energetic liquids using the quantity or energetic liquid requiring the greater separation distance.
(2) A launch site operator must use the formulas provided in table E-5 of appendix E of this part, to determine the explosive equivalent in pounds of the combined incompatible energetic liquids. A launch site operator must then use the explosive equivalent in pounds requiring the greatest separation distance to determine the minimum separation distance between each explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities and each public area and public traffic route as required by tables E-1, E-2 and E-3.
6. Revise § 420.67 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) For each explosive hazard facility, a launch site operator must determine the total quantity of all energetic
(i) Interrupting the flow through the pipe, or
(ii) Interrupting a reaction in the pipe in the event of a mishap.
(2) A launch site operator must convert each energetic liquid's quantity from gallons to pounds using the conversion factors provided by table E-6 of appendix E of this part and the following equation:
(c) Determination of separation distances for incompatible energetic liquids. A launch site operator must determine separation distances for incompatible energetic liquids as follows:
(1) A launch site operator must use the formulas provided in appendix E of this part, table E-5, to determine the explosive equivalent in pounds of the combined incompatible energetic liquids; and
(2) A launch site operator must use the explosive equivalent in pounds to determine the minimum separation distance between each explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities and each public area and public traffic route as required by tables E-1, E-2 and E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(d) Separation distance by weight and table. A launch site operator must:
(1) For an explosive equivalent weight from one pound through and including 450 pounds, determine the distance to any public area and public traffic route following table E-1 of appendix E of this part.
(2) For explosive equivalent weight greater than 450 pounds, determine the distance to any public area and public traffic route following table E-2 of appendix E of this part.
(3) A launch site operator must separate each explosive hazard facility from all other explosive hazard facilities of a single customer using the intraline distance provided by table E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(4) For explosive hazard facilities of a single customer, a launch site operator must use the greater intraline distance to separate the facilities from each other. For explosive hazard facilities used by different customers a launch site operator must use the greater public area distance to separate the facilities from each other.
7. Revise § 420.69 to read as follows:
(a) A launch site operator must separate each explosive hazard facility from each other explosive hazard facility and each public area in accordance with the minimum separation distance determined under this section for each explosive hazard facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives are co-located with liquid propellants. A launch site operator must determine each minimum separation distance from an explosive hazard facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and liquid propellants are to be located together, to each other explosive hazard facility and public area as follows:
(b) For liquid propellants and division 1.1 explosives located together, a launch site operator must:
(1) Determine the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants as provided by § 420.67(c);
(2) Add the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants and the NEW of division 1.1 explosives to determine the combined net explosive weight; and
(3) Use the combined NEW to determine the distance to each public area, public traffic route, and each other explosive hazard facility by following tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(c) For liquid propellants and division 1.3 explosives located together, a launch site operator must separate each explosive hazard facility where liquid propellants and division 1.3 explosives are located together from other explosive hazard facilities, public area, and public traffic routes using either of the following two methods:
(1) Method 1:
(i) Determine the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants by following § 420.67(c).
(ii) Add to the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants, the net explosive weight of each division 1.3 explosive, treating division 1.3 explosives as division 1.1 explosives.
(iii) Use the combined net explosive weight to determine the distance to public area, public traffic route, and distance to other explosive hazard facilities by following tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(2) Method 2:
(i) Determine the explosive equivalent weight of each liquid propellant by following § 420.67(c).
(ii) Add to the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants, the NEW equivalent weight of each division 1.3 explosive to determine the combined net explosive weight.
(iii) Use the combined NEW to determine the minimum separation distance to each public area, public traffic route, and each other explosive hazard facility by following tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(d) For liquid propellants, division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives located together, the launch site operator must:
(1) Determine the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants by following § 420.67(c).
(2) Determine the total explosive quantity of each division 1.1 and 1.3 explosive by following § 420.65(b).
(3) Add to the explosive equivalent weight of the liquid propellants to the total explosive quantity of division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives together to determine the combined net explosive weight.
(4) Use the combined net explosive weight to determine the distance to each public area, public traffic route, and each other explosive hazard facility by following tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 of appendix E of this part.
(e) The launch site operator must analyze the maximum credible event (MCE) or the worst case explosion expected to occur. If the MCE shows there will be no simultaneous explosion reaction of the liquid propellant tanks and the solid propellant motors, then the minimum distance between the explosive hazard facility and all other explosive hazard facilities and public areas must be based on the MCE.
8. Add § 420.70 to read as follows:
(a) This section applies to all measurements of distances performed under §§ 420.63 through 420.69.
(b) A launch site operator must measure each separation distance along straight lines. For large intervening topographical features such as hills, the launch site operator must measure over or around the feature, whichever is the shorter.
(c) A launch site operator must measure each minimum separation distance from the closest hazard source, such as a container, building, segment, or positive cut-off point in piping, in an explosive hazard facility. When measuring, a launch site operator must:
(1) For a public traffic route distance measure from the nearest side of the public traffic route to the closest point of the hazard source; and
(2) For an intraline distance measure from the nearest point of one hazard source to the nearest point of the next hazard source. The minimum separation
9. Revise Appendix E to part 420 to read as follows:
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is conducting a review of its existing regulations to evaluate their continued validity and determine whether they are crafted effectively to solve current problems. As part of this review, the Department invites the public to participate in a comment process designed to help the Department ensure that it has a plan for periodically analyzing existing significant rules to determine whether they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed and identify specific rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. The Department also will hold a public meeting to discuss and consider comments from members of the public.
Comments should be received on or before April 1, 2011. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition, the Department will hold a public meeting beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET on March 14, 2011, at the DOT headquarters, to discuss the regulatory review and take public comments. Commenters wishing to have time allocated to them at the public meeting should submit initial comments by March 3, 2011, and clearly indicate their desire to have time allocated at the public meeting.
You may submit comments to Docket DOT-OST-2011-0025 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will be posted without change to
Neil R. Eisner, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563, which outlined a plan to improve regulation and regulatory review (76 FR 3821, 1/21/11). Executive Order 13563 reaffirms and builds upon governing principles of contemporary regulatory review, including Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735, 10/4/1993), by requiring Federal agencies to design cost-effective, evidence-based regulations that are compatible with economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. The President's plan recognizes that these principles should not only guide the Federal government's approach to new regulation, but to existing ones as well. To that end, Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to review existing significant rules to determine if they are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
To facilitate this review, Executive Order 13563 requires each agency to develop and submit to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan for retrospectively analyzing existing rules. Specifically, the Department must provide a plan for periodically reviewing existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the Department's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the Department's regulatory objectives.
As Executive Order 13563 reaffirms, the regulatory process must be transparent and provide opportunities for public participation. The Department particularly believes, given its broad regulatory responsibility, this participation should extend to the Department's obligations under the Executive Order to conduct a retrospective review of existing regulations. This review will be more meaningful if it involves input from those affected by the Department's regulations.
The mission of the Department is to serve the United States by ensuring a safe, fast, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future. The Department carries out its mission through the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the following operating administrations (OAs): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime Administration (MARAD); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
DOT has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, and pipeline transportation areas. DOT regulates aviation consumer and economic issues, and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, mass transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor transportation and vehicle safety. It writes regulations carrying out such disparate statutes as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT has responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide range of regulations that govern programs such as acquisition and grants management, access for people with disabilities, environmental protection, energy conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management, seismic safety, security, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.
The Department has long recognized that there should be no more regulations than necessary and those that are issued should be simple, comprehensible, and impose as little burden as necessary. Likewise, the Department understands that review and revision of existing regulations is essential to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed and remain cost-effective and cost-justified. The Department regularly makes a conscientious effort to review its rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 2/26/1979), Executive Order 12866, and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Department follows a repeating 10-year plan for the review of our existing regulations, which is set forth in our semi-annual Regulatory Agenda published in the
The FAA, in addition to following a 10-year review plan in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has established a triennial process to comply with other review requirements. The FAA's latest notice was published November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64170). NHTSA conducts an evaluation of both the costs and benefits of each of its significant rules approximately 4 years after the effective date on which 100 percent of the annual production of all types of vehicles subject to the rule must comply with the rule. This interval is necessary to ensure that sufficient crash data are available for the agency to determine whether a statistically significant reduction in crashes, injuries, and fatalities has occurred. Other OAs also conduct periodic public reviews to focus on specific issues or to obtain comments on rulemaking priorities. Moreover, under 49 CFR part 5, anyone may petition the Department for rulemaking or for an amendment or exemption to a rule.
As part of implementing Executive Order 13563, we will assess our current processes for reviewing rules and examine whether our approach should be modified going forward. While the Department may use these existing processes as significant inputs into its preliminary plan, the Department strongly encourages all parties affected by DOT regulations to comment on opportunities to improve our current review processes in a manner that best addresses the principles outlined in Executive Order 13563.
DOT is an active regulatory agency with broad regulatory responsibilities. A robust regulatory program being essential to our mission, it is all the more important that we maintain a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis. Thus, to implement Executive Order 13563, the Department solicits the views of the public on the following matters.
The public is first asked to comment on how the Department should devise a preliminary plan, with a defined method and schedule, for identifying certain significant rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive. Comments might address how best to evaluate and analyze regulations in order to expand on those that work and to modify, improve, or rescind those that do not. Comments might usefully address how the Department can best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing regulations and whether there are existing sources of data that the Department can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of regulations over time. The Department is particularly interested in the public's views about how well its current processes for reviewing regulations function and how those processes might be expanded or otherwise adapted to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13563. The Department is further interested in comments about factors that the Department should consider in setting priorities and selecting rules for review. Our initial selection criteria for these rules are currently based on the factors listed below, on which we seek public comment.
The Department intends for its preliminary plan to include an initial list of candidate rules for review. The Department solicits suggestions for specific rules that should be on that list. In nominating candidate rules for this list, commenters might usefully address, among other things, opportunities to use the Department's review process to achieve the following objectives: (1) Promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation; (2) eliminate outdated regulations; (3) lessen the burdens imposed on those directly or indirectly affected by our regulations, increase the benefits provided to the public by our regulations, and improve the cost-benefit balance of our regulations; (4) lessen burdens imposed on small entities; (5) eliminate duplicative or overlapping regulations; (6) reduce paperwork by eliminating duplication, lessening frequency, allowing electronic submission, standardizing forms, exempting small entities, or other means; (7) eliminate conflicts and inconsistencies in the Department's regulations and those of its own agencies or other Federal agencies or state, local, or tribal governmental
Comments should focus on regulations that have demonstrated deficiencies. Comments that rehash debates over recently issued rules will be less useful. Particularly where comments relate to a rule's costs or benefits, comments will be most useful if there are data and experience under the rule available to ascertain the rule's actual impact. For that reason, we encourage the public to emphasize those rules that have been in effect for a sufficient amount of time to warrant a fair evaluation. Furthermore, the public should focus on rule changes that will achieve a broad public impact, rather than an individual personal or corporate benefit. Where feasible, comments should reference a specific regulation, by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) cite, and provide the Department information on what needs fixing and why. Comments do not necessarily need to address how to fix the perceived problem, though such comments are welcome. Lastly, we also want to stress that this review is for existing rules; the public should not use this process to submit comments on proposed rules.
The public meeting will begin with a discussion of and taking comments on the Department's preliminary plan for regulatory review required by Executive Order 13563. After that, we plan to allow for comments on candidate rules for review. The Department's General Counsel will preside over the meeting. Other senior officials from the Department and its OAs will also attend. It is our intent that the public meeting will provide an opportunity for these officials to interact with individuals or stakeholder representatives. To enable them to effectively participate in the public meeting, they will need some information in advance. As a result, we are establishing the following process.
1. Suggestions for Discussion at Public Meeting:
a. By March 3, 2011, the Department requests that commenters submit their suggestions for discussion at the public meeting and indicate whether they want time allocated to them at the public meeting. Commenters are welcome to indicate how much time they would like to be allocated, but the Department reserves the right to allocate time as necessary to ensure that as many commenters as possible may participate in the public meeting in a meaningful manner.
b. The initial comments from those intending to participate in the public meeting should contain enough details to permit DOT officials to sufficiently prepare and ask questions.
c. The initial comments may be augmented anytime before the end of the full comment period.
d. Anyone who needs auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language interpreters, to effectively participate in the meeting should contact the Department via the “
2. Public Meeting:
a. After receiving this initial round of public comment, the Department will organize those suggestions by topic and OA for discussion during the public meeting.
b. By having the public meeting after receiving initial public comment and by organizing the discussion around topics and OAs, the Department will be better positioned to discuss issues regarding a particular rule, broad category of rules, or affected group or industry, rather than merely recording public comment for later review.
c. The Department will hold its public meeting beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET on March 14, 2011 at the Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, DOT Conference Center, Oklahoma Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. We will make a meeting outline available on
3. Other Written Comments:
The Department will continue to accept written comments through April 1, 2011. Those who do not wish to attend the public meeting may, of course, submit comments at any time during the comment period.
4. Follow-up Action by DOT:
a. We will place a transcript or summary of the public meeting in our public docket (
b. This review will provide meaningful and significant input to the Secretary, the General Counsel, OA Administrators, and other DOT senior officials. As soon as possible, depending on the number of comments we receive and the issues raised, the Department will publish a report providing at least a brief response to the comments we have received, including a description of any further action we intend to take.
5 U.S.C. 610; E.O. 13563, 76 FR 3821, Jan. 21 2011; E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC,” “Commission,” or “we”) is proposing to amend its child-resistant packaging requirements to exempt powder formulations of two oral prescription drugs, colesevelam hydrochloride and sevelamer carbonate. Colesevelam hydrochloride, currently
Comments on the proposal should be submitted no later than May 2, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0007, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Adrienne Layton, PhD, Division of Health Sciences, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7576;
The Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (“PPPA”), 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476, gives the Commission authority to establish standards for the “special packaging” of household substances, such as drugs, when child-resistant (“CR”) packaging is necessary to protect children from serious personal injury or illness due to the substance and the special packaging is technically feasible, practicable, and appropriate for such substance. Accordingly, CPSC regulations require that oral prescription drugs be in CR packaging. 16 CFR 1700.14(a)(10). The powder forms of cholestyramine and colestipol, two drugs that are chemically similar to colesevelam hydrochloride and sevelamer carbonate, currently are exempt from CR packaging.
CPSC regulations allow companies to petition the Commission for exemption from CR requirements. 16 CFR part 1702. Among the possible grounds for granting an exemption are that the degree or nature of the hazard that the substance poses to children is such that special packaging is not required to protect children against serious personal injury or serious illness (16 CFR 1702.17).
On February 24, 2009, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“Daiichi”) petitioned the Commission to exempt the powdered form of colesevelam hydrochloride, which it markets as Welchol®, from the special packaging requirements for oral prescription drugs. The petitioner stated that the exemption is justified because of lack of toxicity and lack of adverse human experience with the drug. Welchol® has been marketed in tablet form and dispensed in CR packaging. On October 2, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved a new powder formulation of the drug. The petition requested an exemption only for the powder dosage form of Welchol®. Tablets would continue to be in CR packaging.
Welchol® (colesevelam hydrochloride) is a bile acid sequestrant indicated as an adjunct to: (1) Reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; and (2) improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The new dosage form of Welchol® provides 1.875 g or 3.75 g of the powdered drug in unit dose packages to be mixed with water and taken orally as a suspension. (A unit dose package of Welchol® or Renvela® is a pouch that contains an individual dose.)
On March 6, 2009, Genzyme Corporation (“Genzyme”) petitioned the Commission to exempt the powdered form of sevelamer carbonate, which it markets as Renvela®, from the special packaging requirements for oral prescription drugs. The petitioner stated that the exemption is justified because of lack of toxicity and lack of adverse human experience with the drug.
Renvela,® sevelamer carbonate, is a phosphate binder indicated for the control of serum phosphorus in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. The tablets are marketed with a pill crusher for patients who have trouble swallowing the tablets. The company reformulated Renvela® as a powder to be taken as an oral suspension and received approval from FDA for this powder formulation on August 12, 2009. The new dosage form of Renvela® provides either 0.8 g or 2.4 g of Renvela® powder in unit dose packages to be mixed with 2 ounces of water.
Welchol® and Renvela® have similar chemical structures, biological properties, and powder formulations. Therefore, we are considering the two petitions together, and staff reviewed related toxicity data together. CPSC staff found that colesevelam hydrochloride and sevelamer carbonate are not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. This limits the systemic toxicity of the drugs.
No data indicate that either drug is acutely toxic, which is the type of toxicity of concern when considering whether CR packaging is appropriate. Even in patients taking these drugs chronically, the adverse effects are mostly minor, such as diarrhea, nausea, constipation, flatulence, and dyspepsia.
Generally, chronic studies are not useful in determining whether a drug should be in CR packaging (because CR
If a child were to ingest accidentally colesevelam hydrochloride (Welchol®) or sevelamer carbonate (Renvela®), the potential for the occurrence of mild to moderate GI discomfort, such as indigestion, constipation, nausea, and vomiting does exist. However, a review of relevant data indicates that an acute ingestion of these drugs would not result in serious toxicity. Any serious toxicity would result only after chronic administration.
As noted, the CPSC's CR packaging regulations exempt cholestyramine and colestipol in powder form, two bile acid sequestrants that are similar chemically to Welchol® and Renvela®. CPSC staff has not found any articles in the medical literature describing toxic effects following the acute ingestion of either cholestyramine or colestipol from 1975 through 2010.
CPSC staff searched the following databases for incidents related to Welchol® and Renvela® occurring between 2000 and 2009: the Injury and Potential Injury Incident database (“IPII”), the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database (“NEISS”), and the Death Certificates database (“DTHS”). Staff found one incident involving Welchol® in the NEISS database. In that incident, 11-month-old twin boys were taken to the emergency room after they had been playing with their grandmother's prescription medications. It is not clear how many, if any, pills the boys ingested, but the children were treated and released from the hospital. CPSC staff also searched Poisindex®, Pub Med, and Google for Welchol®, Renvela®, Colestipol, and Cholestyramine, and found no incidents of acute poisoning in humans.
CPSC staff also analyzed Medwatch reports obtained from the FDA. Medwatch is the FDA's program for reporting a serious adverse event, product quality problem, product use error, or therapeutic inequivalence/failure that may be associated with the use of an FDA-regulated drug, biologic, medical device, dietary supplement, or cosmetic. (
The FDA provided CPSC staff with 151 distinct incidents of adverse events associated with colesevelam hydrochloride (Welchol®) reported through the Medwatch system. CPSC staff excluded incidents where other medications may have caused the adverse event reported, resulting in 22 adverse events. Most adverse events reported to Medwatch were gastrointestinal or involved muscle pain, which is to be expected considering the adverse effects reported from clinical trials of Welchol®.
CPSC staff also received reports from the FDA of 40 distinct incidents of adverse events associated with sevelamer carbonate (Renvela®). CPSC staff excluded incidents where other medications may have caused the adverse event reported, resulting in five in-scope incidents. Two of the five incidents were deaths, which most likely were related to the underlying disease and not sevelamer carbonate (Renvela®) treatment. One of the five incidents involved intestinal obstruction and perforation, which the patient's physician thought were related to the patient's treatment with sevelamer carbonate (Renvela®). In the two remaining incidents, one patient experienced gastroenteritis, and the other (who had asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) suffered severe breathing problems while on Renvela®. Neither of these two results likely was related to sevelamer carbonate (Renvela®).
CPSC staff also evaluated the likelihood of children younger than 5 years old ingesting powdered substances. The powdered form of these substances makes them more difficult to ingest than medicines in other forms and therefore, likely will keep children from ingesting significant quantities. CPSC staff believes that it would be difficult for children under 5 years old to eat large amounts of powder quickly without aspirating or coughing. It would also be difficult for children to mix powder thoroughly in a liquid, and the resulting lumpy quality may be unappealing to children who try to drink it. Although children are likely to be able to tear open the non-child-resistant packets used for Welchol® and Renvela,® they are likely to spill much of the contents; therefore, they would have to open a number of packages to access a significant quantity of the drug. Most unintentional poisonings among children occur during short lapses in direct visual supervision. The difficulty posed by ingestion of powder introduces a delay in the poisoning scenario, and supervision is likely to resume before a child can take in a significant quantity.
The packages used with the powder formulations of Welchol® and Renvela® also reduce the likelihood of child poisoning. Both drugs are provided in small foil-lined packages containing individual doses. The Renvela® package is easy to tear only at the notch. Because the package must be opened at a precise location, it is less accessible, especially to young children. The Welchol® package does not have a notch and has uniform resistance to tearing, which makes it more difficult to open than Renvela®. Although both packages tear easily enough to be opened by children under 5 years of age, the fine motor skills of this age group of children are still developing, and children age 2 and younger are likely to spill most of the powder.
After considering the information provided by the petitioner and other available toxicity and human experience data, the Commission concluded preliminarily that the degree and nature of the hazard to children presented by the availability of powder formulations of colesevelam hydrochloride (currently
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency that engages in rulemaking generally must prepare initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses describing the impact of the rule on small businesses and other small entities. Section 605 of the Act provides that an agency is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a preliminary assessment of the impact of a rule to exempt powder formulations of colesevelam hydrochloride (currently marketed as Welchol®) and sevelamer carbonate (currently marketed as Renvela®) from special packaging requirements.
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., a subsidiary of the Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo Co, Ltd, the company that markets colesevelam hydrochloride under the trade name of Welchol®, employs approximately 1,500 people in the United States. Net sales of Welchol® were approximately $243.1 million in 2008. Genzyme Corporation, the company that markets sevelamer carbonate under the trade name of Renvela®, is a U.S. firm headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., with more than 12,000 employees worldwide. Annual revenue for 2008 was $4.6 billion. Given that both firms that would be affected by a CR packaging exemption for these drugs are large, the exemption would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, because the action at issue is an exemption from special packaging requirements, it would allow companies to avoid the costs associated with CR packaging.
Based on this assessment, we preliminarily conclude that the proposed amendment exempting powder formulations of colesevelam hydrochloride (currently marketed as Welchol®) and sevelamer carbonate (currently marketed as Renvela®) from special packaging requirements would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses or other small entities.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and CPSC procedures for environmental review, we have assessed the possible environmental effects associated with the proposed PPPA amendment.
CPSC regulations state that rules requiring special packaging for consumer products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(3). Nothing in this proposed rule alters that expectation. Therefore, because the rule would have no adverse effect on the environment, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations.
The PPPA provides that, generally, when a special packaging standard issued under the PPPA is in effect, “no State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to such household substance, any standard for special packaging (and any exemption therefrom and requirement related thereto) which is not identical to the [PPPA] standard.” 15 U.S.C. 1476(a). A state or local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if: (1) the state or local standard provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the PPPA standard; and (2) the state or political subdivision applies to the Commission for an exemption from the PPPA's preemption clause and the Commission grants the exemption through a process specified at 16 CFR Part 1061. 15 U.S.C. 1476(c)(1). In addition, the federal government, or a state or local government, may establish and continue in effect a nonidentical special packaging requirement that provides a higher degree of protection than the PPPA requirement for a household substance for the federal, state or local government's own use. 15 U.S.C. 1476(b).
Thus, with the exceptions noted above, the proposed rule exempting powder formulations of colesevelam hydrochloride (currently marketed as Welchol®) and sevelamer carbonate (currently marketed as Renvela®) from special packaging requirements, if finalized, would preempt nonidentical state or local special packaging standards for the substance.
Consumer protection, Drugs, Infants and children, Packaging and containers, Poison prevention, Toxic substances.
For the reasons given above, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1700 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1700 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1471-76. Secs. 1700.1 and 1700.14 also issued under 15 U.S.C. 2079(a).
2. Section 1700.14 is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(10)(xxii) and (xxiii) to read as follows:
(a)
(10)
(xxii) Colesevelam hydrochloride in powder form in packages containing not more than 3.75 grams of the drug.
(xxiii) Sevelamer carbonate in powder form in packages containing not more than 2.4 grams of the drug.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
This is one of several releases that we will be considering relating to the use of security ratings by credit rating agencies in our rules and forms. In this release, pursuant to the provisions of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we propose to replace rule and form requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for securities offering or issuer disclosure rules that rely on, or make special accommodations for, security ratings (for example, Forms S-3 and F-3 eligibility criteria) with alternative requirements.
Comments should be received on or before March 28, 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.
Blair Petrillo, Special Counsel in the Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3430, or with respect to issuers of insurance contracts, Keith E. Carpenter, Senior Special Counsel in the Office of Disclosure and Insurance Product Regulation, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 551-6795, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.
We are proposing amendments to rules and forms under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act),
We are proposing today to remove references to credit ratings in rules and forms promulgated under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. We proposed similar changes in 2008 but did not act on those proposals.
The amendments we are proposing today are substantially similar to those proposed in 2008.
We have considered the role of credit ratings in our rules under the Securities Act on several occasions.
Forms S-3 and F-3 are the “short forms” used by eligible issuers to register securities offerings under the Securities Act. These forms allow eligible issuers to rely on reports they have filed under the Exchange Act to satisfy many of the disclosure requirements under the Securities Act. Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility for primary offerings also enables form eligible issuers to conduct primary offerings “off the shelf” under Securities Act Rule 415.
The Form S-3 investment grade requirement was originally proposed in 1981.
When the Commission adopted Form S-3, it included a provision that a primary offering of non-convertible debt securities may be eligible for registration on the form if rated investment grade.
Since the adoption of those rules relating to security ratings and Form S-3 and Form F-3, other Commission forms and rules relating to securities offerings or issuer disclosures have included requirements that likewise rely on securities ratings.
As discussed in more detail below, we are proposing today to revise Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 and Form F-3 to provide that an offering of non-convertible securities is eligible to be registered on Form S-3 and Form F-3 if the issuer has issued at least $1 billion of non-convertible securities in transactions registered under the Securities Act, other than equity securities, for cash during the past three years (as measured from a date within 60 days of the filing of the registration statement) and satisfies the other relevant requirements of Form S-3 or Form F-3.
In 2008, we proposed to replace the investment grade criterion in Instruction I.B.2. in Form S-3 (and the corresponding provision in Form F-3) with the requirement that the issuer has issued at least $1 billion of non-convertible securities in transactions registered under the Securities Act, other than equity securities, for cash during the past three years (as measured from a date within 60 days of the filing of the registration statement) and satisfied the other relevant requirements of Form S-3 or Form F-3. As noted above, we received 49 comment letters regarding the 2008 Proposing Release. Most commentators opposed the proposal to modify Form S-3 and Form F-3 to remove references to credit ratings.
In addition to the commentators who were generally opposed to amending Form S-3 and Form F-3, several commentators were opposed to replacing the reference to credit ratings with a requirement that in order to be eligible to use Form S-3 and Form F-3, companies would have to have issued at least $1 billion of non-convertible securities in offerings registered under the Securities Act, other than equity securities, for cash during the previous three years.
Commentators also disputed our preliminary belief that few issuers who are currently eligible to use Form S-3 and Form F-3 would not be eligible to use Form S-3 and Form F-3 if the proposal were adopted.
As discussed in more detail below, the 2008 Proposing Release also included proposed changes to other Securities Act and Exchange Act rules and forms similar to those proposed today, although we did not receive
Today we are proposing to revise the transaction eligibility criteria for registering primary offerings of non-convertible securities on Forms S-3 and F-3. Notwithstanding the comments we received on the 2008 Proposing Release, we preliminarily believe that the proposal discussed below is the most workable alternative for determining whether an issuer is widely followed in the marketplace so that Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility and access to the shelf offering process is appropriate. Nevertheless, as discussed in section (ii) below, we also recognize that this proposal would cause some issuers that have used or that could rely upon the investment-grade criteria to lose Form S-3 or Form F-3 (and thereby shelf) eligibility. The legislative history does not indicate that Congress intended to change the types of issuers and offerings that could rely on the Commission's forms. Accordingly, we have considered several mechanisms to avoid this consequence, including attempting to replace the investment grade criteria with other criteria intended to replicate key characteristics of investment-grade securities, identifying certain classes or characteristics of issuers that are most likely to rely solely upon the investment grade criteria for Form S-3 or Form F-3 eligibility in order to craft special eligibility criteria for these issuers, or providing for “grandfathering” in the application of new rules removing the investment-grade criteria in order to allow issuers that have recently offered securities on Form S-3 or Form F-3 in reliance on the investment grade criteria to retain Form S-3 or Form F-3 eligibility. Each of these mechanisms is a means to provide consistency in the treatment of these issuers for purposes of establishing eligibility for Form S-3 or Form F-3. We have included extensive requests for comment regarding potential mechanisms that might allow more consistent treatment of these issuers to the greatest extent possible.
As proposed, the instructions to Forms S-3 and F-3 would no longer refer to security ratings by an NRSRO as a transaction requirement to permit issuers to register primary offerings of non-convertible securities for cash. Instead, these forms would be available to register primary offerings of non-convertible securities if the issuer has issued (as of a date within 60 days prior to the filing of the registration statement) for cash at least $1 billion in non-convertible securities in offerings registered under the Securities Act, other than common equity, over the prior three years.
We are proposing to revise the form eligibility criteria using the same method and threshold by which the Commission defined an issuer of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, that does not meet the public equity float test as a “well-known seasoned issuer” (WKSI).
In determining compliance with the proposed $1 billion threshold, we would use the same standards that are used in determining whether an issuer is a WKSI.
• Issuers would be permitted to aggregate the amount of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, issued in registered primary offerings during the prior three years;
• Issuers would be permitted to include only such non-convertible securities that were issued in registered primary offerings for cash—they would not be permitted to include registered exchange offers;
• Parent company issuers only would be permitted to include in their calculation the principal amount of their full and unconditional guarantees, within the meaning of Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X,
Although the proposed standard and the WKSI standard are both based on a $1 billion minimum offering history, issuers seeking to rely on the new standard would not be required to
We preliminarily anticipate that under the proposed threshold some high yield debt issuers that are not currently eligible to use Form S-3 would become eligible. On the other hand, the proposed changes would result in some issuers currently eligible to use Form S-3 and Form F-3 becoming ineligible. Based on a review of non-convertible securities issued in the U.S. from January 1, 2006 through August 15, 2008, we estimate that approximately 45 issuers who were previously eligible to use Form S-3 (and who had made an offering during the review period) would no longer be able to use Form S-3 for offerings of non-convertible securities other than equity securities.
While the data may be helpful in considering the potential general effect of the proposed amendment, the scope of the data is limited. We note that a survey covering a different time period would have produced different results, particularly in light of market volatility in the time period. In addition, the data reviewed does not take into account issuers who would have been eligible to offer non-convertible securities on Form S-3 solely in reliance on Instruction I.B.2., but chose not to do so.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposal. We have included specific questions below in order to facilitate responses from interested parties. In particular, in light of comments received on the 2008 Proposal, we have included requests for comment related to provisions of the proposals that may have a significant effect on utility companies, issuers of insurance contracts and REITs. We also seek comment from other categories of issuers who would be similarly affected by our proposals.
1. We recognize that the proposals, if adopted, could change the number and types of issuers currently eligible to use Form S-3 or Form F-3. Should Section 939A of the Act be read as simply requiring the removal of references to credit ratings but otherwise have no effect on the number and type of issuers eligible to use our forms? If so, should the new eligibility criteria be designed to replicate, as closely as possible, the existing pool of eligible issuers? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?
2. Is the cumulative registered offering amount for the most recent three-year period the appropriate threshold at which to differentiate issuers? If so, is $1 billion appropriate? If not, should the threshold be higher (
3. Are there any transactions that currently meet the requirements of current General Instruction I.B.2. that would not be eligible to use the form under the proposed revision? Are there any transactions that do not meet the current Form S-3 or Form F-3 eligibility requirements for investment grade securities, but now would be eligible under the proposed revision, that should not be eligible? If practicable, provide information on the frequency with which such offerings are made.
4. We understand based on comments received on the 2008 Proposing Release and our staff's review of offerings of non-convertible securities that wholly owned, state-regulated operating subsidiaries of utility companies currently are eligible to register offerings in reliance on Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 and would no longer be eligible to use Form S-3 if the proposals are adopted because they would not be able to satisfy the $1 billion threshold.
5. We understand based on comments received on the 2008 Proposing Release and our staff's review of offerings of non-convertible securities that issuers of certain insurance contracts (
6. Would a provision like that described in the preceding question result in issuers of insurance contracts who are not currently eligible to use Form S-3 or F-3 becoming eligible? If so, would this result be appropriate? If such a provision would result in issuers who are not currently eligible to use Form S-3 or F-3 becoming eligible, what would be the impact on the substance of information available to investors and its accessibility? How could the provision be tailored so that it would be limited to issuers of insurance contracts that are currently eligible to file on Form S-3 or F-3? Should a provision for Form S-3 eligibility have different conditions than a provision for Form F-3 eligibility?
7. We understand based on comments received on the 2008 Proposing Release and our staff's review of offerings of non-convertible securities that wholly-owned operating partnerships of exchange-listed REITS currently are eligible to register offerings in reliance on Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 and would no longer be eligible to use Form S-3 if the proposals are adopted because they would not be able to satisfy the $1 billion threshold.
8. Assuming there are issuers currently eligible to use Form S-3 or Form F-3 that would not be eligible to use those forms if the proposals are adopted, should such issuers be eligible under the new rules? If so, should we provide for their continued eligibility through “grandfathering?” If we were to adopt rules that have the effect of “grandfathering” currently eligible issuers, how should such a provision be crafted? Should issuers' eligibility be measured from the date of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the date of this proposal, or some other date? Why? How would we determine the population of issuers eligible for any “grandfathering?” Would these issuers have an investment grade “issuer rating,” or would ratings typically used to meet the current From S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility requirements be issued for each security on an offering by offering basis? If the ratings are issued in connection with each offering of a security, then how could we determine whether such an issuer is eligible under a “grandfathering provision?” Should we provide that issuers that have relied on the investment grade eligibility criterion in the past may continue to use Form S-3 or Form F-3 for offerings of non-convertible securities if the issuers are otherwise eligible to use the forms? Would that approach be consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act? If so, should there be a timing requirement, such as requiring that an issuer have conducted an offering under current Instruction I.B.2. within the past three years? Should there be other conditions? Should there be a time limit going forward, such as allowing these “grandfathered” issuers to use Form S-3 and Form F-3 for three years from the effective date of the proposed amendments? Are there other ways these issuers could remain eligible to
9. Is there a reason that this Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility requirement should not mirror the registered offering amount requirement for the debt-only WKSI definition?
10. Should the measurement time period for a dollar-volume issuance threshold (whether set at $1 billion, as proposed, or at some other level) be longer or shorter than three years (
11. In determining compliance with the dollar-volume threshold, should issuers be permitted to include only securities issued in registered primary offerings for cash, as proposed? Should issuers be permitted to include registered exchange offers or private offerings?
12. Is there a better alternative for Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility for non-convertible securities? By what metrics could one measure the market following for debt issuers? Is there an alternative definition of “investment grade debt securities” that does not rely on NRSRO ratings and adequately meets the objective of relating short-form registration to the existence of widespread following in the marketplace?
13. Does the proposed eligibility based on the amount of prior registered non-convertible securities issued serve as an adequate replacement of the investment grade eligibility condition?
14. Is having a wide following in the market an appropriate basis for determining Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility criteria? Are there other criteria on which such eligibility should be based? What characteristics should an issuer eligible to use Form S-3 and Form F-3 have? What standard could we use in Form S-3 and Form F-3 to ensure those characteristics are present? If having a wide following in the market is an appropriate standard, would the alternatives on which we have requested comment (
15. Should there be an eligibility requirement based on a minimum number of holders of non-convertible securities issued pursuant to registered offerings? If so, should this threshold be limited to securities issued for cash, or should securities issued pursuant to registered exchange offerings also be included? Should the number of holders be 300 or 500, by analogy to our registration and deregistration rules relating to equity securities or some other number?
16. Transactions in most non-asset backed debt securities are currently required to be reported by broker/dealers who are members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Such transactions are reported through the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) which is administered by FINRA. Instead of, or in addition to, the proposed $1 billion threshold we have proposed, should we base Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility on the average daily volume of trading as reported in TRACE over a specified period of time (
17. Should there be a different standard for eligibility of foreign private issuers to use Form F-3? If so, explain why and what a more appropriate criteria would be.
18. Does the $1 billion threshold of registered offerings in the prior three years present any issues that are unique to foreign private issuers, especially those that may undertake U.S. registered public offerings as only a portion of their overall plan of financing, and how might these problems be addressed? Would it be appropriate to provide a longer time period for measurement, or to include unregistered, public offerings of securities for cash outside the United States?
19. Should we include a Form S-3 eligibility category for any issuer that is subject to substantive state or federal regulation such as broker/dealers that must satisfy net capital requirements? What types of issuers would be able to use Form S-3 under such a provision? Would it result in a significant number of new issuers being eligible to use Form S-3? Is state or federal regulation, or a particular kind of state or federal regulation (
20. Should we base Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility on the metrics used by NRSROs in determining a rating? Are there certain key metrics such as debt, revenue, profit margin, cash flow to debt ratios, interest coverage ratios and return on assets that we should include? How could we account for differences in industry to make the metrics appropriate for all companies without undue complexity? Would these metrics (or other appropriate metrics) be easy for companies to calculate for purposes of determining Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility?
21. Should we base Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility on the presence of
22. Are there elements from the proposed rules and the alternatives on which we have requested comment that could be combined into an appropriate standard for determining Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility? If so, what would such a standard include?
Form F-9 allows certain Canadian issuers
In the 2008 Proposing Release, we proposed to eliminate the requirement in Form F-9 that allows Canadian issuers to register certain debt securities if they were rated investment grade by an NRSRO. We did not propose to change the eligibility requirement in Form F-9 that allows Canadian issuers to register certain debt securities if they are rated investment grade by an Approved Rating Organization (as defined under Canadian regulations). We did not receive significant comment on this proposal.
We have considered modifying this 2008 proposal to further revise Form F-9 in order to comply with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act. However, after further analysis, rather than further revising the form, we are instead proposing to rescind Form F-9. Due to Canadian regulatory developments since the publishing of the 2008 Proposing Release, we no longer believe that keeping Form F-9 as a distinct form would serve a useful purpose. Under Form F-9, an eligible issuer has been able to register investment grade securities using audited financial statements prepared pursuant to Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (Canadian GAAP) without having to include a U.S. GAAP reconciliation. In contrast, a MJDS filer must reconcile its home jurisdiction financial statements to U.S. GAAP when registering securities on a Form F-10.
In addition, MJDS filers have infrequently used Form F-9. Since January 1, 2007, only 21 issuers have filed Form F-9 for fewer than 40 registration statements. In light of its infrequent use and dispensability, we propose to eliminate Form F-9 in its entirety.
23. The Commission requests comment on whether we should rescind Form F-9, as proposed. Is there a reason that we should retain that form despite the pending effectiveness of the CSA IFRS-related amendments and the infrequency of Form F-9's use?
24. Instead of rescinding the form, should we amend Form F-9 to eliminate references to credit ratings by an NRSRO in order to comply with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act by replacing those references with a requirement that an issuer has issued (as of a date within 60 days prior to the filing of the registration statement) for cash at least $1 billion in non-convertible securities, other than equity securities, through registered primary offerings over the prior three years?
25. As noted above, in 2008 the Commission's proposal did not change a Canadian issuer's ability to use Form F-9 to register debt or preferred securities meeting the requirements of current General Instruction I.A. if the securities are rated “investment grade” by at least one Approved Rating Organization (as defined in National Policy Statement No. 45 of the Canadian Securities Administrators). If we retain Form F-9, should we, in addition to eliminating the criterion related to securities rated investment grade by an NRSRO, also eliminate the criterion related to securities rated investment grade by an Approved Rating Organization? In light of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, would it be appropriate to eliminate the reference to an Approved Rating Organization even though it ultimately refers to Canadian law?
Proposals relating to Form S-4, F-4 and Schedule 14A were also included in the 2008 Proposing Release. We did not receive significant separate comment on these proposals and are re-proposing them as they were proposed in the 2008 Proposing Release. Forms S-4 and F-4 essentially include the Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility criteria by allowing registrants that meet the registrant eligibility requirements of Form S-3 or F-3 and are offering investment grade securities to incorporate by reference certain information.
26. Are the amendments we have proposed for Forms S-4 and F-4 appropriate?
27. Are the proposed amendments to Schedule 14A appropriate? Would there be a significant impact on the way proxy filings are made as a result of the new criteria?
Other Securities Act rules also rely on credit ratings. Rules 138, 139, and 168 under the Securities Act provide that certain communications are deemed not to be an offer for sale or offer to sell a security within the meaning of Sections 2(a)(10)
• Under Securities Act Rule 138, a broker's or dealer's publication about securities of a foreign private issuer that meets F-3 eligibility requirements (other than the reporting history requirements) and is issuing non-convertible investment grade securities;
• Under Securities Act Rule 139, a broker's or dealer's publication or distribution of a research report about an issuer or its securities where the issuer meets Form S-3 or F-3 registrant requirements and is or will be offering investment grade securities pursuant to General Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 or F-3, or where the issuer meets Form F-3 eligibility requirements (other than the reporting history requirements) and is issuing non-convertible investment grade securities; and
• Under Securities Act Rule 168, the regular release and dissemination by or on behalf of an issuer of communications containing factual business information or forward-looking information where the issuer meets Form F-3 eligibility requirements (other than the reporting history requirements) and is issuing non-convertible investment grade securities.
The Commission proposes to revise Rules 138, 139, and 168 to be consistent with the proposed revisions to the eligibility requirements in Forms S-3 and F-3 since in order to rely on these rules the issuer must either satisfy the public float threshold of Form S-3 or F-3, or issue non-convertible investment grade securities as defined in the instructions to Form S-3 or F-3 as proposed to be revised. We included the same proposal in the 2008 Proposing Release and did not receive significant comment separate from the comment on the revised eligibility in Forms S-3 and F-3.
28. Should the Commission revise Rules 138, 139, and 168 as proposed?
Securities Act Rule 134(a)(17)
29. Should we continue to provide a safe harbor for communications that include disclosure of ratings information? Would it be appropriate to allow such communication regarding a security rating assigned by any credit rating agency and not limit the safe harbor to NRSRO ratings? If the credit rating agency is not an NRSRO, is it appropriate to require additional disclosure to that effect? Do issuers include credit ratings in Rule 134 communications?
We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments regarding:
• The proposed amendments that are the subject of this release;
• Additional or different changes; or
• Other matters that may have an effect on the proposals contained in this release.
In addition, we request comment on the following:
30. Should the Commission include a phase-in for issuers beyond the effective date to accommodate pending offerings or effective shelf registration statements on Form S-3 or Form F-3? If so, should a phase-in apply only to particular rules, such as Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility? As proposed, compliance with the new standards would begin on the effective date of the new rules. Will a significant number of issuers have their offerings limited by the proposed rules without a phase-in? If a phase-in is appropriate, should it be for a certain period of time (
31. What impact on competition should the Commission expect were it to adopt the proposed non-convertible debt eligibility requirements? Would any issuers that currently take advantage, or are eligible to take advantage of the investment grade condition and are planning to do so, be adversely affected? Is the ability to offer debt off the shelf a significant competitive advantage that the Commission should be concerned about limiting only to large debt issuers?
32. How can we balance any competitive issues with limiting shelf eligibility to widely followed issuers?
Certain provisions of the proposed rule amendments contain a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
“Form S-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0065);
“Form S-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0073);
“Form F-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0258);
“Form F-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0256);
“Form F-9” (OMB Control No. 3235-0377); and
“Form F-10” (OMB Control No. 3235-0380).
We adopted all of the existing regulations and forms pursuant to the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. These regulations and forms set forth the disclosure requirements for registration statements and proxy statements that are prepared by issuers to provide investors with information. Our proposed amendments to existing forms and regulations are intended to replace rule and form requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act that rely on security ratings with alternative requirements.
The hours and costs associated with preparing disclosure, filing forms, and retaining records constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by the collection of information. There is no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed, and the information disclosed would be made publicly available on the EDGAR filing system.
The threshold we are proposing for issuers of non-convertible securities who are otherwise ineligible to use Form S-3 or Form F-3 to conduct primary offerings because they do not meet the aggregate market value requirement is designed to capture those issuers with a wide market following. The Commission expects that under the proposed threshold, the number of companies in a 12-month period eligible to register on Form S-3 or Form F-3 for primary offerings of non-convertible securities for cash will decrease by approximately 14 issuers for Form S-3 and one issuer for Form F-3.
In addition, because these proposed amendments relate to eligibility requirements, rather than disclosure requirements, the Commission does not expect that the proposed revisions will impose any new material recordkeeping or information collection requirements. Issuers may be required to ascertain the aggregate principal amount of non-convertible securities issued in registered primary offerings for cash, but the Commission believes that this information should be readily available and easily calculable.
We are also proposing to rescind Form F-9, which is the form used by qualified Canadian issuers to register investment grade securities. Because of recent Canadian regulatory developments, we no longer believe that keeping Form F-9 as a distinct form would serve a useful purpose. In
For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, we estimate that there will be no annual incremental increase in the paperwork burden for issuers to comply with our proposed collection of information requirements. We do estimate, however, that the number of respondents on Forms S-1, F-1 and F-10 will increase as a result of the proposals. As a result, the aggregate burden hour and professional cost numbers will increase for those forms due to the additional number of respondents. We also expect that the number of respondents will decrease for Forms S-3 and F-3, which will reduce the aggregate burden hour and professional costs for those forms.
We request comments in order to evaluate: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing these burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct the comments to the Office of Management and Budget,
As discussed above, we are proposing rule amendments pursuant to Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to eliminate references to credit ratings in our rules in order to reduce reliance on credit ratings.
The Commission is proposing to revise the transaction eligibility requirements of Forms S-3 and F-3 and other rules and forms that refer to these eligibility requirements. Currently, these forms allow issuers who do not meet the forms' other transaction eligibility requirements to register primary offerings of non-convertible securities for cash if such securities are rated investment grade by an NRSRO. The proposed rules would replace this transaction eligibility requirement with a requirement that, for primary offerings of non-convertible securities for cash, an issuer must have issued in the previous three years (as of a date within 60 days prior to the filing of the registration statement) at least $1 billion aggregate principal amount of non-convertible securities, other than common equity, in registered primary offerings for cash. We are also proposing to remove Rule
We are sensitive to the costs and benefits imposed by our rules. The discussion below focuses on the costs and benefits of the proposals we are making to implement the Dodd-Frank Act within our discretion under that Act, rather than the costs and benefits of the Dodd-Frank Act itself. The two types of costs and benefits may not be entirely separable to the extent that our discretion is exercised to realize the benefits intended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
The proposed amendments would prescribe a different standard for determining which issuers are eligible to register offerings on Form S-3 or Form F-3. To the extent that some of these issuers were previously unable to avail themselves of the shelf offering process and forward incorporation by reference, they will now have faster access to capital markets and incur lower transaction costs.
We believe the benefits of rescinding Form F-9 would be to reduce redundancy by having multiple forms with the same requirements which would streamline the registration process for Canadian issuers.
To the extent that the $1 billion eligibility threshold results in issuers who were previously eligible to use Forms S-3 and F-3 to register primary offerings of non-convertible securities to register on Form S-1,
We believe that the proposed amendments could result in some issuers who are currently required to file on Form S-1 or Form F-1 becoming eligible to use Form S-3 or Form F-3. This could result in a cost to investors as there would be less information present in the prospectuses for these companies than there was previously. As a result, investors would have to seek out the Exchange Act reports (for example, by accessing the SEC Web site) of these issuers for company information which would no longer appear in the prospectus. However, we believe these costs would be mitigated to the extent that the proposed $1 billion eligibility threshold captures issuers with a wide market following for whom incorporation by reference of Exchange Act reports is more appropriate.
We do not expect the elimination of Form F-9 to result in any costs because issuers that would register debt on Form F-9 will be able to register debt on Form F-10. Form F-10's disclosure requirements will be the same as those under Form F-9 once the CSA IFRS-related amendments become effective in 2011.
If the proposed amendment to remove Rule 134(a)(17) is adopted, there could be a cost to investors if ratings information is less available to them, to the extent such ratings information is useful to investors. In addition, to the extent that issuers decide to continue to include ratings information in communications that previously were made in reliance on the Rule 134 safe harbor, they may incur costs in order to ascertain whether including such information would require compliance with prospectus filing requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of this cost-benefit analysis, including identification and assessment of any costs and benefits not discussed herein. We seek comment and data on the value of the benefits identified. We also welcome comments on the accuracy of the cost estimates in each section of this analysis, and request that commentators provide data that may be relevant to these cost estimates. In addition, we seek estimates and views regarding these costs and benefits for particular covered institutions, including small institutions, as well as any other costs or benefits that may result from the adoption of these proposed amendments.
Specifically, we ask the following:
• Would there be any significant transition costs imposed on issuers as a result of the proposals, if adopted? Please be detailed and provide quantitative data or support, as practicable.
Section 23(a) of the Exchange Act
Our preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed amendments will have two distinct effects. First, some issuers currently eligible to register primary offerings of non-convertible securities on Forms S-3 and F-3 and to use the shelf offering process would lose their eligibility. Second, some issuers will become newly eligible to use Forms S-3 and F-3 and the shelf offering
The Commission believes that the proposal to rescind Form F-9 could reduce confusion regarding the appropriate form to use for the registration of securities by Canadian issuers, which could result in increased market efficiency.
The Commission solicits comment on whether the proposed amendments changing the Forms S-3 and F-3 eligibility requirements for registering primary offerings of non-convertible securities, and rescinding Form F-9 and Rule 134(a)(17), if adopted, would promote or burden efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The Commission also requests comment on whether the proposed amendments would have harmful effects on investors or on issuers who could use Form S-3 and Form F-3 for primary offerings of non-convertible securities, or on issuers of investment grade securities that would otherwise use Form F-9 and what options would best minimize those effects. Finally, the Commission requests comment on the anticipated effect of disclosure requirements on competition in the market for credit rating agencies. The Commission requests commentators to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views, if possible.
The Commission hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the amendments contained in this release, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would:
• Amend the Securities Act Form S-3 and Form F-3 eligibility requirements for primary offerings of non-convertible securities if the issuer has issued (as of a date within 60 days prior to the filing of the registration statement) for cash at least $1 billion in non-convertible securities, other than common stock, through registered primary offerings, within the prior three years;
• Amend Forms S-4 and F-4 and Schedule 14A to conform with the proposed Form S-3/F-3 eligibility requirements;
• Amend Securities Act Rules 138, 139, and Rules 168 to be consistent with the proposed Form S-3/F-3 eligibility requirements;
• Remove Rule 134(a)(17); and
• Remove Form F-9 and all references to that form in our forms and rules.
For these reasons, the proposed amendments would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
• An annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more;
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
• The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual basis;
• Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and
• Any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
We are proposing the amendments contained in this document under the authority set forth in Sections 6, 7, 10, 19(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 14 and 23(a) of the Exchange Act.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 200, subpart N, continues to read as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3506; 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. Amend § 200.800 by removing from paragraph (b) the entry for “Form F-9”.
3. The general authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77k, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 77ddd, 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj, 77nnn, 77sss, 78c, 78i, 78j, 78
4. Amend § 229.10 by removing the second sentence from paragraph (c) introductory text, and the last sentence from paragraph (c)(1)(i).
5. The authority citation for part 230 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78
6. Amend § 230.134 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, revising paragraph (a)(6), and removing and reserving paragraph (a)(17). The revisions read as follows:
(a) Such communication may include any one or more of the following items of information, which need not follow the numerical sequence of this paragraph, provided that, except as to paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section, the prospectus included in the filed registration statement does not have to include a price range otherwise required by rule:
(6) In the case of a fixed income security with a fixed (non-contingent) interest rate provision, the yield or, if the yield is not known, the probable yield range, as specified by the issuer or the managing underwriter or underwriters and the yield of fixed income securities with comparable maturity and security rating;
(17) [Reserved]
7. Amend § 230.138 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B)(
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Is issuing non-convertible securities and the registrant meets the provisions of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form F-3 (referenced in § 239.33 of this chapter); and
8. Amend § 230.139 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A)(
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)(
(
(B) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Is issuing non-convertible securities and meets the provisions of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form F-3 (referenced in § 239.33 of this chapter); and
9. Amend § 230.168 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Is issuing non-convertible securities and meets the provisions of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form F-3 (referenced in § 239.33 of this chapter); and
10. Amend § 230.467 by removing:
a. “F-9,” from the heading;
b. “Form F-9 or” and “§ 239.39 or” from the second sentence of paragraph (a); and
c. “Form F-9 or” from the first sentence of paragraph (b).
11. Amend § 230.473 by removing “F-9 or” and “§ 239.39 or” from paragraph (d).
12. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
13. Amend § 232.405 by removing:
a. “both Form F-9 (§ 239.39 of this chapter) and” from the second sentence of Preliminary Note 1;
b. “either Form F-9 or” from paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(3) and (a)(4); and
c. “both Form F-9 and” and “Form F-9 and” in the second sentence of Note to § 232.405, and “both Form F-9 and” in the penultimate sentence of Note to § 232.405.
14. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78
15. Amend Form S-3 (referenced in § 239.13) by:
a. Revising General Instruction I.B.2.; and
b. Removing Instruction 3 to the signature block.
The revision reads as follows:
The text of Form S-3 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
2.
16. Amend Form S-4 (referenced in § 239.25) by revising General Instruction B.1.a.(ii)(B) to read as follows:
The text of Form S-4 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
1. * * *
a. * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Non-convertible debt or preferred securities are to be offered pursuant to this registration statement and the requirements of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 have been met; or
17. Amend Form F-3 (referenced in § 239.33) by:
a. Revising General Instruction I.B.2.; and
b. Deleting Instruction 3 to the signature block.
The revision reads as follows:
The text of Form F-3 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
2.
18. Amend Form F-4 (referenced in § 239.34) by revising General Instruction B.1(a)(ii)(B).
The revision reads as follows:
The text of Form F-4 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
1. * * *
a. * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Non-convertible debt or preferred securities are to be offered pursuant to this registration statement and the requirements of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form F-3 have been met; or
19. Amend Form F-8 (referenced in § 239.38) by removing “Form F-9,” from each of paragraph A.(3) of General Instruction III and paragraph B. of General Instruction V.
The text of Form F-8 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
20. Remove and reserve § 239.39 (referencing Form F-9).
21. Amend Form F-10 (referenced in § 239.40) by removing “Form F-9,” from each of paragraph C.(4) of General Instruction I and paragraph B. of General Instruction III.
The text of Form F-10 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
22. Amend Form F-80 (referenced in § 239.41) by removing “Form F-9,” from each of paragraph A.(3) of General Instruction III and paragraph B. of General Instruction V.
The text of Form F-80 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
23. Amend § 239.42 as follows:
a. Remove “F-9,” wherever it appears in the heading and in paragraphs (a) and (e).
b. Amend Form F-X (referenced in § 239.42) by removing “F-9,” from each of paragraphs (a) and (e) of General Instruction I, and each of paragraphs (a) and (c) of General Instruction II.F.
The text of Form F-X does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
24. 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, 78
25. Amend § 240.14a-101 by revising Note E(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Notes
E. * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Action is to be taken as described in Items 11, 12, and 14 of this schedule which concerns non-convertible debt or preferred securities issued by a registrant meeting the requirements of General Instruction I.B.2. of Form S-3 (referenced in § 239.13 of this chapter); or
26. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 78a
27. Amend § 249.240f by:
a. Removing “F-9,” in paragraph (a); and
b. Removing in paragraph (b)(4) the phrase “; provided, however, no market value threshold need be satisfied in connection with non-convertible securities eligible for registration on Form F-9 (§ 239.39 of this chapter)”.
c. In Form 40-F (referenced in § 249.240f) by:
i. Removing “F-9,” from paragraph (1) of General Instruction A;
ii. Removing from paragraph (2)(iv) of General Instruction A the phrase “; provided, however, that no market value threshold need be satisfied in connection with non-convertible securities eligible for registration on Form F-9”; and
iii. Revising paragraph (2) of General Instruction C to read as follows:
The text of Form 40-F does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
C. * * *
(2) Any financial statements, other than interim financial statements, included in this Form by registrants registering securities pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act or reporting pursuant to the provisions of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act must be reconciled to U.S. GAAP as required by Item 17 of Form 20-F under the Exchange Act, unless this Form is filed with respect to a reporting obligation under Section 15(d) that arose solely as a result of a filing made
By the Commission.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments on whether changes are needed to USAID's rules on Source, Origin, and Nationality (S/O/N). This solicitation is in furtherance of a USAID initiative to review and if necessary, revise these rules in order to reduce the burden of procurement processes for USAID and contractors and grantees implementing USAID-funded development assistance activities and programs. In particular, USAID wishes to simplify Agency S/O/N procedures as implemented in our regulations and align them more closely with statutory procurement authorities.
Please submit comments no later than April 4, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0412-AA70, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
USAID will consider all comments as it determines how to revise its S/O/N regulation and will publish any proposed changes to this regulation for public comment under a separate publication in the
John Niemeyer, Esq.
Currently, USAID implements the statutory procurement directives in Section 604(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, through the creation and application of “principal geographic codes” found at 22 CFR 228.03 and the related concepts of “source,” “origin” and “nationality” as defined or described in 22 CFR 228. Geographic codes set forth at USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 260 identify geographic entities—countries, territories, organizations, regions, and sub-regions—and program activities associated with geographic entities. They are established and used by USAID for administrative purposes, including determining the source, origin, and nationality of commodities and services financed by USAID. Section 604(a) of the FAA allows for procurement of program-funded goods and services only in the United States, the recipient country, or developing countries (excluding advanced developing countries); however, no single geographic code reflects this statutory directive. USAID employees as well as USAID-funded contractors and grantees, spend a substantial amount of time and resources interpreting, applying, and when necessary and appropriate, seeking waivers from the application of the current codes and related rules. This extensive process results in significant use of resources, and at times, uncertainty across USAID in application of 22 CFR Part 228. In light of these issues, USAID is inquiring whether or not geographic codes developed before the current era of globalized manufacturing processes and which usually limit procurements to one country are still relevant and effective in today's globalized economy. In addition, USAID is concerned with the cost of compliance with the current geographic code requirements. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current system of authorizing a specific geographic code for particular procurements creates delays in implementation of sometimes urgently needed assistance. In situations where procurement from the one designated geographic code may not be possible, a waiver may be required to implement the project effectively, adding to the cost and detracting from the effectiveness of implementation. For example, one USAID contractor estimates the average time to process a waiver request for its programs at 55 days. Because the cost of the resources expended in these efforts means fewer resources available for project implementation and foreign assistance, USAID is considering revising the S/O/N regulation to simplify it, to be more consistent with the underlying statutory requirements of Section 604(a) of the FAA, and to streamline the related implementation procedures.
Any issues in this rulemaking that relate to cargo preference will be covered by the comprehensive rulemaking that is being developed to govern the Maritime Administration's cargo preference program.
USAID invites comments and suggestions on the existing source, origin, and nationality rules in 22 CFR Part 228. In particular:
■ What, if any, sections of 22 CFR Part 228 lead to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in implementing USAID development assistance activities and programs? What are the efficiency impacts to contractors and grantees from provisions reflecting the concept of “origin” and “source” (essentially, the country where a commodity is produced and the country from which a commodity is shipped to the cooperating country, respectively,
■ Should the regulatory guidance concerning “nationality” (the place of incorporation, ownership, citizenship, residence, etc. of suppliers of USAID-funded goods and services) be modified,
■ Should USAID modify the “special source rules,” FAA 604(b), (c), (e), (f), and (g), and reflected in 22 CFR 228.13, for procurement of agricultural commodities, vehicles or pharmaceuticals within limitations set forth in the FAA; and, if so, in what manner?
■ Should references in 22 CFR part 228 to other statutory requirements, such as the Fly America Act (49 U.S.C 40118) be removed or changed? Specifically is it useful for USAID to include Agency-specific policy and procedures in 22 CFR Part 228, when separate statutes and prevailing regulatory systems are already in place and publicly available from other sources?
■ What difficulties do contractors and grantees encounter when requesting a waiver to procure in any country other than those in the approved geographic code for each USAID-funded agreement (contract or grant?) How can the USAID's waiver guidance be modified or improved for more clear and cost effective application of the statutory and regulatory waiver requirements?
If commenters suggest modification, USAID requests specific proposals for what elements of 22 CFR Part 228 should be modified. USAID requests commenters to provide information and supporting data related to:
• The potential costs of modifying the existing regulatory language noted above.
• The potential quantifiable efficiency benefits of modifying the regulatory language noted above.
Revisions to this regulation will have an impact on related provisions in the 48 CFR 7 Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) and various chapters in USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS), including but not limited to ADS chapters 303, 310, and 311 (the ADS is accessible at
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
Proposed rule.
BOEMRE proposes to revise the regulations that pertain to noncompetitive acquisition of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable energy lease. We are taking this action because the current regulations governing the noncompetitive acquisition of an OCS renewable energy lease initiated by BOEMRE and a request for a noncompetitive OCS renewable energy lease initiated by an unsolicited request are inconsistent. This rulemaking will make the two processes consistent with each other by eliminating a duplicative and unnecessary step in the noncompetitive leasing process, while continuing to provide for adequate public notice and review of leasing proposals as required by law.
You may submit comments on the rulemaking by any of the following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1010-AD71 as an identifier in your message.
•
• Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement;
Timothy Redding at (703) 787-1219.
BOEMRE originally published the proposed revision for comment as a direct final rule in the
The regulations at 30 CFR part 285 govern renewable energy leasing and alternate uses of existing facilities on the OCS. This proposed rule would revise the regulations at §§ 285.231 and 285.232. The regulations at § 285.231 address unsolicited requests for noncompetitive leases. The regulations at § 285.232 address the acquisition of noncompetitive leases in response to a Request for Interest (RFI) or a Call for Information and Nomination (Call). The process for awarding leases noncompetitively outlined in these two sections is currently inconsistent.
As currently written, § 285.231 allows the award of a noncompetitive lease after BOEMRE receives an unsolicited request for a noncompetitive lease, provided that BOEMRE determines that there is no competitive interest after publishing a single notice of a request for interest relating to the unsolicited request for a noncompetitive lease.
As currently written, § 285.232 provides that, after BOEMRE publishes an RFI or Call, if a respondent indicates interest in leasing an area for which no other party has indicated interest, BOEMRE may offer a lease through a noncompetitive process. However, the regulations require the publication of a second RFI notice to confirm the absence of competition before proceeding with the noncompetitive process. We believe that this requirement for a second notice is redundant and is at odds with the noncompetitive process prescribed for cases in which a party submits an unsolicited request for an OCS renewable energy lease, where BOEMRE is required to publish only a single notice. Eliminating this discrepancy and requiring only one RFI notice would make BOEMRE's leasing processes more streamlined and efficient while maintaining BOEMRE's obligation to
Accordingly, BOEMRE proposes to revise § 285.231(d)(1) to state that we will publish in the
BOEMRE received a total of eight comments in response to the direct final rulemaking published on November 26, 2010. All of the comments objected to the rulemaking, characterizing its effect as improper rushing by BOEMRE to allow offshore renewable energy leasing and development. Four comments took issue specifically with the direct final rulemaking process itself and called for a proposed rule and comment procedure. Five of the comments stated that the current wording of 30 CFR 285.231 and 232 should be retained. A majority of the commenters appeared to misunderstand the effect of the proposed revision, evidencing a belief that it would remove the requirement for public notice to determine competitive interest altogether. However, one comment, which appeared to accurately understand the effect of the rulemaking, recommended retention of the current wording, stating that, “[t]he current regulations provide an added level of protection by ensuring that the public has adequate notice of any requests for interest relating to proposals to construct offshore alternative energy projects, giving competitive interests the chance to participate and submit alternative bids and the public an opportunity to express concerns and make comments.”
BOEMRE has determined that it received significant adverse comment on the direct final rule, which was defined in the November 26 notice as “a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach or would be ineffective and unacceptable without a change.” It is therefore publishing this proposed rule for public comment.
However, BOEMRE believes that the intent and effect of the proposed regulatory revision were largely misunderstood by most of the commenters. This proposed rule would maintain adequate public notice of leasing proposals and would be sufficient for the purpose of determining whether competitive interest existed, while eliminating unnecessary, inconsistent, and inefficient repetition in the renewable energy leasing process when it is initiated by BOEMRE. BOEMRE will consider the eight comments already received as they relate to this proposed rulemaking unless they are withdrawn by the commenters, and those commenters are welcome to submit additional comments.
This proposed rule would not be a significant rule as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1) This proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) This proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The proposed rule is intended to eliminate redundancy and inefficiency.
(3) This proposed rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the industries affected by this rule is 221119 (Other Electric Power Generation). The definition for this code is:
“This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating electric power generation facilities (except hydroelectric, fossil fuel, nuclear). These facilities convert other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, or tidal power, into electrical energy. The electric energy produced in these establishments is provided to electric power transmission systems or to electric power distribution systems.”
It is possible that this proposed rule could eventually affect entities that produce hydrogen and fall under NAICS Code 325120 (Industrial Gas Manufacturing). The definition for this code is:
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing industrial organic and inorganic gases in compressed, liquid, or solid forms.”
Given the original findings of the regulatory flexibility analysis done for 30 CFR part 285, as well as the minor adjustment to the renewable energy leasing process that is contemplated, the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each Agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BOEMRE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.
This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The proposed rule would 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. 1501
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. The proposed rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. This proposed rule would not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State Governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this proposed rule would not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this proposed rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this proposed rule and determined that it has no substantial effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This proposed rulemaking contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements; therefore, an OMB submission under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. BOEMRE has analyzed this proposed rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department's regulations implementing NEPA. This proposed rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in that this proposed rule is “* * * of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis * * *” Further, BOEMRE has analyzed this proposed rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215 and concluded that this proposed rule, being purely procedural, does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.
In developing this proposed rule, BOEMRE did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
BOEMRE is required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Continental shelf, Environmental protection, Public lands.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) proposes to amend 30 CFR part 285 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 285 continues to read as follows:
43 U.S.C. 1331
2. Amend § 285.231 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) We will publish in the
3. Amend § 285.232 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) After receiving the acquisition fee, BOEMRE will follow the process outlined in § 285.231(d) through (i).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.
This document announces a public hearing to receive information and views on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Dr. Geoffrey Evans, Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, at 301-443-6593 or by e-mail at
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Title III of Public Law 99-660, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
These proposed changes would not change the rights of any current or potential VICP petitioners.
The NPRM was published in the
A public hearing will be held during the 180-day public comment period. This hearing is to provide an open forum for the presentation of information and views concerning all aspects of the NPRM by interested persons.
In preparing a final regulation, the Secretary will consider the administrative record of this hearing along with all other written comments received during the comment period specified in the NPRM. Individuals or representatives of interested organizations are invited to participate in the public hearing in accord with the schedule and procedures set forth below.
The hearing will be held on March 4, 2011, beginning at 11:30 a.m. in Conference Room G in the Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Upon entering the Parklawn Building, persons who wish to attend the hearing will be required to call Mr. Mario Lombre at (301) 443-3196 to be escorted to Conference Room G.
The presiding officer representing the Secretary, HHS will be Dr. Geoffrey Evans, Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration.
Persons who wish to participate are requested to file a notice of participation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on or before March 1, 2011. The notice should be mailed to the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, HSB, Room 11C-26, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. To ensure timely handling any outer envelope should be clearly marked “NPRM Hearing.” The notice of participation should contain the interested person's name, address, e-mail address, telephone number, any business or organizational affiliation of the person desiring to make a presentation, a brief summary of the presentation, and the approximate time requested for the presentation. Groups that have similar interests should consolidate their comments as part of one presentation. Time available for the hearing will be allocated among the persons who properly file notices of participation. If time permits, interested parties attending the hearing who did not submit notice of participation in advance will be allowed to make an oral presentation at the conclusion of the hearing.
Persons who find that there is insufficient time to submit the required information in writing may give oral notice of participation by calling Dr. Geoffrey Evans, Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, at (301) 443-6593 no later than March 1, 2011. Those persons who give oral notice of participation should also submit written notice containing the information described above to HHS by the close of business March 2, 2011.
After reviewing the notices of participation and accompanying information, HHS will schedule each appearance and notify each participant by mail, e-mail or telephone of the time allotted to the person(s) and the approximate time the person's oral presentation is scheduled to begin.
Written comments and transcripts of the hearing will be made available for public inspection as soon as they have been prepared, on weekdays (Federal holidays excepted)between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Room 11C-26, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2011.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1178, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2011.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1175, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2011.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1182, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule.
Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 17, 2011.
The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1176, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to update references to authoritative accounting standards owing to the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB's) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (“Codification of GAAP”).
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before April 18, 2011 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR case 2010-005 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Edward N. Chambers, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3221 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2010-005.
In June of 2009, the FASB announced, in its Statement Number 168, that effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009, the FASB ASC would become the source of authoritative U.S. GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. The FASB stated that this codification supersedes existing references in U.S. GAAP. Consequently, DoD, GSA, and NASA are updating the superseded references in three FAR sections with the GAAP Codification references. The revisions to the three FAR sections are intended to have no effect other than to simply replace the superseded references with updated references. The references to the prior GAAP in FAR 31.205-6(o)(2)(iii)(A)(
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2010-005), in correspondence.
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 31 and 52 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 31 and 52 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Amend section 31.205-11 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (h) to read as follows:
(h) A “capital lease,” as defined in Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standards Codification (FASB ASC) 840, Leases, is subject to the requirements of this cost principle. (
3. Amend section 31.205-36 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) This section is applicable to the cost of renting or leasing real or personal property acquired under “operating leases” as defined in Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standards Codification (FASB ASC) 840, Leases. (
4. Amend section 52.204-10 by revising the date of the clause and in paragraph (a), in the definition “Total compensation”, revising paragraph (2) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2)
5. Amend section 52.212-5 by revising the date of the clause and paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
__ (4) 52.204-10, Reporting ExecutiveCompensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Date) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
6. Amend section 52.213-4 by revising the date of the clause and paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Date) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; notice of availability of supplemental documents and corrections; extension of comment period.
This document advises the public that FMCSA has placed in the public docket three additional documents concerning hours of service (HOS) for commercial motor vehicle drivers. This notice also makes clerical corrections to both the preamble and the regulatory text of FMCSA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on HOS requirements, which was published in the
Comments on the NPRM are due by March 4, 2011.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4325.
For a full background on this rulemaking, please see the preamble to the December 2010 HOS NPRM (75 FR 82170; December 29, 2010). The docket for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2004-19608) contains all of the background information for this rulemaking, including comments. As explained more fully below, this notice calls attention to three supplemental documents that FMCSA has placed as electronic files in the docket:
•
•
•
On January 28, 2011, ATA requested further information on “Analyses of Fatigue-Related Large Truck Crashes, The Assignment of Critical Reason, and Other Variables Using the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, May 30, 2008.” The study at issue estimated the impact that cumulative hours worked have on driver fatigue, and FMCSA used the study to calculate some of the safety benefits associated with the reduced driver working hours the Agency proposed in the NPRM. FMCSA placed the study, which analyzed Large Truck Crash Causation Study data, in the HOS docket (FMCSA-2004-19608-3481). While the study provides a detailed description of the analysis and methodology, it did not include the actual coefficients estimated for the cumulative fatigue function that linked greater working hours in a week with increased fatigue involvement in the following week. ATA requested those coefficients on January 28, 2011, so it could recreate the safety benefit calculations FMCSA used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. On February 1, 2011, FMCSA sent ATA the spreadsheets with a cover memo. FMCSA has docketed both the memo and the spreadsheets.
The coefficients for the cumulative fatigue function from the 2008 study are shown in Table 1.
These coefficients relate fatigue involvement to total hours worked the week before the crash. The formula using these coefficients is as follows:
Prob (driver fatigue) = 1/(1+exp(3.70411-0.03717*last), where “last” is the number of hours the driver worked in the last week and “driver fatigue” is the probability that the driver was coded as fatigued at the time of the crash.
There are two accompanying spreadsheets. The first, docketed at FMCSA-2004-19608-6147.1, presents the coefficient estimates, explanation of the coefficient names, and the formulas for the 2008 study for figure 5, which contains the cumulative fatigue formula. The second spreadsheet, docketed at FMCSA-2004-19608-6147.2, contains a column of data using the formula from the 2008 study to link hours worked in the previous week to fatigue involvement percentages the following week. This column includes the raw predicted values from the estimated equation. Because FMCSA used baseline estimates of average work and fatigue involvement in the Regulatory Impact Analysis docketed at FMCSA-2004-19608-4116, the fatigue-involvement predicted values from the equation were scaled so that the average work and fatigue levels predicted by the equation (for all hours) would equal the averages used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. The second column of fatigue percentages presents these scaled values, which are only slightly different from the raw values estimated directly from the equation. FMCSA used a look-up table for scaling the individual hours of work in the previous week. Look-up tables act like step functions: a reduction of 10.7 hours is treated as though it is a reduction of 11 hours (it goes to the next step), and so forth. The use of this methodology may result in slightly higher estimated benefits for each option, compared to using exact values. The differences in total benefits for the central case, between the lookup function and actual raw values, would have been no more than a few percent; they would not have affected the net benefits of the options relative to one another, or significantly changed their attractiveness from a cost-benefit standpoint.
The spreadsheet containing these values and formulas incorporates two worksheets, one titled “Parameters” and another titled “Driving Hours Data.” The formula coefficients are presented in cells B87 through B90 of the “Driving Hours Data” worksheet. The cells in A92 through C137 use the coefficients to link work hours (contained in Column A, cells A93-A137) to fatigue involvement percentages in Column B (contained in cells B93-137). Column C (cells C93-137) presents the values scaled to our average work (52 hours per week of work) and fatigue involvement (13 percent).
FMCSA is extending the comment period for all comments on the NPRM, not just on the issues raised in this notice, so everyone may have an opportunity to review this formula and its data.
In addition, FMCSA makes the following clerical corrections to the HOS NPRM published in the
1. Page 82177. Correct footnote 17 to read as follows:
2. Page 82178. Correct footnote 31 to read as follows:
3. Page 82179. Correct the third sentence in the last paragraph of the third column to read: “An answer would turn on knowing the total number of crashes in each hour and the percentage of driving that takes place in each hour.”
4. Page 82182, correct footnote 39 to read as follows:
5. Page 82182. Correct footnote 45 to read as follows:
6. Page 82183. Correct the sentence that begins on the fourth line from the bottom of the second column to read, “Because one of the team members drives while the other takes his or her break, the result of the rule is that the non-working driver has to take both periods in the sleeper berth because it is not possible to log the shorter time as off duty while he or she is `in or upon any commercial motor vehicle.' ”
7. Page 82187. Correct the sentence that begins on the ninth line of the second column to read, “To analyze the safety impacts of these changes, the Agency has developed a series of functions that relate fatigue-coded crashes to hours of daily driving and hours of weekly work.”
8. Page 82188. Remove the comma after “benefits” and before “These” in the thirteenth line of the first full paragraph in the third column and add in its place a period.
9. Page 82189. Remove the period in “Section V.” in line five of the paragraph that begins after Table 8 in the second column.
10. Page 82192. Remove “numbers” and add in its place “number” in the eighth line of the third column.
11. Page 82193. Revise the heading of Table 13 to read: “Table 13—First-Year Costs to Affected Firms per Power Unit for Option 3.”
12. Page 82193. Revise the last sentence of footnote 63 to read, “When the Agency has looked at the impact on private carriers in relation to their revenue in the past, the percentage impact of costs to private carriers as a share of revenue has generally been an order of magnitude smaller than the impacts on for-hire trucking firms.”
13. Page 82195. Remove the abbreviation “EA” in the third line from the bottom of the third column and add in its place “Environmental Assessment.”
14. Page 82197. Correct:
a. § 395.1 by revising paragraph (b)(1).
b. § 395.1(d)(2) by removing the period after “§§ 395.8” in the second sentence and adding in its place a comma.
c. § 395.1(g) by revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A)(
(b)
(1)
(i) For more than 12 hours in the aggregate following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles;
(ii) After the end of the 14th or 16th hour since coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles, pursuant to § 395.3(a)(2);
(iii) For more than 12 hours in the aggregate following 8 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles; or
(iv) After he/she has been on duty 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off duty for drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(B) May not drive more than 10/11 hours following one of the 10-hour off-duty periods specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(
(C) May not be on duty for more than the 13-hour period in § 395.3(a)(4) or drive beyond the 14- or 16-hour driving window in § 395.3(a)(2) after coming on duty following one of the 10-hour off-duty periods specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) has instituted a proceeding to clarify, update, and seek public comments on proposed changes to its existing regulations and procedures regarding the use of railroad rights-of-way for railbanking and interim trail use under the National Trails System Act (Trails Act).
Comments are due by April 12, 2011; replies are due by May 12, 2011.
Comments on this proposal may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at
Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room
Valerie Quinn, (202) 245-0382. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
The Board is instituting a proceeding to clarify, update, and seek public comments on proposed changes to its existing regulations and procedures regarding the use of railroad rights-of-way for railbanking and interim trail use under Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. 1247(d).
Specifically, the Board proposes to add a new rule to 49 CFR 1152.29, the Board's regulations regarding the Trails Act, that would require the railroad and the trail sponsor jointly to notify the Board when a trail use agreement has been reached, and to notify the Board of the exact location of the right-of-way subject to the interim trail use agreement, by including a map and milepost marker information. The Board's current rules provide no formal means of determining whether an actual interim trail use agreement is reached after the Board issues a Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU), and, if so, whether the agreement applies to the entire right-of-way at issue. Therefore, it would be useful to the Board and to the public to require parties to notify the Board when an interim trail use agreement has been reached.
The proposed rules would also require parties to ask the Board to vacate the CITU/NITU when an interim trail use agreement covers only a portion of the right-of-way and request a replacement CITU/NITU to cover the portion of the right-of-way subject to the trail use agreement. Currently, the Board's regulations make CITU/NITUs self-executing, and the rules contemplate that petitions to vacate or modify the CITU/NITU will be filed if rail service is to be reactivated, interim trail use ceases in whole or in part, or there is a change in trail sponsors. When an interim trail use agreement covers only a portion of the right-of-way that was proposed to be abandoned, the Board's regulations are unclear whether the CITU/NITU that was issued for the right-of-way could nonetheless continue in effect indefinitely, precluding the abandonment of the remainder of the right-of-way for which the CITU/NITU was issued. Thus, this proposed rule would clarify that if an interim trail use agreement applies to less of the right-of-way than is covered by the CITU/NITU, the parties must petition the Board to modify or vacate the CITU/NITU.
The proposed rules would clarify that a substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge that interim trail use is subject to restoration and reactivation at any time. The Board's rules at 49 CFR 1152.29(f)(1) currently require that, when a trail sponsor intends to terminate trail use and another person intends to become the trail sponsor, the substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge its willingness to assume financial responsibility for the right-of-way; but the rules are silent with regard to any acknowledgment that continued interim trail use remains subject to possible rail service restoration. Accordingly, the Board clarifies that the substitute trail sponsor (like § 1152.29(a)(3) requires of the original trail sponsor) must affirmatively acknowledge that the continued interim trail use is subject to possible future restoration of the right-of-way and reactivation of rail service.
The Board is also proposing minor modifications to its regulations under 49 CFR 1152.29. This includes the following: clarification that, under § 1152.29(e), parties do not need to file a request to extend the time for filing a notice of abandonment consummation when legal or regulatory conditions (including a CITU/NITU) remain in effect that bar consummation of abandonment until these conditions have been removed; modification of the language in §§ 1152.29(a)(2), (a)(3), (c)(2), and (d)(2), to more closely resemble the language of the Trails Act; modifications of the language of the Statement of Willingness to Assume Financial Responsibility in § 1152.29(a)(3) to more accurately describe the responsibilities of an interim trail sponsor; removal of the reference to “NERSA abandonment proceedings” in 49 CFR 1152.29(c), because NERSA is no longer in effect; modification of the language in 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1) and (d)(1), to clarify that the Board will issue a CITU/NITU for the portion of the right-of-way on which both parties are willing to negotiate interim trail use, rather than the portion “to be covered by the agreement,” as the portion that the agreement may ultimately cover is unknown at that time; and modification of the language in 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(2) to clarify that a trail sponsor may choose to terminate interim trail use over a portion of the right-of-way covered by the trail use agreement, while continuing interim trail use over the remaining portion of the right-of-way covered by the trail use agreement.
In addition, in light of concerns regarding the ability of some states to assume liability and legal and financial responsibility for a right-of-way during the interim trail use period, the Board seeks comments on how to resolve state sovereign immunity issues. Also, the Board seeks comments on whether there are additional means of indirect notification of CITU/NITUs to reversionary landowners that can be used to augment the existing newspaper publication method.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision served on February 16, 2011. To obtain a copy of this decision, visit the Board's Web site at
The Board certifies under 49 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed notice requirement would require trail sponsors and railroads to file a notice with the Board when they have reached an interim trail use agreement. Some trail sponsors may qualify as a small entity, in that they may be a “small organization” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(4) or a “small governmental jurisdiction” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Some railroads may qualify as a “small business” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(3). However, the proposed notice that would be required here should involve little time and expense to draft and file, and thus should have little economic impact on a small-entity filer. The requirement is limited to only those small entities or small businesses who might be parties to interim trail use agreements. It therefore will not impact a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3519, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the Board also seeks comments regarding: (1) Whether the particular collection of information described below is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner Mulvey.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1152 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1152 continues to read as follows:
11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 701 note (1995)
2. Amend § 1152.29 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (c) heading, (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(iii), (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, and (d)(2)(iii) and by adding paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (h) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) A statement indicating the trail sponsor's willingness to assume full responsibility for:
(i) Managing the right-of-way;
(ii) Any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of the right-of-way (unless the user is immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential liability); and
(iii) The payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed against the right-of-way; and
(3) An acknowledgment that interim trail use is subject to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service. The statement must be in the following form:
In order to establish interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 49 CFR 1152.29 with respect to the right-of-way owned by ______ (Railroad) and operated by ______ (Railroad), ______ (Interim Trail Sponsor) is willing to assume full responsibility for: (1) Managing the right-of-way, (2) any legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of the right-of-way (unless the sponsor is immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad against any potential liability), and (3) the payment of any and all taxes that may be levied or assessed against the right of way. The property, known as ______ (Name of Branch Line), extends from railroad milepost ____ near ______ (Station Name), to railroad milepost ____, near ______ (Station name), a distance of ____ miles in [County(ies), (State(s)]. The right-of-way is part of a line of railroad proposed for abandonment in Docket No. STB AB ____ (Sub-No. ____).
A map of the property depicting the right-of-way is attached.
______ (Interim Trail Sponsor) acknowledges that use of the right-of-way is subject to the user's continuing to meet its responsibilities described above and subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service. A copy of this statement is being served on the railroad(s) on the same date it is being served on the Board.
(c)
(2) The CITU will indicate that any interim trail use is subject to future restoration of rail service and to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The CITU will also provide that, if an interim trail use agreement is reached (and thus interim trail use established), the parties shall file the notice described in paragraph (h) of this section. Additionally, the CITU will provide that if the sponsor intends to terminate interim trail use on all or any portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement, it must send the Board a copy of the CITU and request that it be vacated on a specified date. If a party requests that the CITU be vacated for only a portion of the right-of-way, the Board will issue an appropriate replacement CITU covering the remaining portion of the right-of-way subject to the interim trail use agreement. The Board will reopen the abandonment proceeding, vacate the CITU, and issue a decision permitting immediate abandonment for the involved portion of the right-of-way. Copies of the decision will be sent to:
(iii) The current trail sponsor.
(d) * * *
(1) If continued rail service does not occur under 49 U.S.C. 10904 and Sec. 1152.27 and a railroad agrees to negotiate an interim trail use/rail banking agreement, then the Board will issue a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) to the railroad and to the interim trail sponsor for the portion of the right-of-way as to which both parties are willing to negotiate. The NITU will: permit the railroad to discontinue service, cancel any applicable tariffs, and salvage track and materials, consistent with interim trail use and rail banking, as long as it is consistent with any other Board order, 30 days after the date it is issued; and permit the railroad to fully abandon the line if no agreement is reached 180 days after it is issued, subject to appropriate conditions, including labor protection and environmental matters.
(2) The NITU will indicate that interim trail use is subject to future restoration of rail service and to the sponsor's continuing to meet its responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The NITU will also provide that, if an interim trail use agreement is reached (and thus interim
(iii) The current trail sponsor.
(f)(1) * * *
(iii) An acknowledgement that interim trail use is subject to possible future reconstruction and reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service.
(h) When the parties negotiating for railbanking/interim trail use reach an agreement, the trail sponsor and railroad shall jointly notify the Board within 10 days that the agreement has been reached. The notice shall include a map depicting, and an accurate description of, the involved right-of-way or portion thereof (including mileposts) that is subject to the parties' interim trail use agreement and a certification that the interim trail use agreement includes provisions requiring the sponsor to fulfill the responsibilities described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Additionally, if the interim trail use agreement establishes interim trail use over less of the right-of-way than is covered by the CITU or NITU, the notice shall also include a request that the Board vacate the CITU or NITU and issue a replacement CITU/NITU for only the portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement. The Board will reopen the abandonment proceeding, vacate the CITU or NITU, issue an appropriate replacement CITU or NITU for only the portion of the right-of-way covered by the interim trail use agreement, and issue a decision permitting immediate abandonment of the portion of the right-of-way not subject to the interim trail use agreement. Copies of the decision will be sent to:
(1) The rail carrier that sought abandonment authorization;
(2) The owner of the right-of-way; and
(3) The current trail sponsor.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The additional information below is included to assist those who may wish to submit comments pertinent to review under the Paperwork Reduction Act:
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States of fresh strawberries from Jordan. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh strawberries from Jordan.
Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import Specialist, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-0627.
Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-50, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the
In accordance with that process, we published a notice
In the PRA, APHIS determined that six plant pests have a high risk potential of being introduced into the United States via the pathway of strawberries from Jordan. The PRA notes that two of these pests,
We acknowledge the risk that these plant pests could potentially evade detection and be introduced into the United States in the manner referred to by the commenter. However, while the pests themselves may potentially evade detection by their small size, their presence can be detected by visible signs of discoloration and damage to fruits and leaves. Moreover, APHIS has permitted the entry of commercial strawberries from several countries in Asia, Europe, and South America where one or both of these pests of concern occur. Over several decades, there have only been a few isolated interceptions of
For these reasons, together with Jordan's use of integrated pest management practices in the production of commercial strawberries, APHIS has concluded that commercial strawberries
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to begin issuing permits for the importation into the continental United States of fresh strawberries from Jordan subject to the following phytosanitary measures:
• Each consignment of strawberry fruit must be accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by Jordan's NPPO stating that the strawberries were grown in Jordan and bearing the following additional declaration: “This consignment has been inspected and found free of
• The strawberries are imported as commercial consignments only.
• The strawberries are subject to inspection at the port of entry into the continental United States.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) announces a public meeting of the Dairy Industry Advisory Committee (Dairy Committee) to review and approve the final recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Dairy Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary on policy issues impacting the dairy industry. Instructions regarding registering for and listening to the conference call meeting is provided in the
You may submit comments online: Go to
Solomon Whitfield, Designated Federal Official; phone: (202) 720-9886; e-mail:
In August 2009, USDA established the Dairy Committee. The Dairy Committee reviews issues of farm milk price volatility and dairy farmer profitability. The Dairy Committee provides recommendations to the Secretary on how USDA can best address these issues to meet the dairy industry's needs.
The Secretary of Agriculture selected a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the dairy industry's needs. Equal opportunity practices were considered in all appointments to the Dairy Committee in accordance with USDA policies. The Secretary announced the members on January 6, 2010. Representatives include: Producers and producer organizations, processors and processor organizations, consumers, academia, a retailer, and a state representative.
The Dairy Committee will hold its final public meeting via conference call on March 3, 2011, at 1 p.m. EST. The dairy industry and public are invited to listen in to the conference call and to provide written comments, but will not be allowed to provide oral comments at the meeting. Although the purpose of the March 3, 2011, meeting is for the Dairy Committee to vote on the final report, as required by the FACA regulation in 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), “any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee,” therefore, written comments will be accepted. The final report will not be changed as a result of comments submitted for this final meeting, but all comments submitted on-line will be available on the Dairy Committee Web site.
Available conference call-in lines for the public are limited to the first 100 registered public attendees. All persons wishing to listen to the meeting via conference call must register through
Additional information about the public meeting, meeting agenda, materials and minutes, and how to provide comments is available at the Dairy Committee Web site:
If you require special accommodations, please use the contact information above.
Notice of these meetings is provided in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Amador County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Sutter Creek, California. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The RAC will review, discuss and vote on proposed projects.
The meeting will be held on March 3, 2011 beginning at 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at 10877 Conductor Blvd., Sutter Creek, CA. Written comments should be sent to Frank Mosbacher; Forest Supervisor's Office; 100 Forni Road; Placerville, CA 95667. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may
Frank Mosbacher, Public Affairs Officer, Eldorado National Forest Supervisors Office, (530) 621-5268. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public.
The following business will be conducted: The RAC will review, discuss and vote onproposed projects. More information will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest Web site at
Notice is hereby given that an orientation meeting and a planning meeting of the Maryland State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene via teleconference. The purpose of the orientation meeting is to review the rules of operation for this federal advisory committee with the newly appointed committee members; the purpose of the planning meeting is to plan the committee's future activities.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days after the meeting date. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Comments may be faxed to 202-376-7548 or e-mailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are directed to the Commission's Web site,
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of telephone lines for the public, persons are asked to contact the Eastern Regional Office by February 21, 2011 either by e-mail at
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Kentucky Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will hold three meeting sessions on Wednesday, March 16, 2011. All three meeting sessions will take place at Gardiner Hall, Room 310, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. The first meeting session will begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 2 p.m. (EST) for the purpose of member orientation. The second meeting session will begin at approximately 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 2:45 p.m. (EST) for the purpose of members receiving a briefing on school integration in the Jefferson County School District. The third meeting session will begin at approximately 3 and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. (EST) for the purpose to discuss the Committee's report on school discipline.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Southern Regional Office by April 15, 2011. The mailing address is Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 18T40, Atlanta, GA 30301. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments may do so to
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 3, at the Boise Public Library, 715 S. Capitol Boulevard, Boise, ID 83702. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to receive orientation and plan future activities.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by Friday, April 1, 2011.
Hearing-impaired persons who wish to submit written comments and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority (LJCRA), grantee of FTZ 29, on behalf of Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (HIAMS-AM) (formerly Hitachi Automotive Products (USA), Inc.), operator of Subzone 29F, HIAMS-AM plant, Harrodsburg, Kentucky, requesting authority to expand the scope of FTZ manufacturing authority. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and section 400.28(a)(2) of the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on February 10, 2011.
Subzone 29F was approved by the Board in 1990 with authority granted for the manufacture of automotive components at the HIAMS-AM plant located at 955 Warwick Road (Site 1) (50 acres) in Harrodsburg, Kentucky (Board Order 497, 56 FR 674, 1-8-91). Activity at the facility (624 employees) includes machining, assembly, testing, warehousing, and distribution of various automotive components, including mass air sensors, throttle bodies and chambers, starter motors, motor/generator units, alternators, distributors, other static converters, inverter modules, rotors/stators, ignition coils, electronic sensors and modules, fuel injectors, emissions control equipment, valves, pumps, and electronic control units for engines and transmissions (capacity—up to 8.5 million units annually).
LJCRA previously submitted an application in 2010 on behalf of HIAMS-AM requesting authority to expand the subzone to include two new warehouse facilities (adding Site 2 and Site 3) and to expand its scope of FTZ manufacturing authority to add 720,000 units to its authorized annual production capacity (proposed combined output: 9.22 million units per year) and to include the manufacture of high pressure, direct-injection fuel pumps as an additional finished product to be manufactured under FTZ procedures (Docket 38-2010; 75 FR 29723, 5-27-2010).
The applicant now requests that the scope of FTZ manufacturing authority be expanded to include additional production capacity (330,000 units per year) that will be added at the facility in 2011 (new combined output would be 9.55 million units per year). The expanded operations will involve similar finished products and utilization of both foreign-sourced and domestic materials and components under HIAMS-AM's existing scope of FTZ authority.
Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing about 80 percent of the finished automotive components' material value) include: adhesives, plastic fittings, plastic and rubber belts, fasteners, gaskets/seals/o-rings, metal fittings, labels, plastic wedging, springs, brackets, plates, filters, bearings, air pumps/compressors, valves, switches, electric motors, tubes/pipes/profiles, aluminum plugs, transformers, crankshafts, camshafts, gears, pulleys, couplings, clutches, parts of electric motors, pinions, magnets, ignition parts, diodes, transistors, resistors, semiconductors, liquid crystal devices, electrical instruments, navigation apparatuses, capacitors, printed/integrated circuits, fuses, rheostats, connectors, terminals, piezoelectric crystals, regulators, lamps, wires, cables, cylinders, plungers, insulators, brushes, brackets, shafts, and measuring instruments (duty rate range: free—9.0%).
Expanded FTZ procedures could continue to exempt HIAMS-AM from customs duty payments on the foreign-origin components used in production for export (about 30% of shipments). On its domestic shipments, the company would be able to elect the duty rate that applies to finished automotive components (free—6.7%) for the foreign-origin inputs noted above. Subzone status would further allow HIAMS-AM to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry procedures. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. HIAMS-AM would also be exempt from duty payments on foreign inputs that become scrap during the production process.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002. The closing period for receipt of comments is April 18, 2011. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 2, 2011.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on March 2, 2011, 9 a.m., Room 6087B, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
1. Opening Remarks and Introductions.
2. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public.
3. Discussion on Proposals from last and for next Wassenaar Meeting.
4. Report on Proposed changes to the Export Administration Regulation.
5. Other Business.
6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 25, 2011, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is seekingapplicants for the following vacant seat on the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council (council): Education Alternate. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 2-3 year terms, pursuant to the council's Charter.
Applications are due by May 1, 2011.
Application kits may be obtained from
Leslie Abramson, 991 Marine Dr., The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129, 415-561-6622, ext. 306,
The Sanctuary Advisory Council provides the Sanctuary Superintendent with advice on the management of the Sanctuary. Members provide advice to the Superintendent on issues affecting resource protection, the Sanctuary's primary purpose. The council, through its members, serves as liaisons to the community regarding Sanctuary issues and acts as a conduit, relaying the community's interests, concerns, and management needs to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Advisory Council members represent public interest groups, local industry, commercial and recreational user groups, academia, conservation groups, government agencies, and the general public. Members serve either two-or three-year terms in order to stagger council membership and allow continuity.
16 U.S.C. 1431,
NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet March 4-10, 2011. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Thursday, March 10, 2011. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 8 a.m. until 9 a.m. on Saturday, March 5 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
Meetings of the Pacific Council and its advisory entities will be
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: 503-820-2280 or 866-806-7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site,
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.
Department of Education.
Comment Request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 18, 2011.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 18, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Federal policymakers need to know whether the policies and programs they sponsor under these laws contribute to teacher quality for disadvantaged students. Hence, the U.S. Department of Education requires a study documenting the state and local actions to (a) develop new measures of teacher quality, (b) analyze the distribution of teacher quality, and (c) develop and implement plans to ensure teacher quality for disadvantaged students. To inform federal policymakers, the study will examine the implementation of these activities with attention to implementation challenges, the role of state and local context, and the roles of the federal programs designed to foster these activities.
The planned data collections will serve four objectives:
1. To examine how states and districts analyze the distribution of teacher quality, plan actions to address inequities, and monitor progress.
2. To examine how states and districts are changing their measures of teacher quality, and to understand their experiences in doing so.
3. To examine state and local actions to improve teacher quality for disadvantaged students (i.e., students in high-poverty or high-minority schools).
4. To describe the perceived contributions of federal programs to state and local actions aimed at improving the quality of teachers for disadvantaged students, and how state and local contexts mediate these contributions.
To address these objectives, our design includes telephone interviews with state education agencies and local education agencies.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board.
Notice, Public Comment on Setting Achievement Levels in Writing.
The National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board) is soliciting public comments and recommendations to improve the design proposed for setting achievement levels for NAEP in writing. This notice provides opportunity for public comment and submitting recommendations for improving the design proposed for setting achievement levels for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Writing.
The proposed Design Document, available at
Public and private individuals and organizations are invited to provide written comments and recommendations. Voluntary participation by all interested parties is urged. This notice sets forth the review schedule, identifies the kinds of information that the Governing Board is seeking to obtain regarding the Design
Under Public Law 107-279, the Governing Board is authorized to formulate policy guidelines for NAEP. The legislation specifies that the Governing Board is to develop appropriate student achievement levels for each subject and grade tested, as provided in section 303(e). Achievement levels are determined by identifying the knowledge that can be measured and verified objectively using widely accepted professional assessment standards. Achievement levels are to be consistent with relevant widely accepted professional assessment standards, and based on the appropriate level of subject matter knowledge for grade levels to be assessed, or on the age of the students
In preparation for setting achievement levels for the new assessment of writing at grades 4, 8, and 12, the Governing Board seeks comment on the draft Design Document intended to guide this process. This is the first wholly computer-based NAEP, and the design calls for this to be the first computerized NAEP achievement levels-setting process. Comments are invited, particularly on the computerization of the achievement levels setting process. All responses received will be taken into consideration before finalizing the Design Document.
Policymakers, teachers, researchers, State and local writing specialists, members of professional writing and teacher organizations, and members of the public are invited to provide feedback. Comments will provide valuable feedback that is designed to improve the first computerized achievement levels setting process.
To assist with the review and comment, the following materials are posted at
(1)
(2)
1. The objective of this study is to set achievement levels for the 2011 and 2013 NAEP writing assessments. Does the study design as presented in the Design Document seem reasonable for accomplishing this overall objective?
2. What improvements can be made to the design to more fully accomplish the objectives of this study?
3. The proposed design calls for the computerization of many aspects of the study. Are there aspects of this computerization that will be particularly effective or ineffective in meeting the objective of this study?
4. Is the field trial as described a reasonable method for testing the logistics of the computerized methodology?
5. Is the special study as described a reasonable method for comparing performance relative to the achievement levels on the 2007 writing NAEP assessment with performance relative to the achievement levels for the new writing NAEP assessment?
It is anticipated that the finalized Design Document will be presented for approval to the Governing Board on March 4, 2011. Comments must be received by February 22, 2011, and sent to:
WestEd, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, Attention: Jennae Bulat: Public Comment, Fax: (415) 615-3200, E-mail:
Jennae Bulat, WestEd, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, Telephone: (415) 615-3260, FAX: (415) 615-3200, E-mail:
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
l. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
m. The license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of the water quality certification.
n.
Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
o. Due to the small size and remote location of this project, the applicant's close coordination with tribal, State, and Federal agencies during the preparation of the application, and the lack of any study requests submitted during pre-filing consultation, we intend to waive scoping and shorten the filing and comment date on final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period for the application, which included a public meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping.
p.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
q. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
r.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that on February 1, 2011, DCP Intrastate Network, LLC (DCPIN) filed to provide notice of its withdrawal of rates for transportation service under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (“NGPA”) and its Statement of Operating Conditions. DCPIN states upon review of its operations, DCPIN has determined that its system is a non-jurisdictional natural gas gathering system under section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act as more fully described in the filing.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 31, 2011 Thomas G. Favinger submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and part 45 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 18 CFR 45.7.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor, Electronic Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS) of Fairfax, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than February 23, 2011.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Under EPA contract number GS-35F-0601K, Order Number 1666, contractor Electronic Consulting Services, Inc., 2750 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 510, Fairfax, VA will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing help desk support for OPPTS/OPPT end users; supporting installation/maintenance of servers and operating system software (UNIX, Linux, Windows XP/2003/2000/NT); installing, maintaining, and troubleshooting Agency standard hardware and software; performing scheduled backups of servers; develop and maintain Lotus Notes and Oracle databases; perform occasional web and database development for special projects; and maintain hardware and software inventory of workstations. In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-35F-0601K, Order Number 1666 ECS will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ECS' personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ECS access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's
Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until September 30, 2011. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
ECS' personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.
Environmental protection, Confidential business information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jaimee Dong, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA estimates that the average burden for detergent certification is 60 hours and $6,889, and that there will be approximately three applications for detergent certification each year for the next three years. Thus, the annual certification burden is estimated at 180 hours and $20,667. Most of the burden is incurred by the blenders of detergent into gasoline or PRC. The regulations require that they generate and maintain records of the amount of detergent blended and the amount of gasoline into which it is blended. These records are known as volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR) records and must demonstrate that the proper amount of a certified detergent has been used. For blenders with automated equipment, the annual burden is estimated at 150 hours and $12,613. There are approximately 1300 blenders that use automated equipment. Thus, the annual burden is 195,000 hours and $16.4 million. For blenders with non-automated equipment, the annual burden is estimated at 500 hours and $42,040. There are about 50 blenders in this category, for an annual burden of 25,000 hours and $2,102,000. There are no capital or start-up costs beyond those incurred by industry at the program's inception in 1995. Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are in three categories. First, the on-road engine testing to demonstrate that the detergent meets the deposit-control standards is performed at contractor facilities. However, just about all detergent certifications are able to rely on previous testing, so new testing is only performed perhaps once a year at a cost of $200,000. The second O&M cost is for copying and postage for the estimated three submissions annually for detergent certification and one submission annually for research notification. At an estimated $10 per submission, the annual cost is $40. The third O&M cost is for the storage of the VAR records at the 1300 automated detergent blending facilities and 50 non-automated detergent blending facilities. The estimated annual cost per facility is $100, for a total of $135,000. The total annual estimated burden for industry is 220,181 hours and $18.8 million.
The previous clearance consisted of 220,608 hours and $15,547,566 in total costs. The changes are primarily due to an update in labor costs.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Local Government Advisory Committee's teleconference originally scheduled on Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:30-3 p.m. (ET) (76 FR 6785,published on Tuesday, February 8, 2011) is rescheduled for Wednesday, March 9,2011, 3:30-4:30 (ET). The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the GulfCoast Restoration Workgroup on ways EPA can engage local government officials inGulf Coast Ecosystem restoration efforts and other issues of environmental concern toelected officials. This is an open meeting and all interested persons are invited toparticipate. The Committee will hear comments from the public between 3:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, March 9, 2011. Individuals or organizations wishing to address theCommittee will be allowed a maximum of five minutes to present their point of view. Also, written comments should be submitted electronically to
The Local Government Advisory Committee meeting will be held by teleconference on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (ET). The Committee's meeting summary will be available after the meeting online at
Frances Eargle, the Designated Federal Officer for the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) at(202) 564-3115 or e-mail at
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for a license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF)—Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as
Interested persons may contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by e-mail at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 14, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed information collection request for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 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.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Annual Estimates of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness for Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in the United States, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), IP11-003, Initial Review
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:
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:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Attendees who wish to attend a specific ICD-9-CM C&M meeting on March 9-10, 2011, must submit their name and organization by March 5, 2011, for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by the guards to admit visitors to the meeting.
Participants who attended previous ICD-9-CM C&M meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you attend.
Please register to attend the meeting on-line at:
Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510 or
ICD-10 Topics:
ICD-9-CM Procedure Topics:
ICD-10-PCS Topics:
ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Topics:
ICD-10-CM Topics:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
CMS and NCHS will no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS Web sites prior to the meeting at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
There was no change to the matters discussed at the meeting.
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:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration forChildren and Families is soliciting public comment on thespecific aspects of the information collection described above.Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtainedand comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administrationfor Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office ofInformation Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 18, 2011.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or e-mailed to
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Since 1992, when FDA issued its Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties (the 1992 policy) (57 FR 22984, May 29, 1992), FDA has encouraged developers of new plant varieties, including those varieties that are developed through biotechnology, to consult with FDA during the plant development process to discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise. In the 1992 policy, FDA explained that, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), developers of new foods (in this document food refers to both human food and animal feed) have a responsibility to ensure that the foods they offer to consumers are safe and are in compliance with all requirements of the FD&C Act (57 FR 22984 at 22985).
FDA has long regarded it to be a prudent practice for producers who use biotechnology in the manufacture or development of foods and food ingredients to work cooperatively with FDA to ensure that products derived through biotechnology are safe and comply with all applicable legal requirements. Consequently, FDA instituted a voluntary consultation process with industry. The guidance on Consultation Procedures: From New Plant Varieties (originally published in 1996 and revised October 1997; the updated version is available on FDA's Web site at
In the
(Comment 1) One comment noted with appreciation that Form FDA 3665 will provide a standardized format and an ability to provide electronic information.
(Response) FDA agrees. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the new form will prompt developers to submit to FDA certain information in a standard format. In addition, the form and attachments can be submitted in an electronic format. FDA believes that use of the form and electronic submission will facilitate both the preparation and review of the submission because it organizes the information necessary to support the safety of the food derived from the new plant variety. FDA also expects that use of the form will decrease the overall paperwork burden on respondents.
(Comment 2) Another comment noted that the use of the new form and electronic submission of data and information for FDA's use should assure the protection of proprietary data and information submitted to FDA.
(Response) The submission to FDA may contain trade secret and commercial confidential information. Only information that is releasable under 21 CFR part 20 would be released to the public. This information is also safeguarded by section 301(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(j)) and would be protected from disclosure under sections 552(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and (b)).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Initial consultations are generally a one-time burden, although a developer might return more than once to discuss additional issues before submitting a final consultation. As noted in its guidance to industry, FDA encourages developers to consult early in the development phase of their products, and as often as necessary. Historically, firms developing a new bioengineered plant variety intended for food use have generally initiated consultation with FDA early in the process of developing such a variety, even though there is no legal obligation for such consultation. These consultations have served to make FDA aware of foods and food ingredients before these products are distributed commercially, and have provided FDA with the information
Generally, for an initial consultation, a developer requests a meeting by sending FDA a letter with an agenda. A mutually convenient time is arranged and the developer comes to discuss their product. In preparation for a meeting, a developer might prepare written materials or a slide presentation to discuss their product under development. A meeting between the developer and FDA typically lasts between 1 and 2 hours. As a result of such a meeting, FDA establishes a file called a biotechnology notification file, or BNF, to collect all documentation and communication regarding the bioengineered plant. For example, FDA typically places information such as the developer's letter, agenda, and any written materials (such as copies of a slide presentation) in a BNF, as well as any memorandum FDA prepares as a record of the meeting. FDA has not issued any recommendations as to the format for these types of materials (
Depending on the introduced trait, the experience the developer has had with the kind of modification being considered, and their familiarity with the consultation procedures, a developer might choose to do a final consultation without an initial consultation.
Final consultations are a one-time burden. At some stage in the process of research and development, a developer will have accumulated the information that the developer believes is adequate to ensure that food derived from the new plant variety is safe and that it demonstrates compliance with the relevant provisions of the FD&C Act. The developer will then be in a position to conclude any ongoing consultation with FDA. The developer submits to FDA a summary of the safety and nutritional assessment that has been conducted about the bioengineered food that is intended to be introduced into commercial distribution. FDA evaluates the submission to ensure that all potential safety and regulatory questions have been addressed. FDA has recently developed a form that prompts a developer to include certain elements in the final consultation in a standard format. New Form FDA 3665 is entitled “Final Consultation for Food Derived From a New Plant Variety (Biotechnology Final Consultation).” The form, and elements that would be prepared as attachments to the form, can be submitted in electronic format.
The summary information of the safety and nutritional assessment for a new plant variety submitted to FDA (on the form and in attachments to the form) includes the following information:
• The name of the bioengineered food and the crop from which it is derived;
• A description of the various applications or uses of the bioengineered food, including animal feed uses;
• Information concerning the sources, identities, and functions of introduced genetic material;
• Information on the purpose or intended technical effect of the modification, and its expected effect on the composition or characteristic properties of the food or feed;
• Information concerning the identity and function of expression products encoded by the introduced genetic material, including an estimate of the concentration of any expression product in the bioengineered crop or food derived therefrom;
• Information regarding any known or suspected allergenicity and toxicity of expression products and the basis for concluding that foods containing the expression products can be safely consumed;
• Information comparing the composition or characteristics of the bioengineered food to that of food derived from the parental variety or other commonly consumed varieties of the same crop with special emphasis on important nutrients, and toxicants that occur naturally in the food;
• A discussion of the available information that addresses whether the potential for the food derived from a bioengineered plant to induce an allergic response has been altered by the genetic modification; and
• Any other information relevant to the safety and nutritional assessment of the bioengineered food.
In 2001, FDA contacted 5 firms that had made one or more biotechnology consultation submissions under the 1996 procedures. FDA asked each of these firms for an estimate of the hourly burden to prepare a submission under the voluntary biotechnology consultation process. Three of these firms subsequently provided the requested information. Based on this information, FDA estimated that the average time to prepare a submission for final consultation under the 1996 procedures is 150 hours (69 FR 68381, November 24, 2004). The availability of the form, and the opportunity to provide the information in electronic format, could reduce this estimate. However, as a conservative approach for the purpose of this analysis, FDA is assuming that the availability of the form and the opportunity to submit the information in electronic format will have no effect on the average time to prepare a submission for final consultation under the 1996 procedures.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Format and Content Requirements for Over-the-Counter Drug Product Labeling” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 18, 2011.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or e-mailed to
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3794,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding a new chapter granting FDA important new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Section 801 of the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through FDA, with the responsibility of assuring foreign origin FDA regulated foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, radiological health, and tobacco products offered for import into the United States meet the same requirements of the FD&C Act as do domestic products, and for preventing products from entering the country if they are not in compliance. The discharge of this responsibility involves close coordination and cooperation between FDA (headquarters and field inspectional personnel) and the U.S. Customs Service (USCS), as the USCS is responsible for enforcing the revenue laws covering the very same products.
This collection of information was approved by OMB on August 10, 2009, and received an expiration date of August 31, 2012 (ICR Reference Number 200905-0910-006). However, because tobacco products had only recently been added to FDA's listing of regulated products when this collection of information was approved, the approved collection did not reflect information regarding tobacco products offered for import into and for prevention from them from entering the United States if they did not meet the same requirements of the FD&C Act as domestic products. The revision to this collection of information expands the universe of respondents being regulated under the FD&C Act, as amended, to include importers of tobacco products.
In the most recent OMB approval of this information collection package, FDA noted that in order to make an admissibility decision for each entry, the Agency needed four additional pieces of information that were not available from USCS's system. These data elements were the FDA Product Code, FDA country of production, manufacturer/shipper, and ultimate consignee. It was the “automated” collection of these four data elements for which OMB approval was being requested. When this package was sent to OMB for approval, FDA construed this request as an extension of the prior approval of collection of this data via a different media, i.e., paper. FDA noted that there were additional data elements which filers could provide to FDA along with other entry-related information. Doing so could result in their receiving an FDA admissibility decision more expeditiously,
At each U.S. port of entry (seaport, landport, and airport) where foreign-origin FDA-regulated products are offered for import, FDA is notified, through Custom's Automated Commercial System (ACS) by the importer (or his agent) of the arrival of each entry. Following such notification, FDA reviews relevant data to ensure the imported product meets the standards as are required for domestic products, makes an admissibility decision, and informs the importer and USCS of its decision. A single entry frequently contains multiple lines of different products. FDA may authorize products listed on specific lines to enter the United States unimpeded, while other products in the same entry are to be held pending further FDA review/action.
An important feature developed and programmed into FDA's automated system is that all entry data passes through a screening criteria module, which makes the initial screening decision on every entry of foreign-origin FDA-regulated product. Almost instantaneously after the entry is filed, the filer receives FDA's admissibility decision covering each entry line, i.e., “MAY PROCEED” or “FDA REVIEW.”
Examples of FDA's need to further review an entry may result from some products originating from a specific country or manufacturer known to have a history of problems, FDA having no previous knowledge of the foreign manufacturer and/or product, or a product import alert may have been issued, etc. The system assists FDA entry reviewers by notifying them of information, such as the issuance of import alerts, thus averting the chance that such information will be missed in their review.
Since the inception of the interface with ACS, FDA's electronic screening criteria program is applied nationwide. This eliminates problems such as “port shopping,” e.g., attempts to intentionally slip products through one FDA port when refused by another, or filing entries at a port known to receive a high volume of entries. Every electronically submitted entry line of foreign-origin FDA-regulated product undergoes automated screening. The screening criteria can be set to be as specific or as broad as applicable; changes are immediately effective. This capability is of tremendous value in protecting the public in the event there is a need to
In the
FDA estimates the revised reporting burden of this collection of information as follows:
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 April 18, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156,
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.
FDA regulations in part 11 (21 CFR part 11) provide criteria for acceptance of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records. Under these regulations, records and reports may be submitted to FDA electronically provided the Agency has stated its ability to accept the records electronically in an Agency-established public docket and that the other requirements of part 11 are met.
The recordkeeping provisions in part 11 (§§ 11.10, 11.30, 11.50, and 11.300) require the following standard operating procedures to assure appropriate use of, and precautions for, systems using electronic records and signatures: (1) § 11.10 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use closed systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (2) § 11.30 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (3) § 11.50 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use electronic signatures; and (4) § 11.300 specifies controls to ensure the security and integrity of electronic signatures based upon use of identification codes in combination with passwords. The reporting provision (§ 11.100) requires persons to certify in writing to FDA that they will regard electronic signatures used in their systems as the legally binding equivalent of traditional handwritten signatures.
The burden created by the information collection provision of this regulation is a one-time burden associated with the creation of standard operating procedures, validation, and certification. The Agency anticipates the use of electronic media will
The respondents will be businesses and other for-profit organizations, State or local governments, Federal Agencies, and nonprofit institutions.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Governmentwide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.
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 April 18, 2011.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Daniel Gittleson,Office of Information Management,Food and Drug Administration,1350 Piccard Dr.,PI50-400B,Rockville, MD 20850,301-796-5156,
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 409, 505, 512, and 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348, 355, 360(b), 360(e)) and related statutes require manufacturers of food additives, human drugs and biological products, animal drugs, and medical devices to demonstrate the safety and utility of their product by submitting applications to FDA for research or marketing permits. Such applications contain, among other important items, full reports of all studies done to demonstrate product safety in man and/or other animals. In order to ensure adequate quality control for these studies and to provide an adequate degree of consumer protection, the Agency issued GLP regulations. The regulations specify minimum standards for the proper conduct of safety testing and contain sections on facilities, personnel, equipment, standard operating procedures (SOPs), test and control articles, quality assurance, protocol and conduct of a safety study, records and reports, and laboratory disqualification.
The GLP regulations contain requirements for the reporting of the results of quality assurance unit inspections, test and control article characterization, testing of mixtures of test and control articles with carriers, and an overall interpretation of nonclinical laboratory studies. The GLP regulations also contain recordkeeping requirements relating to the conduct of safety studies. Such records include: (1) Personnel job descriptions and summaries of training and experience; (2) master schedules, protocols and amendments thereto, inspection reports, and SOPs; (3) equipment inspection, maintenance, calibration, and testing records; (4) documentation of feed and water analyses, and animal treatments; (5) test article accountability records; and (6) study documentation and raw data.
The information collected under GLP regulations is generally gathered by testing facilities routinely engaged in conducting toxicological studies and is used as part of an application for a research or marketing permit that is voluntarily submitted to FDA by persons desiring to market new products. The facilities that collect this information are typically operated by large entities, e.g., contract laboratories, sponsors of FDA-regulated products, universities, or government agencies. Failure to include the information in a filing to FDA would mean that Agency scientific experts could not make a valid determination of product safety. FDA receives, reviews, and approves hundreds of new product applications each year based on information received. The recordkeeping requirements are necessary to document the proper conduct of a safety study, to assure the quality and integrity of the resulting final report, and to provide adequate proof of the safety of regulated products. FDA conducts onsite audits of records and reports during its inspections of testing laboratories to verify reliability of results submitted in applications.
The likely respondents collecting this information are contract laboratories, sponsors of FDA-regulated products, universities, or government agencies.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Governmentwide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data Sets.” The draft guidance is intended to describe best practices pertaining to conducting and documenting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data sets. The Agency includes recommendations for documenting the design, analysis, and results of such studies and submitting pharmacoepidemiologic safety study protocols and reports to FDA.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 18, 2011.
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data Sets.”
The advent of new technologies and the ability to efficiently assemble electronic healthcare data sets for use in drug safety research have provided many new opportunities for conducting pharmacoepidemiologic studies of product safety issues. These technologies provide the possibility to study safety issues quickly (relative to alternative approaches) in real world health care environments involving large populations of patients. In addition, the application of innovative statistical methods to complex drug safety questions has allowed investigators to study issues previously considered too difficult outside of a clinical trial setting.
However, these developments have precipitated a great deal of discussion over the appropriate use of electronic healthcare data and statistical methods in conducting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies. The primary goals of this draft guidance are to provide the following:
• Consistent guidance for industry to use when submitting to FDA reports and protocols for pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies so that study protocols and study reports submitted to FDA contain sufficient information to permit thorough review;
• A framework for FDA reviewers to use when reviewing and interpreting these submissions; and
• Consistent guidance for FDA to use when conducting these studies.
This draft guidance does not address real-time active safety surveillance studies, as this field is still rapidly evolving, and it is not possible at this time to recommend sound best practices. The draft guidance is not intended to be prescriptive with regard to choice of study design or type of analysis and does not endorse any particular type of data resource or methodology. Finally, it does not provide a framework for determining the appropriate weight of evidence of studies from this data stream in the overall assessment of drug safety, as this represents a separate step in the regulatory decisionmaking process and is best accomplished in the context of the specific safety issue under investigation.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on the conduct and reporting of pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
This draft guidance provides best practices for reporting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data sets. The reports referenced in the draft guidance would be submitted under 21 CFR 314.81, 314.98, and 601.70. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 and are approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338).
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Potency Tests for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products” dated January 2011. The guidance document provides manufacturers of cellular and gene therapy (CGT) products with recommendations for developing tests to measure potency. The recommendations are intended to clarify the potency information that could support an investigational new drug application (IND) or a biologics license application (BLA). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated October 2008.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Potency Tests for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products” dated January 2011. The guidance document provides manufacturers of cellular and gene therapy products with recommendations for developing tests to measure potency. The recommendations are intended to clarify the potency information needed to support an IND or a BLA. Because potency measurements are designed specifically for a particular product, the guidance does not make recommendations regarding specific types of potency assays, nor does it propose acceptance criteria for product release.
In the
The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 has been approved under 0910-0139; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 has been approved under 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 has been approved under 0910-0338.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the continuation of the Regulatory Project Management Site Tours and Regulatory Interaction Program (the Site Tours Program). The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to contact CDER.
Pharmaceutical companies may submit proposed agendas to the Agency by April 18, 2011.
Beth Duvall-Miller, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6466, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
An important part of CDER's commitment to make safe and effective drugs available to all Americans is optimizing the efficiency and quality of the drug review process. To support this primary goal, CDER has initiated various training and development programs to promote high performance in its regulatory project management staff. CDER seeks to significantly enhance review efficiency and review quality by providing the staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry and its operations. To this end, CDER is continuing its training program to give regulatory project managers the opportunity to tour pharmaceutical facilities. The goals are to provide the following: (1) Firsthand exposure to industry's drug development processes and (2) a venue for sharing information about project management procedures (but not drug-specific information) with industry representatives.
In this program, over a 2- to 3-day period, small groups (five or less) of regulatory project managers, including a senior level regulatory project manager, can observe operations of pharmaceutical manufacturing and/or packaging facilities, pathology/toxicology laboratories, and regulatory affairs operations. Neither this tour nor any part of the program is intended as a mechanism to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function, but is meant rather to improve mutual understanding and to provide an avenue for open dialogue. During the Site Tours Program, regulatory project managers will also participate in daily workshops with their industry counterparts, focusing on selective regulatory issues important to both CDER staff and industry. The primary objective of the daily workshops is to learn about the team approach to drug development, including drug discovery, preclinical evaluation, tracking mechanisms, and regulatory submission operations. The overall benefit to regulatory project managers will be exposure to project management, team techniques, and processes employed by the pharmaceutical industry. By participating in this program, the regulatory project manager will grow professionally by gaining a better understanding of industry processes and procedures.
All travel expenses associated with the site tours will be the responsibility of CDER; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for each fiscal year. Selection will also be based on firms having a favorable facility status as determined by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs District Offices in the firms' respective regions. Firms interested in offering a site tour or learning more about this training opportunity should respond by submitting a proposed agenda to Beth Duvall-Miller (
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, e-mail
Title XXVI, Section 2671 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 (Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program), requires that grantees expend 75 percent of Parts A, B, and C Funds on core medical services, including antiretroviral drugs for individuals with HIV/AIDS, identified and eligible under the legislation. In order for Grantees under Parts A, B, and C to be exempted from the 75 percent core medical services requirement, they must request and receive a waiver from HRSA, as required in the Act.
HRSA utilizes standards for granting waivers of the core medical services requirement for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. These standards meet the intent of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program to increase access to core medical services, including antiretroviral drugs for persons with HIV/AIDS, and to ensure that grantees receiving waivers demonstrate the availability of such services for individuals with HIV/AIDS, identified and eligible under Title XXVI of the PHS Act. The core medical services waiver uniform standard and waiver request process will apply to Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Grant Awards under Parts A, B, and C of Title XXVI of the PHS Act. Core medical services waivers will be effective for a 1-year period that is consistent with the grant award period.
Grantees must submit a waiver request with the annual grant application containing the certifications and documentation which will be utilized by HRSA in making determinations regarding waiver requests. Grantees must provide evidence that all of the core medical services listed in the statute, regardless of whether such services are funded by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, are available to all individuals with HIV/AIDS, identified and eligible under Title XXVI of the PHS Act in the service area within 30 days.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
E-mail comments to
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The ACCV will meet on Thursday, March 3 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT) and on Friday, March 4 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EDT). The public can join the meeting via audio conference call by dialing 1-800-369-3104 on March 3 and March 4 and providing the following information:
Anyone requiring information regarding the ACCV should contact Annie Herzog, DVIC, HSB, HRSA, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone (301) 443-6593 or e-mail:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions setforth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluationof individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute ofArthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, including consideration ofpersonnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, thedisclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act at 42 U.S.C. 10801
In 2000, the PAIMI Act amendments created a 57th P&A system—the American Indian Consortium (the Navajo and Hopi Tribes in the Four Corners region of the Southwest). The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 10804(d) states that a P&A system may use its allotment to provide representation to individuals with mental illness, as defined by s42 U.S.C. 10802 (4)(B)(iii) residing in the community, including their own home, only, if the total allotment under this title for any fiscal year is $30 million or more, and in such cases an eligible P&A system must give priority to representing PAIMI-eligible individuals, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 10802(4)(A) and (B)(i).
The Children's Health Act of 2000 (CHA) also referenced State P&A system authority to obtain information on incidents of seclusion, restraint and related deaths [
The PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(7) requires that each P & A system prepare and transmit to the Secretary HHS and to the head of its State mental health agency a report on January 1. This report describes the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the most recently completed fiscal year, including a section prepared by the advisory council (the PAIMI Advisory Council or PAC) that describes the activities of the council and its assessment of the operations of the system.
The Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes to revise the annual PAIMI Program Performance Report (PPR), including the advisory council section of the report for the following reasons: (1) To make it consistent with the r annual reporting requirements under the Act and its Rules [42 CFR part 51], (2) to conform to the GPRA requirements that SAMHSA obtain information that closely measures actual outcomes of programs that are funded by the agency, and (3) to determine if the reporting burden can be reduced by removing any information that does not facilitate evaluation of the programmatic and fiscal effectiveness of a State P&A system.
The SAMHSA revisions to the annual PPR and Advisory Council section reflect the statutory and regulatory requirements of the PAIMI Act. These revisions include, but may not be limited to the following items: (1) Clarifying the instructional guidance in the PPR, e.g., Section 3.—Living Arrangements; Section 4—Complaints/Problems of PAIMI-eligible Individuals, at 4. D.2.—Intervention Strategy Outcome Statement, by using a chart format to capture the most significant outcome achieved per strategy used; eliminating the need for attachments, i.e., in Section 7—Grievance Procedures, a copy of the policies/procedures, in Section 8—Other Services and Activities a copy of agency policies/procedures for obtaining comments from the public (8.A.3.), and a copy of the public comment opportunity notice (8.A.1.); (2) clarifying the Advisory Council section of the PPR, e.g., Section B. PAIMI Advisory Council Membership, secondary identification instructions; and, (3) eliminating the submission of supplemental documents, e.g., PAIMI bylaws, etc. The revised report formats
The annual burden estimate is as follows:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 8-1099, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 and also send an e-mail copy of your comments to her at
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at 240-276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
SAMHSA's Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) will conduct a study to evaluate the impact of different strategies for disseminating and promoting the adoption of patient-centered health research results among behavioral health and primary care providers and organizations that are responsible for delivering behavioral health services. Data collected by this study will allow CBHSQ to document and examine the impact of two dissemination strategies on the decision to adopt patient-centered health research; specifically, motivational interviewing and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. These data will also allow for an examination of contextual factors, both organizational and individual, that influence this decision to adopt an evidence-based behavioral health intervention. Ultimately, data collected by this study will inform those who hope to improve the effectiveness of dissemination strategies aimed at increasing the adoption of patient-centered behavioral health interventions by identifying facilitators and barriers to the adoption process.
Data collection activities involve the administration of five separate surveys (a baseline survey, a followup survey, and three dissemination evaluation surveys) to individuals typically involved in the decisionmaking process pertaining to the adoption of new behavioral interventions at 40 community health organizations and 40 community behavioral health organizations across the United States. Enrolled organizations will submit their responses for all surveys via Qualtrics, a third-party, online Web-based survey platform.
The estimated burden for data collection is 940 hours across a total of 400 participants. Using median hourly wage estimates reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, and a loading rate of 25%, the estimated total cost to respondents is $63,057.04. A breakdown of these estimates is presented in Table 1 below.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 8-1099, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, and e-mail a copy to
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to establish a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/United States Citizenship and Immigration Services—SORN DHS/USCIS—013 E-Verify Self Check System of Records.” The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify Self Check is voluntary and available to any individual who wants to check his own work authorization status prior to employment and facilitate correction of potential errors in federal databases that provide inputs into the E-Verify process. When an individual uses E-Verify Self Check, he will be notified either that 1. his information matched the information contained in federal databases and he would be deemed work-authorized, or 2. his information was not matched to information contained in federal databases which would be considered a “mismatch.” If the information was a mismatch, he will be given instructions on where and how to correct his record(s). This newly established system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before March 18, 2011. This new system will be effective March 18, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2011-0007 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For general questions please contact: Janice M. Jackson, Acting Privacy Branch Chief, Verification Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20529. For privacy issues please contact: Mary Ellen Callahan (703-235-0780), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/USCIS—013 E-Verify Self Check System of Records.”
E-Verify was mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-208, September 30, 1996. The E-Verify Program is a free and mostly voluntary DHS program implemented by the USCIS Verification Division and operated in collaboration with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to determine work authorization. It compares information provided by employees on the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9, against information in SSA, DHS, and Department of State (DoS) databases in order to verify an employee's work authorization. Section 404(d) requires that the system be designed and operated to maximize the reliability and ease of use. Therefore, DHS has developed E-Verify Self Check.
USCIS developed E-Verify Self Check to enable an individual to check his work authorization status prior to employment and facilitate correction of
E-Verify Self Check involves a two-step process: (1) Identity authentication of the individual; and (2) an E-Verify query to confirm the individual's current work authorization status. The first step, identity authentication, utilizes a third party Identity Proofing (IdP) service to generate knowledge-based questions based on commercial identity verification information, collected by third party companies from financial institutions, public records, and other service providers. The information accessed by the IdP may include information, such as the individual's commercial transaction history, mortgage payments, or past addresses. An individual must correctly answer these knowledge-based questions generated by the IdP in order to authenticate his identity and enable him to use E-Verify Self Check. In order to generate these knowledge-based questions, the IdP service collects basic personally identifiable information (PII) from the individual including name, address of residence, date of birth, and optionally the individual's Social Security number (SSN). Each individual will be asked a minimum of two and a maximum of four knowledge-based questions. If there is not enough commercial identity verification information from financial institutions, public records, and other service providers to generate two questions, the individual's identity cannot be authenticated and he will not be able to continue through E-Verify Self Check. The fact that an individual was unable to use the IdP service will be sent to E-Verify, but no other information. The IdP will send a transaction number, the fact that knowledge based questions could not be generated and the date and time of the transaction, so that USCIS may keep a statistic of how many individuals are unable to use the IdP.
If there is sufficient information to generate two to four questions, the IdP will evaluate the answers to the questions and return a pass/fail indicator to USCIS. If the individual does not successfully answer the questions generated by the IdP, he will not be authenticated and he will not be able to continue through E-Verify Self Check. Neither the questions asked by the IdP service nor the answers provided by the individual are retained by the IdP. The IdP will send a transaction number, the reason for failure, the date and time of the transaction, and an error code to E-Verify, to facilitate troubleshooting and system management and improvement so that USCIS may keep statistics of how many individuals are unable to use the IdP and therefore Self Check. All PII entered by the individual during the IdP session and any questions that might have been generated by the IdP are deleted at the end of the session. Nothing is stored or retained in E-Verify Self Check. This information cannot be linked back to the individual.
If the individual is able to answer the questions; his identity is authenticated, a pass indicator is returned to E-Verify, and the individual will continue through E-Verify Self Check. E-Verify will receive a pass indication and the name, date of birth, and SSN (if provided) will be provided back to E-Verify. Residence address will not be passed to E-Verify.
When there are multiple attempts to authenticate an individual, which indicates possible fraud, the DHS contract authorizes the IdP to notify the provider of the information of potential fraud and to terminate access to E-Verify Self Check.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires the IdP to retain the fact of an inquiry. The IdP maintains the time/date stamp and inquiry type (credit check, identity check, etc.) so that the inquiry is noted in the individual's credit record and can be audited at a later date. The E-Verify Self Check inquiry is an identity check, and therefore will not affect an individual's credit score. These types of inquiries are not shown to third parties who may request copies of credit reports.
Under FCRA, an individual has the right to know who has reviewed his credit report and the individual can place a fraud alert on his credit file. If an individual has placed a fraud alert on his credit file, the individual will not be able to authenticate for E-Verify Self Check purposes.
Upon identity authentication, the individual moves to step 2: an E-Verify query to identify current work authorization status. The IdP passes the name, date of birth and SSN (if provided). In order to ensure that the information belongs to the individual who originally passed the identity authentication step, these data elements cannot be altered. The individual will be required to enter additional information based on the documentation he would present to an employer for the Form I-9 process. The additional information collected from an individual depends on his citizenship status and the document chosen to present for work authorization. This could include: citizenship status; Alien Number (if non-citizen); passport number; Form I-94 number; and/or lawful permanent resident card or work authorization document (EAD) number. This represents the same information that is collected for the Form I-9 process and the basic E-Verify query.
E-Verify Self Check will query E-Verify through a web service connection and will present either an indication that an individual's information matched government records and that E-Verify would have found the individual work-authorized or that the information is a possible mismatch to government records. If the individual receives a “possible mismatch with SSA/Immigration Information” response, E-Verify Self Check will provide guidance on how to correct potential errors in the records. The individual will be asked whether they would like to resolve the mismatch or not. If the individual chooses not to resolve the mismatch, E-Verify will close the case. If the individual chooses to resolve the SSA mismatch, a form will be generated that contains the individual's first and last
The main benefit of E-Verify Self Check is to facilitate the identification and correction of potential errors in federal databases that provide inputs into the E-Verify system thereby improving the E-Verify process for both the employee and the employer. Prior to the introduction of E-Verify Self Check, an individual did not have the ability to identify potential issues associated with his work authorization status until after receiving adverse notification from employers. E-Verify Self Check provides a vehicle for an individual to proactively check work authorization status prior to the employer conducting the E-Verify inquiry.
There may be instances when an individual is unable to authenticate his identity using the IdP service. For example, the IdP may not be able to generate knowledge-based questions if sufficient data pertaining to him cannot be located or if he has placed a lock or alert on his information. In addition, an individual may not receive a passing score because the IdP information maintained is incorrect. If someone is unable to authenticate through the IdP but still wants to determine work authorization status prior to hire, USCIS will provide information on how to visit an SSA field office, access Social Security yearly statements, call USCIS, or submit a Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act request to access work authorization records. The individual will also be advised to check the information at the various credit bureaus and through a free credit check site.
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the U.S. Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals where systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of the DHS/USCIS—013 E-Verify Self Check System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
DHS/USCIS—013 E-Verify Self Check.
DHS/USCIS—013 E-Verify Self Check.
Unclassified, sensitive.
Records are maintained at the USCIS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and field offices.
Individuals seeking to check employment eligibility under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). This includes U.S. citizens as well as non-U.S. citizens.
E-Verify Self Check is a two-step process: (1) identity authentication and (2) confirmation of work authorization status. The first step of the process is the identity authentication. E-Verify Self Check will use a third party commercial identity assurance service provider (IdP) using commercial identity verification information, collected by third-party companies from financial institutions, public records, and other service providers to verify an individual's identity. The IdP will collect information about the individual who has elected to use E-Verify Self Check.
The IdP will collect the following information from all individuals in order to generate the questions:
• Name (last, first, middle initial, and maiden);
• Date of birth;
• Address of Residence; and
• SSN(if provided).
The questions asked by the IdP and the answers provided by the individual are not provided to USCIS. If an individual fails the identity authentication portion of E-Verify Self Check and therefore is unable to proceed to an actual query in E-Verify, none of the information listed above is provided to or retained by E-Verify Self Check. Only the transaction number, the reason for failure, the date and time of the transaction, and error code are retained by the IdP to facilitate troubleshooting and system management.
In the individual passes identity authentication, he will be redirected to the DHS/USCIS E-Verify Self Check screen to begin the E-Verify Self Check. The individual's name, date of birth, and SSN (if provided) that were entered during identity authentication is automatically pre-populated in E-Verify Self Check (E-Verify will not receive the address of residence). This information will be unchangeable to ensure that the information represents the individual whose identity has been authenticated. To begin the E-Verify Self Check process, the individual will be asked for additional information. This information will be based the on individual's citizenship status and the document chosen to prove work authorization. Documents chosen could include:
• SSN (if not previously provided);
• Document(s) type, associated number, and associated expiration date that demonstrates work authorization. These may include U.S. Passport, employment authorization document, I-495 Lawful Permanent resident card, or other documents and associated numbers as listed as acceptable Form I-9 verification documents.
This process is the same process as the basic E-Verify query and is described in the E-Verify PIA, dated May 4, 2010, and System of Records Notice dated May 19, 2010, 75 FR 28035.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, dated September 30, 1996.
An individual will use E-Verify Self Check to determine work authorization status. E-Verify Self Check contracts with an IdP in order to provide identity authentication.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including U.S. Attorney Offices, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when it is necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The U.S. or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and DHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which DHS collected the records.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) or harm to the individual that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of the E-Verify Program, which includes possible fraud, discrimination, or employment based identity theft and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To an individual utilizing E-Verify Self Check in order to determine his own work authorization in the United States.
I. To a third party commercial identity assurance provider (IdP) under contract with the Department, but only the name, date of birth, address of residence, and Social Security number (if provided), for the purposes of authenticating an individual who is seeking to access the USCIS E-Verify Self Check for employment eligibility.
When there are multiple attempts to authenticate an individual, which indicates possible fraud, the DHS contract authorizes the IdP to notify the provider of the information of potential fraud and to terminate access to E-Verify Self Check. The IdP will share the fact of the inquiry with the appropriate credit bureau and monitor for potential fraudulent access in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
DHS is using the services of a third party IdP to authenticate an individual's identity. The third party IdP uses commercial identity verification information which is collected by third party companies from financial institutions, public records, and other service providers to create the knowledge-based questions used to authenticate identity. This information does not belong to DHS nor will information from other sources relied upon by the third party provider be collected and/or retained by DHS. FCRA requires the IdP to retain the fact of an inquiry. The IdP will maintain time/date stamp and inquiry type (credit check, identity check, etc.) so that the inquiry is noted in the individual's credit record and can be audited at a later date. The E-Verify Self Check inquiry is an identity check, and therefore will not affect an individual's credit score. These types of inquiries are not shown to third parties who may request copies of credit reports. Under FCRA, an individual has the right to know who has reviewed his credit report and the individual can place a fraud alert on his credit file. If an individual has placed a fraud alert on his credit file, the individual will not be able to authenticate for E-Verify Self Check purposes.
Records in this system are stored electronically, on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM. All personal information entered by the individual as part of the IdP process and any questions that might have been generated by the third party data IdP are deleted at the end of the session. Nothing is stored or retained in E-Verify Self Check. Only the transaction number, the reason for failure, the date and time of the transaction, and error code are retained to facilitate troubleshooting and system management. Because the IdP accesses an individual's credit history to perform the authentication, it will retain audits of the individual's E-Verify Self Check inquiry to comply with legal obligations, specifically, the FCRA. The FCRA requires that an inquiry be noted in the individual's credit record.
Records related to the IdP portion of the program can be retrieved by the following fields:
• E-Verify Self Check unique transaction ID;
• IdP Unique Transaction ID;
• E-Verify Self Check transaction time/date stamp;
• Failure of the IDP transaction; and
• Reason for Failure (i.e., could not generate questions/answered incorrectly/system error)
For the actual E-Verify Self Check query, the information will be retrieved
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
The retention schedule is currently under development with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The proposed retention schedule for the query and response to the query is for one (1) year in order to allow time for management analysis and proper reporting.
Chief, Verification Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, DC 20529.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the USCIS FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• An explanation of why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created;
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records; and
• If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without this bulleted information the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are obtained from several sources including: (A) Information collected from individuals requesting their work authorization status; (B) information collected from federal databases for work authorization, (C) information created by E-Verify, including its monitoring and compliance activities; and (D) pass notification from the IdP when an individual has successfully completed identity authentication.
None.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Missouri (FEMA-3317-EM), dated February 3, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 3, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of Missouri resulting from a severe winter storm beginning on January 31, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees' regular employees.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all 114 counties and the Independent City of St. Louis in the State of Missouri.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-3317-EM), dated February 3, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective February 5, 2011.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is requesting public comments on the Emergency Responder Field Operations Guide (ER FOG). The ER FOG was drafted to assist emergency response personnel in the use of the National Incident Management System Incident Command System during incident operations.
Comments must be received by March 18, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2009-0014, by one of the following methods:
Mark Kurisko, Program Specialist, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, 202-646-2840.
The Emergency Responder Field Operations Guide (ER FOG) is intended for use when implementing the Incident Command System (ICS) in response to an incident, regardless of type, size, or location. It does not replace emergency operations plans, laws, regulations, and ordinances. Rather, this document provides guidance for assigned incident personnel by describing ICS and the operational planning cycle, explaining responsibilities, and providing position checklists.
To properly use and understand this guide, personnel should have a basic understanding of NIMS and ICS. The contents of this document are not intended as a substitute for required training and good judgment. All agencies and jurisdictions should ensure that responders receive adequate and appropriate training to perform their assigned duties and tasks.
The ER FOG is available on
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, 6 U.S.C. 101,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1953-DR), dated February 1, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 1, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Maine resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of December 12-19, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Aroostook, Piscataquis and Washington Counties, and the Tribal lands of the Passamaquoddy Tribe located entirely within Washington County for Public Assistance.
All counties and Tribes in the State of Maine are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-3316-EM), dated February 2, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 2, 2011, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of Oklahoma resulting from a severe winter storm beginning on January 31, 2011, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees' regular employees.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all 77 counties in the State of Oklahoma.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1954-DR), dated February 4, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 4, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Jersey resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of December 26-27, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Jersey.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide emergency protective measures, including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular employees. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties for Public Assistance.
Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties for emergency protective measures, (Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60 Day Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on a new information collection requirement abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection involves the submission of security training program evaluation forms by hazardous materials (hazmat) motor carriers and shippers after participants have received the training.
Send your comments by April 18, 2011.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to Joanna Johnson, Communications Branch, Business Management Office, Operational Process and Technology, TSA-32, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220.
Joanna Johnson at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-3651 or facsimile (571) 227-3588.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(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
TSA's Highway & Motor Carrier Division will be producing a voluntary security-related training course for the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industry. Participants will be able to choose to attend instructor-led training sessions that TSA will conduct at multiple sites in the United States, and TSA will advise the industry of the availability of the training through trade associations, conferences, and stakeholder meetings. Hazmat motor carriers and shippers that are registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will automatically receive the training via CD-ROM and DVD. Companies may also complete the training on-line at the TSA public Web site,
Hazmat motor carriers and shippers that are registered with the DOT are eligible to receive the training; there are approximately seventy-five thousand (75,000) shippers registered.
Currently, DOT requires awareness and in-depth security training for hazmat employees of persons required to have a security plan in accordance with subpart I of 49 CFR part 172 concerning the security plan and its implementation.
As prescribed by the President in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with protecting our nation's critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR). Through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), DHS gives guidance and direction as to how the Nation will secure its infrastructure. Furthermore, HSPD-7 and the NIPP assigned the responsibility for infrastructure security in the transportation sector to TSA. To this effect, the NIPP further tasks each sector to build security partnerships, set security goals, and measure their effectiveness. Through its voluntary Corporate Security Review (CSR) Program, TSA's Highway and Motor Carrier Division has conducted security reviews of numerous hazmat motor carriers and shippers in order to analyze various aspects of each company's security program. Through this review process, TSA has determined that improved security awareness and in-depth training for hazmat motor carrier and shipper company employees would enhance security. To increase the security awareness levels across the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industries, TSA plans to develop and distribute a security awareness/in-depth training program and will request voluntary feedback from hazmat motor carrier and shipper companies that elect to receive the training.
Hazmat motor carrier and shipper companies can take the training via CD-ROM and DVD, during classroom training sessions, or via the TSA public Web site. For those taking the classroom training sessions, TSA will hand out an evaluation form to collect feedback regarding the security training program. Participants can also complete the evaluation form on-line after completing the training. TSA will collect the forms and evaluate the results. TSA will use the survey results to guide TSA on future hazmat motor carrier and shipper transportation security initiatives. TSA plans to conduct the data collection over a two to three year period in order to allow for maximum distribution and use of the training program throughout the industry, and for participating companies to complete full training cycles.
TSA will ask participating companies that voluntarily complete the Security Awareness Training program via the CD-ROM to log on to a TSA-managed secure Web site to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the training. Participants that complete the training program via the classroom sessions will be asked to complete an evaluation form on-site after the training is completed. TSA's Highway & Motor Carrier Division staff will manually input the data into the Web surveyor tool system.
As part of the evaluation form, TSA will collect information such as employee position, type of company, knowledge of material before and after the training, and overall training satisfaction. TSA will not collect the respondent's personal information as part of the course evaluation form. TSA will use this data to measure the program's effectiveness at achieving its goal of heightened security awareness levels throughout the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industry.
The primary use of this information is to allow TSA to assess the effectiveness of the training program and training CD-ROM within the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industries. The secondary purpose of this information is for TSA to obtain, based on individual company input, an indication of participation levels throughout the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industries. This data will be kept for at least one year or long enough to collect a significant sample size (percentage) of the hazmat motor carrier and shipper industries to be used in identifying additional training needs to enhance the industry's security posture.
Most companies administer their security awareness training curriculum on an annual or bi-annual cycle. Typically, companies will generate quarterly or annual reports on employee training progress. At other companies, employees may receive training periodically as needed and submit feedback via the evaluation form between one and four times per year, which TSA equates to an average frequency for this collection of two times per year. Thus, company employees would provide TSA feedback approximately once every two years.
Out of the approximately 75,000 individual hazmat motor carrier and shipper companies, TSA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the companies that receive the CD-ROM training will incorporate it into their training plans. This number can be assumed due to the current DOT requirement (49 CFR 172.704) for certain hazmat motor carriers and shippers to conduct security awareness and in-depth training for their hazmat employees. TSA assumes that 50 percent of those who take the training will provide feedback on the training program. TSA estimates the average hour burden per response per shipper/carrier company employee will be approximately 20 minutes. TSA estimates the total annual hour burden will be dependent on the number of company employees that participate per motor carrier/shipper company. Therefore, TSA estimates that the maximum total annual hour burden will be approximately 16,667 hours per year for all motor carrier/shipper industry participants [50,000 employees × 20 minutes = 16,667 hours].
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1-800-877-8339).
Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Marilyn Edge, Acting Director, Office of Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number (202) 402-2078 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of Extension of Information Collection for Public Comment.
The proposed extension of information collection requirements for Consolidated Planning for Community Planning and Development (CPD) programs described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to Colette Pollard, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Chief Information Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4178, Washington, DC 20410.
Salvatore Sclafani, Office of Community Planning & Development, telephone (202) 402-4364 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed extension of information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended). As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD and OMB are seeking comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed extension of collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information submission of responses.
The paperwork estimates are as follows:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement concerning the certification and funding of State and local fair housing enforcement agencies will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Collette Pollard, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
Kenneth J. Carroll, Director, Fair Housing Assistance Program, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 5208, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-7044. (This is not a toll-free number.) Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8399.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 34, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Enhance the certification and funding of State and local fair housing enforcement agencies; (2) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (3) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
For a state or local law to be certified as “substantially equivalent” and therefore be eligible to participate in the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity must determine that the state or local law provides substantive rights, procedures, remedies, and the availability of judicial review that are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act (the Act). State and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are seeking certification in accordance with Section 810(f) of the Act submit a request to the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The request must be supported by the text of the jurisdiction's fair housing law, the law creating and empowering the agency, all laws referenced in the jurisdiction's fair housing law, any regulations and directives issued under the law, and any formal opinions of the State Attorney General or the chief legal officer of the jurisdiction that pertain to the jurisdiction's fair housing law.
Once agencies are deemed substantially equivalent and are participating in the FHAP, HUD collects sufficient information to monitor agency performance in accordance with 24 CFR 115.206, which sets forth the performance standards for agencies participating in the FHAP. These standards are meant to ensure that the state or local law, both “on its face” and “in operation,” provides substantive rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial review procedures for alleged discriminatory housing practices that are substantially equivalent to those provided in the FHA. In addition, HUD collects sufficient information to monitor agency compliance with 24 CFR 115.307 and 24 CFR 115.308, which set forth requirements for FHAP participation and reporting and record keeping requirements including, but not limited to, the requirement that FHAP agencies use HUD's official complaint
The Department estimates that reporting information related to agency performance will have the following reporting burdens:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Thirty-day notice requesting additional public comments.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior announces the revision of an information collection “Klamath Non-use Valuation Survey,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 1090-0010, and that it is seeking comments on the revised information collection. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this information collection.
You may submit your comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB 1090-0010), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by electronic mail at
OMB has 60 days to review this request but may act after 30 days, therefore you should submit your comments on or before March 18, 2011.
Benjamin Simon, Economics Staff Director, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior telephone at 202-208-5978 or by e-mail at
This Notice supplements the Notices that were published on August 30, 2010 and September 8, 2010.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (
This Notice is being published in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on revisions to the Klamath Non-use Valuation survey. On August 30, 2010, the Agency published a 30-day notice requesting comments and received one general comment on the overall design of the project, but no comments on the survey instrument. The pilot test was approved by OMB on December 14, 2010. However, the Agency received additional comments on the survey instrument subsequent to the approval of the information collection by OMB. These comments focused on the background material and description of the no action and action alternatives. Revisions were made in response to these comments.
While the revised survey is being tested using cognitive interviews, individuals can submit comments to OMB on the revised survey at the address above.
The Klamath River provides habitat for fall and spring run Chinook salmon (
Studies on the potential removal of four dams on the Klamath River owned by PacifiCorp are being conducted as a result of the Klamath Hydroelectic Settlement Agreement (KHSA) executed February 18, 2010. Under the KHSA, the Secretary of the Interior is to determine by March 31, 2012, whether the potential removal of these dams will advance restoration of the salmonid fisheries of the Klamath Basin and is in
The second wave of mailings will be to the remaining 90% of the households. Each household will receive a prenotification postcard notification, which will take 30 seconds to read, followed by the first mailing of the survey. 17% of households are estimated to respond, which will take 30 minutes. Non-respondents will take 3 minutes. The second phase will be sent to the remaining 83% of non-respondent households. 10% of the households are estimated to respond to the second mailing, taking 30 minutes. The second group of non-respondents are estimated to spend 3 minutes.
The second group of non-respondents will be sent a reminder letter, taking 30 seconds. The letter will provide the web address of the survey and a toll-free number and email for the respondent to call or write to get another copy of the survey. 5% of the households are estimated to complete the survey, taking 30 minutes.
After the reminder mailing, 20% of the nonrespondents will be sent a letter by Federal Express or Priority Mail with a letter and a much shorter version of the survey, taking approximately 30 seconds to read. It is assumed that 65% of the non-respondent households will have a phone number. For respondents with telephone numbers, the letter and survey will be followed by a phone call from a live operator who will either talk to the household or leave a message reiterating the higher incentive and offering to mail another copy of the survey if the household needs one. DOI expects that 20% of nonrespondents will complete the shorter survey after the phone call reminder, taking 10 minutes. The phone call without the completing the shorter survey is estimated to take 5 minutes. For the 35% of households without telephone numbers, DOI expects that 10% of nonrespondents will complete the survey after receiving the Federal Express letter. DOI estimates that 10% of nonrespondants will spend 5 minutes on the shorter survey and letter. DOI estimates 90% nonrespondents will spend 3 minutes on the survey and letter.
On August 30, 2010, we published in the
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection and 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment (EA) for the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage this Refuge for the next 15 years.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or CD-ROM.
Bob Flores, Project Leader, (360) 887-4109.
With this notice, we complete the CCP process for the Refuge. The Service started this process through a notice of intent in the
The Refuge is located in Washington along the Columbia River. It was established to secure vital winter habitat for dusky Canada geese and other waterfowl. The Refuge encompasses 5,218 acres of marshes, grasslands, and woodlands on 5 units. We preserve the natural Columbia River floodplain on the Carty, Roth, and Ridgeport Dairy units. We manage the River ‘S’ and Bachelor Island units to provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Sandhill cranes, shorebirds, and a variety of songbirds stop at the Refuge during spring and fall migrations. Some bird species, such as mallards, great blue herons, and red-tailed hawks, nest and reside on the Refuge year-round.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the draft CCP/EA.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering the Refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative 2, as we described in the draft CCP, is the foundation for the CCP.
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 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, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
During our CCP planning process we identified several issues. To address the issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives in our Draft CCP/EA.
Under Alternative 1, we would have continued to manage and where feasible restore habitat for dusky Canada geese, other Canada geese subspecies, cackling geese, other waterfowl, and imperiled Federal and State listed species. Hunting would continue on the River `S' Unit's 760-acre hunt area. The current 4.3-mile auto tour route would remain open year round. The Refuge would continue to coordinate with its Friends groups, local educators, and Tribes to conduct environmental and cultural education and interpretation programs.
Under Alternative 2, our preferred alternative, we would continue to protect, maintain, and, where feasible, restore habitat for priority species, including dusky Canada geese, other waterfowl, and imperiled Federal and State listed species. We would maintain high-quality green forage for geese in improved pastures and wet meadows, and increase cropland and wet meadow acreage. Wetlands would be managed to increase productivity and reduce water pumping costs. Invasive species and State- and county-listed noxious weeds would continue to be a primary management concern. Enhancing and restoring bottomland forest and oak woodland habitats would increase. We would complete habitat assessments to guide stream and tidally influenced wetland restorations. We would conduct feasibility studies for reintroducing native species such as Columbian white-tailed deer and western pond turtle, and inventory and monitoring efforts would increase.
Under Alternative 2, current public use areas and closures would continue, the waterfowl hunt area would remain unchanged, and changes in wetland management would improve the hunt program over time. A new access point to the River `S' Unit, including a 2-lane bridge and 1-mile entrance road, would be developed. The current auto tour route would be open year round, and shortened slightly to provide habitat for dusky Canada geese and cranes. A new 1.5-mile dike-top walking trail would be constructed. Environmental and cultural resources education and interpretation would increase.
Under Alternative 3, actions to protect, maintain, and restore habitat for priority species are the same as those under Alternative 2. Current public use areas and closures would continue. The waterfowl hunt area/location would remain the same; however, core dusky habitat on the south end of the River `S' Unit (207 acres) would be closed to goose hunting. The existing access point to the River `S' Unit would be retained; a new 2-lane bridge would be constructed to eliminate the at-grade railroad crossing; and the entrance road would be widened, requiring either land acquisition or easement modification. The existing auto tour route would not change. A new 1.5-mile dike-top walking trail would be constructed. Environmental and cultural education and interpretation would increase.
Under Alternative 4, actions to protect, maintain, and restore habitat for priority species would be the same as those under Alternatives 2 and 3, except that slightly more crops would be grown, and the total wildlife sanctuary area closed to public use would be reduced slightly. This alternative would, however, provide the largest contiguous sanctuary for dusky Canada geese and sandhill cranes on the Refuge's south end. A new access point to the River `S' Unit, including a 2-lane bridge and 1-mile entrance road, would be developed. The south end of the River `S' Unit would be closed to public use during waterfowl and crane migration, to benefit dusky Canada geese and sandhill cranes. The south end of the River `S' Unit (207 acres) would be closed to hunting, and the south end of the auto tour route would be closed during waterfowl season (October 1-March 15), reducing its length from 4.3 miles to 2.6 miles during that time. To offset the loss of these hunting opportunities, 250 acres of Bachelor Island would be opened to waterfowl hunting. The northern portion of this area would be closed early to hunting (January 15) to prevent disturbance to a great blue heron nesting colony. A new 1.5-mile dike-top walking trail would be constructed. Environmental and cultural education and interpretation would increase.
We solicited comments on the Draft CCP/EA from June 16, 2010, to July 16, 2010 (75 FR 34154; June 16, 2010). We received 16 comment letters, forms, or emails on the Draft CCP/EA. To address public comments, minor changes and
After considering the comments we received, we have selected Alternative 2 for implementation. By implementing Alternative 2, we will protect, maintain, and, where feasible, restore habitat for dusky Canada geese, other waterfowl, and imperiled species. We will maintain high-quality green forage in pastures and wet meadows, and increase cropland and wet meadow acreage. Wetlands will be managed to increase productivity and reduce pumping costs. Invasive species and noxious weeds will continue to be a primary management concern. Enhancing and restoring bottomland forest and oak woodland habitats will increase. We will complete habitat assessments to guide stream and tidally influenced wetland restorations. We will conduct feasibility studies for reintroducing native species such as Columbian white-tailed deer and western pond turtle, and inventory and monitoring efforts will increase.
Current public use areas and closures will continue, the waterfowl hunt area will remain unchanged, and changes in wetland management will improve the hunt program over time. A new access point to the River `S' Unit will be developed. The existing auto tour route will be open year round, and shortened slightly, to provide habitat for dusky Canada geese and cranes. A new dike-top walking trail will be constructed. Environmental and cultural education and interpretation programs will increase.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on March 18, 2011.
Protests of the survey must be filed before March 18, 2011 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Josh Alexander, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5123 or (406) 896-5009.
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Dillon Field Office, and was necessary to determine federal interest lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
T. 2 S., R. 3 W.
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of Mineral Survey No. 5856B, Charity Mill Site and Supplemental Plat, Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted January 27, 2011.
We will place a copy of the plat, in one sheet, in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in one sheet, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in one sheet, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior, Montana, Billings and Miles City Field Offices.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The next regular meeting of the Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council will be held on Mar. 24, 2011 in Miles City, Montana. The meeting will start at 8:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m.
When determined, the meeting location will be announced in a news release.
Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Eastern Montana/Dakotas District, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana 59301. Telephone: (406) 233-2831.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Montana. At these meetings, topics will include: Miles City and Billings Field Office manager updates, subcommittee briefings, work sessions and other issues that the council may raise. All meetings are open to the public and the public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as provided above.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, that meet the definitions of sacred objects and/or objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In this notice there are eight Tlingit objects that were purchased by Louis Shotridge, a Tlingit curator employed by the University of Pennsylvania Museum to conduct research and make museum collections. Tlingit objects affiliated with the Tlingit Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK, are two helmets (catalog numbers NA8507 and 29-1-1) and three hats (catalog numbers NA6864, NA11741, and NA11742). The remaining three objects affiliated with the Tlingit L'ookna
The following five cultural objects are affiliated with the Tlingit Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK, as indicated through museum records, and through evidence presented by the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, acting on behalf of the Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK.
The first cultural item is a helmet called Wolf (NA8507). It is carved of wood and represents a wolf, and is painted with green, red, black, and white pigment. Natural wolf fur, ears and teeth make the helmet more realistic. Red cloth is added to the mouth to represent a tongue, and a white ermine skin is attached to the back of the helmet. The helmet measures approximately 38.5 cm long, 16.5 cm wide, and 16 cm high. In 1918, Louis Shotridge purchased the Wolf Helmet (NA8507) as part of a collection of five objects referred to as the “Eagle's Nest House Collection,” for $40.00 in Sitka, AK, for the collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
The second cultural item is a hat called Ganook (NA6864). It is made of maple wood in the shape of a bird's face and beak, and painted with blue, red, and black pigment. Opercula shell is inlaid for teeth, and the helmet is also decorated with red and white hair. Four potlatch rings woven of split spruce roots are mounted on the top. The hat measures approximately 28 cm long, 27 cm wide, and 37 cm high. The old hat represents Ganook, a petrel, also known as the most ancient being in Tlingit mythology. In 1925, Louis Shotridge purchased the Ganook Hat (NA6864) for $450.00 from a Tlingit individual, Augustus Bean (Ke.t-xut'.tc), a housemaster of one of the three Wolf Houses of the Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK, for the collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
The third cultural item is a hat called Noble Killer (NA11741). It represents a whale and is carved from one piece of spruce wood, ornamented with abalone shell. The hat is intricately carved and painted with greenish-blue, red, and black pigment. A wooden piece projecting from the back represents the dorsal fin of the animal. Human hair is used as ornamentation on the fin. The hat measures approximately 36 cm long, 34 cm wide, and 27.5 cm high. Museum documentation indicates the Noble Killer Hat (NA11741) represents the maritime power of the Kaagwaantaan clan.
The fourth cultural item is a hat called Eagle (NA11742). It is carved, in one piece, from the root of the red cedar, and is painted with greenish-blue, red, black, and white pigment. The hat is decorated with coarse, grayish-brown human hair. Designs carved on the sides, some of which are inlaid with abalone shell, represent the wings. Designs on the front part of the hat represent the eagle's legs and talons. The hat measures approximately 33 cm long, 25.5 cm wide, and 26 cm high. The Eagle Hat represents the Eagle moiety of the Tlingit nation.
In 1926, Louis Shotridge purchased the Noble Killer (or Noble Killerwhale) Hat (NA11741) and the Eagle Hat (NA11742) from a Tlingit individual, Augustus Bean (Ke.t-xut'.tc), a housemaster for one of the three Wolf Houses of the Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK. These two hats, together with a third hat, were acquired by Louis Shotridge for $800.00.
The fifth cultural item is a helmet called Shark (29-1-1). It is made of walrus hide, and has visible interior supports made of wood. The helmet is carved and painted with greenish-blue, red, and black pigment, and includes abalone shell eyes and mouth, and opercula shell teeth. The nose of the shark is covered by an arched frame made of carved and painted walrus hide, decorated with hair. The helmet measures approximately 38 cm long, 40.5 cm wide, and 48.5 cm high. According to museum documentation, it is an old object that is associated with the founding of the Kaagwaantaan clan. In 1929, Louis Shotridge purchased the Shark Helmet (29-1-1) for $350.00 from a Tlingit individual of the Kaagwaantaan clan for the collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Based on consultation, museum documentation, anthropological literature, and expert opinion, one cultural item is considered to be a sacred object (Wolf Helmet, NA8507), one is considered to be an object of cultural patrimony (Shark Helmet, 29-1-1), and three are considered to be both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony (Ganook Hat, NA6864; Noble Killer Hat, NA11741; Eagle Hat, NA11742).
The remaining three cultural objects are affiliated with the Tlingit L'ookna
The first cultural item affiliated with the L'ookna
The second cultural item is a hat called Whale (catalog number NA10512). It is a basketry hat, woven of spruce tree roots, which has been painted white. A design representing a whale with an open mouth is painted in black pigment. A carved wooden element secured to the top of the hat represents the whale's dorsal fin, and includes a face painted with blue-green, red, black and white pigment, abalone
The third cultural item is a hat called Raven of the Roof (NA10511). It is carved and painted with blue-green, red, black and white pigment, and decorated with copper eyebrows, ears, and nose and human hair. Seven potlatch rings woven of split spruce roots are mounted on the top of the hat, with an ermine skin for decoration. The hat measures approximately 34 cm long, 31 cm wide, and 35 cm high.
In 1925, Louis Shotridge purchased the Whale Hat (NA10512) and the Raven of the Roof Hat (NA10511) as part of a collection of six objects, referred to as the “Sitka Whale House Collection,” for $640.00, in Sitka, AK, for the collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Based on consultation, museum documentation, anthropological literature, and expert opinion, two cultural items are considered to be objects of cultural patrimony (Barbecuing Raven Helmet, NA8502; Whale Hat, NA10512), and one is considered to be both a sacred object and object of cultural patrimony (Raven of the Roof Hat, NA10511). Therefore, of the eight Tlingit objects, one is a sacred object, three are objects of cultural patrimony, and four are both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.
Officials of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), that five cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Officials of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology have also determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), that seven cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual. Lastly, officials of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object, objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony and the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, and the Tlingit Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK, and the Tlingit L'ookna
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object, objects of cultural patrimony, and/or sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony should contact Dr. Richard Hodges, Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, telephone (215) 898-4050, before March 18, 2011. Repatriation of the cultural items to the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, on behalf of the Tlingit Kaagwaantaan Clan of Sitka, AK, and L'ookna
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, and in the physical custody of the University of Washington, Department of Anthropology, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from Huckleberry Island, Skagit County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the controlling agency and adds two additional Indian tribes found to have a shared group relationship to a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Washington, Department of Anthropology, and Burke Museum staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington; and the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington.
At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Huckleberry Island, Skagit County, WA. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains were determined to be consistent with Native American morphology, as evidenced through cranial deformation and presence of wormian bones.
Huckleberry Island is a small island located approximately
Officials of the University of Washington, Department of Anthropology, have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), that the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Lastly, officials of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the University of Washington, Department of Anthropology, have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington; and the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Maurice Major, Cultural Resource Specialist, Washington State Department of Natural Resources; PO Box 47000, 1111 Washington St. SE., Olympia, WA 98504-7000, telephone (360) 902-1298, before March 18, 2011. Repatriation of the human remains to the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources is responsible for notifying the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington; and the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington, that this notice has been published.
Notice is hereby given that on February 10, 2011 a proposed Consent Decree (“proposed Decree”) in
In this action under Sections 113(b) and 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and 7477, the United States seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, and the PSD regulation incorporated into the federally enforceable Ohio State Implementation Plan (“Ohio SIP”), and Title V of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f, and Title V's implementing federal and Ohio regulations, at a portland cement manufacturing plant located in Greene County, Ohio.
The proposed Decree resolves the United States' claims against CEMEX, Inc. and CEMEX Construction Materials Atlantic, LLC (“Defendants”) by requiring Defendants to install and operate appropriate emission controls at their kiln, and requires Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $1,400,000, two-thirds of which will go to the United States and one-third of which will go to the Plaintiff Intervener, the State of Ohio.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The proposed Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, Room 602, Federal Building, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402, and at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5) Records Center, Room 714, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. During the public comment period, the proposed Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Employment and Training Administration (ETA).
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that the 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 Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the proposed extension of the UI Facilitation of Claimant Reemployment (current expiration date is July 31, 2011).
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before April 18, 2011.
Submit comments to Andrew W. Spisak, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, Room S-4519, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
Required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department's Strategic Plan is an integral part of the budget process. Among the purposes of the GPRA are to improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by focusing on program results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.
Outcome Goal 1.3 in the Department's fiscal year (FY) 2011—2016 Strategic Plan—Help workers who are in low-wage jobs or out of the labor market find a path into middle-class jobs—focuses on improving the operational performance and effectiveness of the federal/state UI program. This goal is supported in part by the performance measure:
Percent of UI claimants reemployed by the end of the first quarter after the quarter in which they received their first payment.
ETA collects the data to measure the facilitation of reemployment of UI benefit recipients through the ETA 9047 report. OMB approved the Department's request to begin collecting UI reemployment data through the ETA 9047 report on July 26, 2005. This data collection was renewed in 2008 through July 31, 2011.
ETA has also included UI reemployment as a performance measure for UI Performs, the Department of Labor's performance management system. Per UI Program Letter (UIPL) No. 17-08 (May 14, 2008), Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALP)—the minimum performance criteria for UI Performs Core Measures—are set annually for each state. The ALPs take into account the state's total unemployment rate and the percentage of UI claimants who are exempt from active work search or Employment Service registration requirements because they are job attached. Analyses of the data indicate that UI reemployment is strongly related to these two factors.
Each calendar quarter, states report on the ETA 9047 report separate counts for individuals receiving their first UI payments who are exempt from work search/employment service registration (“exempt”), in most cases because they are job-attached with definite recall dates, and those who must conduct work search or register with the employment service (“nonexempt”). States also report on the ETA 9047 report the number of those first payment recipients for whom intrastate or out-of-state employers reported wages in the subsequent quarter. States obtain these counts by running computer crossmatches of the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of the claimants who received a first UI payment with the UI wage records for the subsequent calendar quarter. ETA issued instructions on obtaining out-of-state reemployment data through matching the SSNs of UI first payment recipients with UI wage records in the National Directory of New Hires in UIPL No. 1-06, Change 1 (August 2, 2006).
The UI reemployment GPRA and UI Performs measures are defined as the percentage of all UI claimants receiving a first payment in a calendar quarter who were paid wages in the following calendar quarter that appear in UI wage records.
ETA believes that this measure encourages the agencies that administer UI-which share responsibility with all Workforce Investment partners in facilitating the reemployment of UI beneficiaries—to be innovative in the steps they take to facilitate these individuals' reemployment.
The following table summarizes GPRA targets and performance for the UI reemployment measure.
ETA's analyses of the UI reemployment data show that state performance in reemployment of UI benefit recipients is influenced by forces outside the control of the agency administering the state UI law, most notably by the economic conditions in the state, as measured by the total unemployment rate, and the percent of UI benefit recipients that are on temporary layoff, as measured by the percent of claimants who are not required to search for work or register with the state employment service. State ALPs for the UI Performs Core Measure reflect state-specific data for these two factors. State ALPs and performance for the performance period January to December 2009 are available at
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The National Science Board's (NSB) Audit & Oversight (A&O) Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the NSF Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of an
No change.
5 minute update on Cyber issues at NSF.
No change.
No change.
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the AREVA Enrichment Services LLC (AES) Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). On December 30, 2008, AES submitted a license application to the NRC that proposes the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a gas centrifuge-based uranium enrichment facility on a presently undeveloped site near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho (the “proposed action”). This application is for a license to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed uranium enrichment facility. The application included an Environmental Report (ER) regarding the proposed action.
AES subsequently submitted revisions to the license application on April 23, 2009 (Revision 1), and April 30, 2010 (Revision 2), which included ER Revision 1 and ER Revision 2, respectively. License application Revision 1 addresses the expansion of the proposed EREF to increase its production capacity from 3.3 million Separative Work Units (SWUs) per year to 6.6 million SWUs per year; and ER Revision 1 includes information on the environmental impacts of the proposed 6.6-million-SWU-per-year EREF. Revision 2 to the license application and the ER incorporates into Revision 1 additional information that AES previously provided the NRC in response to NRC staff requests for additional information for its safety and environmental reviews, as well as supplemental information on a proposed electrical transmission line required to power the proposed EREF.
On June 17, 2009, AES submitted a request for an exemption from certain NRC regulations so that it could commence certain preconstruction activities (e.g., site preparation) on the proposed EREF site prior to the NRC's decision on whether to grant or deny a license. On March 17, 2010, the NRC granted an exemption authorizing AES to conduct the requested preconstruction activities.
The Final EIS is being issued as part of the NRC's process to decide whether to issue a license to AES, pursuant to Title 10 of the
The Final EIS was prepared in compliance with the
In addition to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the no-action alternative and other alternatives. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny AES's request to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility at the EREF site. The no-action alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. Other alternatives the NRC staff considered but eliminated from further analysis include: (1) Alternative sites for the EREF; (2) alternative sources of enriched uranium; and (3) alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. These alternatives were eliminated from further analysis due to economic, environmental, national security, technological maturity, or other reasons. The Final EIS also discusses alternatives for the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF
After weighing the impacts, costs, and benefits of the proposed action and comparing alternatives, the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its recommendation regarding the proposed action. The NRC staff recommends that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the proposed action should be approved (i.e., NRC should issue a license). In this regard, the NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposed action are generally small, and that implementation of the proposed AES environmental monitoring program and AES mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIS would eliminate or substantially lessen any adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
For information about the Final EIS or the environmental review process, please contact Stephen Lemont at 301-415-5163 or
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request concerning a classification change to the Reply Rides Free program.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
On February 8, 2011, the Postal Service filed a notice of classification change pursuant to 39 CFR 3020.90 and 3020.91 concerning the Reply Rides Free program.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2011-20 for consideration of matters related to the proposed classification change identified in the Postal Service's Notice.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's request is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3642 and generally with the provisions of title 39. Comments are due no later than February 18, 2011. The Postal Service's Notice can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Diane K. Monaco to serve as Public Representative in the captioned proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2011-20 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Comments by interested persons are due no later than February 18, 2011.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Diane K. Monaco is appointed to serve as the officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Lincoln Branch Post Office in Mansfield, Ohio, has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioner, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on February 8, 2011, the Commission received a petition for review of the closing of the Lincoln Branch Post Office in Mansfield, Ohio. The petition, which was filed by the Board of Madison Township Trustees (Petitioner), is postmarked February 7, 2011, and was posted on the Commission's Web site February 8, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and designates the case as Docket No. A2011-7 to consider the Petitioner's appeal. If the Petitioner would like to further explain its position with supplemental information or facts, the Petitioner may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than March 15, 2011.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than the one set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the administrative record with the Commission is February 23, 2011. 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due date for any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this Notice is February 23, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
All documents filed will be posted on the Commission's Web site. The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
It is ordered:
1. The Postal Service shall file the administrative record regarding this appeal no later than February 23, 2011.
2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this Notice is due no later than February 23, 2011.
3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Cassandra L. Hicks is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Notice and Order and Procedural Schedule in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting an exemption from all provisions of the Act, except section 9, and sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application.
Applicants request an order to exempt certain limited partnerships and other entities (“Partnerships”) formed for the benefit of eligible employees of Capital International, Inc. (“Capital”) and its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act. Each Partnership will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act.
CGPE IV, L.P. (“CGPE IV”), CGPE V, L.P. (“CGPE V”), Capital International Investments IV, LLC (“CII IV”), Capital International Investments V, LLC (“CII V”), and Capital.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 7, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Capital, 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-3384; CGPE IV, CGPE V, CII IV, and CII V, 6455 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618-4518.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Capital, a California corporation, is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc., a holding company and one of the largest investment management firms in the world. Capital and its “affiliates,” as defined in rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), are referred to collectively as the “Capital Group” and each, a “Capital Group entity.” Investment management and related financial services are Capital International, Inc.'s only businesses.
2. A Partnership will be structured as a limited partnership, limited liability company, business trust or other entity organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, another state, or of a jurisdiction outside the United States. Capital Group may also form parallel Partnerships organized under the laws of various jurisdictions in order to create the same investment opportunities for Eligible Employees (as defined below) in other jurisdictions. Interests in a Partnership (“Interests”) may be issued in one or more series, each of which corresponds to particular Partnership investments (each, a “Series”). Each Series will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. Each Partnership will operate as a closed-end management investment company, and a particular Partnership may operate as a diversified or non-diversified vehicle within the meaning of the Act. The Partnerships are intended to provide investment opportunities for Eligible Employees (defined below) that are competitive with those at other investment management and financial services firms and to facilitate the recruitment and retention of high caliber professionals. Capital Group will control each Partnership within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act.
3. Capital Group formed CGPE IV under the laws of the state of Delaware. CGPE IV invests concurrently with Capital International Private Equity Fund IV, L.P. (“Fund IV”) and other investors organized or managed by Capital Group or its designees that generally co-invest with Fund IV (the “Fund IV Co-Investors”) in various investment opportunities, described in the application. Capital Group formed CGPE V under the laws of the Cayman Islands. CGPE V invests concurrently with Capital International Private Equity Fund V, L.P. (“Fund V”) and other investors organized or managed by Capital Group or its designees that generally co-invest with Fund V (the “Fund V Co-Investors”) in various
4. Each Partnership will have a general partner, managing member or other such similar entity (a “General Partner”). All potential investors in a Partnership will be “Limited Partners.” The General Partner will manage, operate, and control each Partnership and will have the authority to make all decisions regarding the acquisition, management and disposition of Partnership investments. A Capital Group entity will be a General Partner of each Partnership. The General Partner may be permitted to delegate certain of its responsibilities regarding the acquisition, management and disposition of Partnership investments to an Investment Adviser (as defined below).
5. The General Partner or another entity will serve as investment adviser to a Partnership (the “Investment Adviser”). The Investment Adviser will be (i) Registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), (ii) exempt from Advisers Act registration requirements by virtue of section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, or (iii) excluded from the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act because it is a bank or bank holding company, as defined in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1056, as amended, and does not serve or act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company. Any entity serving as Investment Adviser to any Partnership will be a Capital Group entity.
6. If the Investment Adviser elects to recommend that a Partnership enter into any side-by-side investment with an unaffiliated entity, the Investment Adviser will be permitted to engage as sub-investment adviser the unaffiliated entity (an “Unaffiliated Subadviser”), which will be responsible for the management of such side-by-side investment. An Investment Adviser may be paid a management fee, which will generally be determined as a percentage of the capital commitments of the Limited Partners. A General Partner or Investment Adviser may receive a performance-based fee (a “Carried Interest”) based on the net gains of the Partnership's investments in addition to any amount allocable to the General Partner's or Investment Adviser's capital contribution.
7. Interests in a Partnership will be offered without registration in reliance on section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), or Regulation D or Regulation S under the Securities Act, and will be sold only to “Qualified Participants” (as defined below). Prior to offering Interests to an Eligible Individual (as defined below), a General Partner must reasonably believe that the Eligible Employee or Eligible Family Member will be capable of understanding and evaluating the merits and risks of participation in a Partnership and that each such individual is able to bear the economic risk of such participation and afford a complete loss of his or her investment.
8. “Qualified Participants” are (a) current and former employees, officers, directors and current Consultants
9. An Eligible Individual may purchase an Interest through an Eligible Investment Vehicle only if either (i) the investment vehicle is an “accredited investor,” as defined in rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the 1933 Act, or (ii) the Eligible Individual is a settlor
10. The terms of a Partnership will be disclosed to the Eligible Employees at the time they are offered the right to subscribe for Interests, and they will be furnished with a copy of the partnership agreement. A Partnership will send its Limited Partners an annual financial statement audited by independent accountants as soon as practicable after the end of its fiscal year.
11. Interests in the Partnerships will not be transferable except with the express consent of the General Partner, and then only to a Qualified Participant. All of the Partnerships will have only Qualified Participants as Limited
12. The General Partner may have the right to repurchase or cancel the Interest of an Eligible Employee who ceases to be an employee, officer, director, or current Consultant of any member of Capital Group for any reason. In the case of Interests held by a Consultant whose retainer has been terminated or has expired, such Interests will be subject to mandatory redemption or repurchase by Capital Group, or Capital Group may require the former Consultant to sell such Interests to an Eligible Investor. A Limited Partner, other than the Initial Partnerships for which no right to repurchase or cancellation exists, would receive upon repurchase or cancellation of its Interest, the lesser of (a) the amount actually paid by the Limited Partner to acquire the Interest plus interest, less any distributions, and (b) the fair market value of the Interest determined at the time of the repurchase or cancellation as determined in good faith by the General Partner.
13. A Partnership may make investments side-by-side with Capital Group entities and through investment pools sponsored by or managed by a Capital Group entity or an unaffiliated entity. A Partnership may also co-invest directly in a company with Capital Group or an investment fund or separate account organized for the benefit of investors who are not affiliated with Capital Group over which a Capital Group entity or an Unaffiliated Subadviser exercises investment discretion (“Third Party Funds”).
14. If Capital Group makes loans to any Partnership, the lender will be entitled to receive interest at a rate no less favorable to the borrower than the rate that could be obtained on an arm's length basis. A Partnership will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own outstanding securities of the Partnership (other than short-term paper). Any indebtedness of a Partnership will be without recourse to the Limited Partners of the Partnership.
15. A Partnership will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if, immediately after the acquisition, the Partnership will own, in the aggregate, more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company.
1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the company's securities and the amount of any sales load, how the company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company, in relevant part, as any investment company all of whose securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned (a) by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers, (b) by immediate family members of such persons, or (c) by such employer or employers together with any of the persons in (a) or (b).
2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) of the Act provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting the Partnerships from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application.
3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from the company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit: (a) A Capital Group entity or a Third Party Fund (or any affiliated person of such Third Party Fund), acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or indirectly with any Partnership or any company controlled by such Partnership; (b) a Partnership to invest in or engage in any transaction with any entity, acting as principal, (i) in which such Partnership, any company controlled by such Partnership, or any Capital Group entity or Third Party Fund has invested or will invest, or (ii) with which such Partnership, any company controlled by such Partnership, or any Capital Group entity or Third Party Fund is or will otherwise become affiliated; and (c) a Third Party Investor, acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or indirectly with any Partnership or any company controlled by such Partnership. The term “Third Party Investor” refers to any person or entity that is not a Capital Group entity or affiliated with Capital Group and is a partner or other investor in a Third Party Fund.
4. Applicants submit that an exemption from section 17(a) is consistent with the purposes of the Partnerships and the protection of investors. Applicants state that the Limited Partners will be informed of the possible extent of the Partnership's dealings with Capital Group and of the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Applicants also state that, as professionals engaged in financial services businesses, the Limited Partners will be able to evaluate the risks associated with those dealings. Applicants assert that the community of interest among the Limited Partners and Capital Group will serve to reduce the risk of abuse. Applicants represent that the requested relief will not extend to any transactions between a Partnership and an Unaffiliated Subadviser or an affiliated person of an Unaffiliated Subadviser, or between a Partnership and any person who is not an employee, officer or director of the Capital Group or is an entity outside of the Capital Group and is an affiliated person of the Partnership as defined in section 2(a)(3)(E) of the Act (“Advisory Person”) or any affiliated person of such a person.
5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in any joint arrangement with the company unless authorized by the Commission. Applicants request relief to permit affiliated persons of each Partnership, or affiliated persons of any of these persons, to participate in, or effect any transaction in connection with, any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan in which the Partnership or a company controlled by the Partnership is a participant. Applicants acknowledge that the requested relief will not extend to any transaction in which an Unaffiliated Subadviser or an Advisory Person, or an affiliated person of either such person, has an interest, except in
6. Applicants assert that compliance with section 17(d) would cause the Partnership to forego attractive investment opportunities simply because a Limited Partner, the General Partner or any other affiliated person of the Partnership (or any affiliate of the affiliated person) made a similar investment. Applicants also submit that the types of investment opportunities considered by a Partnership often require each investor to make funds available in an amount that may be substantially greater than what a Partnership may be able to make available on its own. Applicants contend that, as a result, the only way in which a Partnership may be able to participate in these opportunities may be to co-invest with other persons, including its affiliates. Applicants assert that the flexibility to structure co-investments and joint investments will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 were designed to prevent.
7. Co-investments with Third Party Funds, or by a Capital Group entity pursuant to a contractual obligation to a Third Party Fund, will not be subject to condition 3 below. Applicants note that it is common for a Third Party Fund to require that Capital Group invest its own capital in Third Party Fund investments, and that Capital Group investments be subject to substantially the same terms as those applicable to the Third Party Fund. Applicants believe it is important that the interests of the Third Party Fund take priority over the interests of the Partnerships, and that the Third Party Fund not be burdened or otherwise affected by activities of the Partnerships. In addition, applicants assert that the relationship of a Partnership to a Third Party Fund is fundamentally different from a Partnership's relationship to Capital Group. Applicants contend that the focus of, and the rationale for, the protections contained in the requested relief are to protect the Partnerships from any overreaching by Capital Group in the employer/employee context, whereas the same concerns are not present with respect to the Partnerships vis-a-vis a Third Party Fund.
8. Section 17(e) of the Act and rule 17e-1 under the Act limit the compensation an affiliated person may receive when acting as agent or broker for a registered investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(e) to permit a Capital Group entity (including the General Partner) that acts as an agent or broker to receive placement fees, advisory fees, or other compensation from a Partnership in connection with the purchase or sale by the Partnership of securities, provided that the fees or other compensation are deemed “usual and customary.” Applicants state that for purposes of the application, fees or other compensation that are charged or received by a Capital Group entity will be deemed “usual and customary” only if (a) The Partnership is purchasing or selling securities with other unaffiliated third parties, including Third Party Funds, (b) the fees or compensation being charged to the Partnership are also being charged to the unaffiliated third parties, including Third Party Funds, and (c) the amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Partnership does not exceed 50% of the total amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Partnership and the unaffiliated third parties, including Third Party Funds. Applicants assert that, because Capital Group does not wish to appear to be favoring the Partnerships, compliance with section 17(e) would prevent a Partnership from participating in transactions where the Partnership is being charged lower fees than unaffiliated third parties. Applicants assert that the fees or other compensation paid by a Partnership to a Capital Group entity will be the same as those negotiated at arm's length with unaffiliated third parties.
9. Rule 17e-1(b) under the Act requires that a majority of directors who are not “interested persons” (as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act) take actions and make approvals regarding commissions, fees, or other remuneration. Rule 17e-1(c) under the Act requires each investment company relying on the rule to satisfy the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act (the “Fund Governance Standards”). Applicants request an exemption from rule 17e-1 to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to comply with the rule without having a majority of the directors of the General Partner who are not interested persons take actions and make determinations as set forth in paragraph (b) of the rule, and without having to satisfy the standards set forth in paragraph (c) of the rule. Applicants state that because all the directors of the General Partner will be affiliated persons, without the relief requested, a Partnership could not comply with rule 17e-1. Applicants state that each Partnership will comply with rule 17e-1 by having a majority of the directors of the General Partner take actions and make approvals as set forth in the rule. Applicants state that each Partnership will otherwise comply with rule 17e-1.
10. Section 17(f) of the Act designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f-1 under the Act imposes certain requirements when the custodian is a member of a national securities exchange. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(f) and rule 17f-1 to permit a Capital Group entity to act as custodian of Partnership assets without a written contract. Applicants also request an exemption from the rule 17f-1(b)(4) requirement that an independent accountant periodically verify the assets held by the custodian. Applicants state that, because of the community of interest between Capital Group and the Partnerships and the existing requirement for an independent audit, compliance with this requirement would be unnecessary. Applicants will comply with all other requirements of rule 17f-1.
11. Applicants also request an exemption from rule 17f-2 to permit the following exceptions from the requirements of rule 17f-2: (a) A Partnership's investments may be kept in the locked files of the General Partner; (b) for purposes of paragraph (d) of the rule, (i) Employees of the General Partner (or Capital Group) will be deemed to be employees of the Partnerships, (ii) officers or managers of the General Partner of a Partnership (or Capital Group) will be deemed to be officers of the Partnership and (iii) the General Partner of a Partnership or its board of directors will be deemed to be the board of directors of a Partnership and (c) in place of the verification procedure under paragraph (f) of the rule, verification will be effected quarterly by two employees of the General Partner (or Capital Group). Applicants expect that with respect to certain Partnerships, some of their investments may be evidenced only by partnership agreements, participation agreements or similar documents, rather than by negotiable certificates that could be misappropriated. Applicants assert that for such a Partnership, these instruments are most suitably kept in the files of the General Partner, where they can be referred to as necessary.
12. Section 17(g) of the Act and rule 17g-1 under the Act generally require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g-1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. The rule also requires that the board of directors of an investment company
13. Section 17(j) of the Act and paragraph (b) of rule 17j-1 under the Act make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of a security held or to be acquired by a registered investment company. Rule 17j-1 also requires that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of a registered investment company report personal securities transactions. Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of rule 17j-1, except for the anti-fraud provisions of paragraph (b), because they are unnecessarily burdensome as applied to the Partnerships. The relief requested will only extend to Capital Group entities and is not requested with respect to any Unaffiliated Subadviser or Advisory Person.
14. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b), and 30(e) of the Act, and the rules under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Partnerships and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Limited Partners. Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to report annually to its Limited Partners. Applicants also request an exemption from section 30(h) of the Act to the extent necessary to exempt the General Partner of each Partnership, members of the General Partner or any board of managers or directors or committee of Capital Group employees to whom the General Partner may delegate its functions, and any other persons who may be deemed to be members of an advisory board of a Partnership, from filing Forms 3, 4, and 5 under section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests in the Partnership. Applicants assert that, because there will be no trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them.
15. Rule 38a-1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement and periodically review written policies reasonably designed to prevent violation of the federal securities law and to appoint a chief compliance officer. Each Partnership will comply will rule 38a-1(a), (c) and (d), except that (a) since the Partnership does not have a board of directors, the board of directors of the General Partner will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Partnership's board of directors under the rule, (b) since the board of directors of the General Partner does not have any disinterested members, approval by a majority of the disinterested board members required by rule 38a-1 will not be obtained, and (c) since the board of directors of the General Partner does not have any disinterested members, the Partnerships will comply with the requirement in rule 38a-1(a)(4)(iv) that the chief compliance officer meet with the independent directors by having the chief compliance officer meet with the board of directors of the General Partner as constituted.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each proposed transaction involving a Partnership otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to which a Partnership is a party (the “Section 17 Transactions”) will be effected only if the General Partner determines that:
(a) the terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the Limited Partners of the Partnership and do not involve overreaching of the Partnership or its Limited Partners on the part of any person concerned; and
(b) the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of the Limited Partners, the Partnership's organizational documents and the Partnership's reports to its Limited Partners.
In addition, the General Partner of the Partnership will record and preserve a description of all Section 17 Transactions, the General Partner's findings, the information or materials upon which the findings are based and the basis for the findings. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Partnership and at least six years thereafter and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
2. The General Partner of each Partnership will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, prior to the consummation of any Section 17 Transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal underwriter for the Partnership or any affiliated person of such person, promoter or principal underwriter.
3. The General Partner of each Partnership will not invest the funds of the Partnership in any investment in which an “Affiliated Co-Investor” (as defined below) has acquired or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer and where the investment transaction involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d-1 in which the Partnership and an Affiliated Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Affiliated Co-Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment, (a) gives the General Partner sufficient, but not less than one day's, notice of its intent to dispose of its investment; and (b) refrains from disposing of its investment unless the Partnership has the opportunity to dispose of the Partnership's investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and
4. Each Partnership and its General Partner will maintain and preserve, for the life of each Series of the Partnership and at least six years thereafter, such accounts, books and other documents constituting the record forming the basis for the audited financial statements that are to be provided to the Limited Partners in the Partnership, and each annual report of the Partnership required to be sent to the Limited Partners, and agree that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. The General Partner of each Partnership will send to each Limited Partner having an Interest in the Partnership at any time during the fiscal year then ended, Partnership financial statements audited by the Partnership's independent accountants with respect to those Series in which the Limited Partner had an Interest. At the end of each fiscal year, the General Partner will make or cause to be made a valuation of all of the assets of the Partnership as of such fiscal year end in a manner consistent with customary practice with respect to the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Partnership. In addition, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of the Partnership, the General Partner will send a report to each person who was a Limited Partner at any time during the fiscal year then ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Limited Partner of that partner's federal and state income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the Partnership during that fiscal year.
6. If a Partnership makes purchases or sales from or to an entity affiliated with the Partnership by reason of an officer, director or employee of a Capital Group entity (a) serving as an officer, director, general partner or investment adviser of the entity, or (b) having a 5% or more investment in the entity, such individual will not participate in the Partnership's determination of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On October 29, 2010, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
FINRA Rule 6140 provides that FINRA members may, but are not obligated to, accept stop orders in NMS stocks, as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.
In support of its proposal to eliminate entirely from its rules those provisions governing the handling of stop orders, FINRA states that its members believe quotations may be a better indicator of the current price of a security than transactions, and have requested that FINRA provide members the flexibility to determine whether the trigger of a stop order will be based on transactions or quotations at the stop price. FINRA represents that its rules do not typically define the parameters of the various order types that members may accept and that FINRA believes that members should have the ability to define the triggering event for stop orders as well as to design their systems consistent with such determination. In addition,
Finally, FINRA proposes to relocate the definition of “initial public offering” from Rule 6220 (Definitions) to Rule 6130 (Transactions Related to Initial Public Offerings). FINRA proposes no substantive changes to this definition.
The Commission received two comment letters objecting to the proposed rule change. The commenters generally were concerned with the use of quotations as a trigger for stop orders.
The other commenter expressed concern that investors and financial advisors would not know whether the triggering event was a quote or a trade, and believed that investors would have a legitimate complaint if their stop order was triggered by a quote and there was no evidence it ever traded at that price.
Under section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to such organization.
After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
FINRA proposes to delete in its entirety the provisions of Rule 6140 relating to the handling of stop orders in NMS stocks by member firms. Those provisions currently require that stop orders offered by member firms be triggered (
By proposing to eliminate this provision, FINRA effectively would allow member firms to offer stop orders to customers that are triggered by a transaction, a quote or another mechanism altogether. While FINRA, in its “Statement of the Purpose” of the proposed rule change, notes that it “expects” each member to apply its approach to stop orders consistently and fully disclose its practice to its customers, FINRA has not clearly made this expectation enforceable by requiring consistency and customer disclosure in its rules.
The Commission acknowledges that some may believe a quotation is a better trigger mechanism for stop orders than a transaction, and there may be good reasons for allowing FINRA to provide flexibility for this in its rules. FINRA, however, has not articulated any such reasons. In addition, the Commission believes that, if FINRA rules were to permit members flexibility in the types of stop orders they offer, those rules should clearly require, at a minimum, that the member disclose to customers the type of stop order it offers. The Commission believes the regulatory framework should promote the ability of investors to understand the key attributes of order types offered by their brokers so that they can make an informed choice as to whether to use a particular type of order. This is especially true with more complex order types, such as stop loss orders, and particularly if FINRA rules permit a variety of stop loss orders to be offered.
Because of this potential investor confusion, and resulting investor harm, that could result from FINRA's proposed rule change, the Commission is concerned the proposal is not designed, among other things, to protect investors and the public interest, and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as required by Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change filed by FINRA, and its subsequent response to comments, does not adequately address these concerns. FINRA's proposal simply states that “FINRA believes that adopting the proposed rule change will provide members with the flexibility to determine whether the execution of stop orders will be triggered by transactions or quotations in the subject security without compromising investor protection.”
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, and, in particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and circular regarding Trading Permit Holder application and other related fees (“Trading Permit Fee Circular”). 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.
CBOE Rule 2.20 grants the Exchange the authority to, from time to time, fix the fees and charges payable by Trading Permit Holders. CBOE is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule and Trading Permit Fee Circular effective February 1, 2011 to: (i) Clarify that the tier appointment fees will be assessed, as applicable, for open outcry transactions and not electronic transactions for those Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders that do not already have a tier appointment; (ii) establish a minimum open outcry contract level for assessment of a tier appointment fee to those Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders that do not maintain a tier appointment in VIX; and (iii) clarify that written notification to terminate a tier appointment should be provided to the Market Quality Assurance & DPM Administration Department.
CBOE Rule 8.3(e) provides that the Exchange may establish one or more types of tier appointments. In accordance with CBOE Rule 8.3(e), a tier appointment is an appointment to trade one or more options classes that must be held by a Market-Maker to be eligible to act as a Market-Maker in the options class or options classes subject to that appointment. CBOE currently maintains tier appointments for Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders trading in SPX and VIX.
Section 10(A) of the current Fees Schedule provides that the SPX Tier Appointment fee will be assessed to any Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that either (a) has an SPX Tier Appointment at any time during a calendar month; or (b) conducts any open outcry transactions in SPX or any open outcry or electronic transaction in SPX Weeklys at any time during a calendar month. CBOE amended this provision in January 2011 to reflect the addition of SPX Weeklys and to incorporate any electronic transactions that occur in SPX Weeklys.
Similarly, Section 10(A) of the current Fees Schedule provides that the VIX Tier Appointment fee will be assessed to any Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that either (a) has a VIX Tier Appointment at any time during a calendar month; or (b) conducts any transactions in VIX at any time during a calendar month. However, since the only Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders that are able to submit quotes electronically in VIX are those Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders that have an appointment in VIX, CBOE is proposing to clarify this provision by removing the language that would assess the tier appointment fee to any Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that conducts any electronic transactions in VIX. CBOE has never intended to assess the tier appointment fee to a Trading Permit Holder that submits an occasional order electronically in VIX. CBOE is also proposing to add language to the Fees Schedule to provide that the VIX Tier Appointment fee will be assessed to a Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder that trades at least 1,000 VIX options contracts per month in open outcry. In addition, because Market-Maker Trading
In addition to the proposed changes to the Fees Schedule described above, CBOE is proposing to revise its regulatory circular that sets forth the existing Trading Permit Holder application and other related fees. The Exchange proposes to revise this circular to incorporate the changes to Section 10 of the CBOE Fees Schedule that are described above. The proposed changes to the circular are included as Exhibit 2 to the Form 19b-4.
The proposed rule change will treat similarly situated Trading Permit Holders in the same manner. Specifically, CBOE shall assess the same base tier appointment fees to all Trading Permit Holders based on the type of tier appointment requested and based on objective standards with respect to open outcry trading in the applicable class. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that 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 the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 21, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Investment Company Units (“Units”), of the following series of the SPDR Series
The SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond ETF
The Index consists of categories of bonds in the following proportions: (i) 70% of the Index constituents are components of the Standard & Poor's/Investortools High Yield Bond Index,
The Exchange submitted this proposed rule change because the Index underlying the Fund does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .02(a)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) applicable to listing of Units based on US indexes. Specifically, the Index does not meet the requirement set forth in Commentary .02(a)(2):
Detailed descriptions of the Fund, the Index, procedures for creating and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and expenses, dividends, distributions, taxes, risks, and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statement or on the Web site for the Fund (
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Although NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) permits the Exchange to list Units based on U.S. indexes pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act,
The Commission believes that the listing and trading of the Shares is consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that the Index is not susceptible to manipulation. As of December 20, 2010, there were approximately 21,141 issues included in the Index and the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $532.82 billion. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 0.86% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 2.52% of the weight of the Index.
The Commission also notes that, based on the Exchange's representations: (1) The Shares currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), except for the requirement under Commentary .02(a)(2); (2) the Shares will be subject to all of the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to Units; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Shares.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Complex Order
This filing is effective on February 7, 2011.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify the Exchange's Fee Schedule to support the enhanced Complex Order System.
A table displaying the proposed fees follows as well as a description of each proposed amendment.
First, the Exchange is proposing to amend the Rebates for Adding Liquidity applicable to Section I, Part B, Complex Orders. The Exchange currently pays the following Rebates for Adding Liquidity for Complex Orders: $0.22 per contract for Customers; $0.25 per contract for Directed Participants;
Second, the Exchange is proposing to assess new Fees for Adding Liquidity to Section I, Part B, Complex Orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the fees in Part B to assess a Fee for Adding Liquidity for complex orders to all market participants, except for Customers. Customers would not pay a Fee for Adding Liquidity in complex orders. Directed Participants, Specialists, ROTs, SQTs, and RSQTs would be assessed a Fee for Adding Liquidity of $0.10 per contract. Firms, Broker-Dealers, and Professionals would be assessed a Fee for Adding Liquidity of $0.20 per contract. The Exchange believes that the increased Customer volume, from the proposed favorable Customer pricing, should benefit market makers
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fees for Removing Liquidity in Section I, Part B, Complex Orders. The Exchange currently assesses the following Fees for Removing Liquidity: $0.25 per contract for Customers and Directed Participants; $0.27 per contract for Specialists, ROTs, SQTs, RSQTs, Firms, and Professionals; and $0.35 per contract for Broker-Dealers. The Exchange is now proposing to amend the Fees for Removing Liquidity to assess Firms and Professionals a fee of $0.28 per contract. All other Fees for Removing Liquidity would remain the same.
The Exchange currently only pays a Rebate for Adding Liquidity to Customer complex orders when those orders are electronically executed against a non-Customer contra-side order with the same Complex Order Strategy.
The Exchange currently does not assess a Fee for Removing Liquidity on Customer complex orders that are electronically executed against a Customer contra-side order with the same Complex Order Strategy. The Exchange is proposing to delete this text from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange would now assess a Fee for Removing Liquidity to all Customers regardless of the contra-party, except in an electronic auction and during the Exchange's opening process.
The Exchange currently assesses Fees for Removing Liquidity to Directed Participants, Specialists, ROTs, SQTs, RSQTs, Firms, Broker-Dealers, and Professionals when those orders are electronically executed against a contra-side order with the same Complex Order Strategy. The Exchange is proposing to delete this text from the Fee Schedule. Directed Participants, Specialists, ROTs, SQTs, RSQTs, Firms, Broker-Dealers, and Professionals would be assessed a fee under Section I, Part B.
The Exchange is not amending the applicability of the fees in Section I, Part A, Single Contra-Side Order. Single contra-side orders that are executed against the individual components of complex orders will continue to be assessed the fees in Part A.
The Exchange also proposes to make minor, non-substantive, technical amendments to Section I of the Fee Schedule to amend the titles of the sections in Parts A and B.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the Complex Order Fees it assesses must be competitive with fees charged by other exchanges. The Exchange further believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the fees assessed by the Exchange today and influences the proposals set forth below. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates are reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct complex orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to only pay a Rebate for Adding Liquidity to Customers and pay no rebate to all other market participants because this Customer rebate would attract Customer order flow to the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because by paying a Rebate for Adding Liquidity only to Customers, all market participants would benefit from the increased liquidity which increased Customer order flow would bring to the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that by not assessing such a Fee for Adding Liquidity on Customers and providing Customers a $0.24 per contract Rebate for Adding Liquidity further incentivizes Customer order flow to the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that creating a Fee for Adding Liquidity of $0.10 for market makers and $0.20 for all other market participants, except for Customers, is reasonable because the Exchange believes that the price differentiation between Firms and Brokers-Dealers and Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs is justified in that the Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs have obligations to the market, which do not apply to Firms and Broker-Dealers.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed Fees for Adding Liquidity and Removing Liquidity are equitable because the fees are consistent with price differentiation that exists today at all option exchanges. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee amendments to Part B for complex orders are equitable, because, other than Customers, all market participants would be assessed Fees for Adding Liquidity that are similar to fees assessed by other exchanges for complex order executions.
In addition, the Exchange also believes that these fees are equitable because the net differential between the proposed fees, for either adding or removing liquidity, is similar to the differential which exists on the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) between Customers and Firms for adding liquidity. NOM currently has a differential of $0.65 per contract between the Firm Fee for Adding Liquidity of $0.45 per contract as compared to the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.20 per contract in the section titled “All Other Options”.
As stated above, the Exchange proposes to amend the applicability of the fees in Section I, Part B, Complex Orders by removing limitations relating to the contra-side of a transaction. The Exchange believes that this proposal related to the applicability of fees is reasonable, because it seeks to pay rebates and assess fees regardless of the contra-party. Additionally, the Exchange believes these amendments are equitable, because the proposal is consistent with the fees and rebates assessed pursuant to Section I, Part A of the current Fee Schedule and general industry fee assessments of members that allow for different rates to be charged for different order types originated by dissimilarly classified market participants. Further, the fee differentials between market participants are within existing industry standards.
Finally, as stated above, the Exchange is proposing to pay Customer orders that are not complex orders, a Rebate for Adding Liquidity of $0.22 per contract, except when such Customer order is contra to another Customer order. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay different rebates as between complex and non-complex orders transacted during certain auctions and the Exchange's opening process is reasonable because the Exchange is continuing to pay rebates to Customers depending on the transaction type as a means to compete for Customer order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because by paying a Rebate for Adding Liquidity only to Customers, the Exchange believes that all market participants would benefit from the increased liquidity which increased Customer order flow would bring to the Exchange.
The impact of the proposal upon the net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend on a number of variables, including its monthly volumes, the order types it uses, and the prices of its quotes and orders (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Under the proposed rule change, a group of DTC Participants has volunteered to participate in a pilot test whereby on or about April 25, 2011, DTC will publish corporate actions pursuant to the International Standard Organization (“ISO”) 20022 format.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
DTC handles essential aspects of corporate action
A group of DTC Participants has volunteered to participate in a pilot test on or about April 25, 2011, whereby corporate actions will be published in the ISO 20022 format. The pilot data will be created in a test environment with the data systemically generated from the prior day's production and will include event types, payout types, and other key corporate action information. Participants have been advised that they should not rely on the data from this pilot to run their production processes.
DTC states that this rule filing is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
DTC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the proposed rule change. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation will meet on March 7 and March 8 at the Department of State, 2201 “C” Street, NW., Washington, DC. Prior notification and a valid government-issued photo ID (such as driver's license, passport, U.S. government or military ID) are required for entrance into the building. Members of the public planning to attend must notify Nick Sheldon, Office of the Historian (202-663-1123) no later than March 3, 2011 to provide date of birth, valid government-issued photo identification number and type (such as driver's license number/state, passport number/country, or U.S. government ID number/agency or military ID number/branch), and relevant telephone numbers. If you cannot provide one of the specified forms of ID, please consult with Nick Sheldon for acceptable alternative forms of picture identification. In addition, any requests for reasonable accommodation should be made no later than March 1, 2011. Requests for reasonable accommodation received after that time will be considered, but might be impossible to fulfill.
The Committee will meet in open session from 11 a.m. until 12 Noon on Monday, March 7, 2011, in the Department of State, 2201 “C” Street, NW., Washington, DC, in Conference Room 1205, to discuss declassification and transfer of Department of State records to the National Archives and Records Administration and the status of the
Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Ambassador Edward Brynn, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC, 20520, telephone (202) 663-1123, (e-mail
The Department of State, Office of Legal Adviser, Office of Private International Law would like to give notice of a public meeting to discuss issues relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The European Commission released on December 14, 2010 its proposal, COM(2010) 748 final, for amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (known as “Brussels I”). See
Under the current text of Brussels I, most of the rules apply only to defendants domiciled in a EU member state. When the defendant is not a domiciliary of a EU member state, jurisdiction in civil actions is governed by the national law of the relevant member state, rather than by the jurisdictional rules set forth in Brussels I. The proposed amendments would,
In addition, last year the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law considered a proposal to continue work in the judgments area. Work in that forum had previously led to the conclusion in 2005 of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which is not yet in force. The State and Justice Departments are currently engaged in discussions with various domestic stakeholders regarding implementing legislation for that Convention. The scope of that Convention is limited to situations in which the parties have expressly designated the court or courts in which disputes will be resolved; it does not address many other situations, including non-contract actions, in which no such choice has been made. At the Hague Conference, it has been proposed that an experts' group be convened to consider possible options for a broader instrument. In April 2011, the Conference's Council on General Affairs and Policy will hold its annual meeting and will revisit this topic.
The purpose of the public meeting, to be held under the auspices of the State Department's Advisory Committee on Private International Law, is to consider these developments and possible responses by the U.S. Government.
Persons wishing to attend in person or telephonically should contact Trisha Smeltzer (
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 18, 2011, at the Tri-County Community College, 21 Campus Circle, Murphy, North Carolina, to consider the matters listed below. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a
Open.
Approval of minutes of November 4, 2010, Board Meeting
For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
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 28, 2011.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-1129 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones, 202-267-4025, or Tyneka L. Thomas, 202-267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Alan Penzias to offer passenger carrying flights for the benefit of the American Fertility Association, a charitable, non-profit organization.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Mayer Brown LLP as outside counsel for BNSF Railway Company (WB461-17—01/25/11) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 1999 through 2009 Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of two newly-designated individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
The designations by the Director of OFAC of the two individuals identified in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, are effective on February 9, 2011.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are
On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose 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; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.
On February 9, 2011 the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice and other relevant agencies, designated, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the Order, two individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The designees are as follows:
1. 'ABD AL-SALAM, Said Jan (a.k.a. 'ABDALLAH, Qazi; a.k.a. 'ABD-AL-SALAM, Sa'id Jan; a.k.a. ABDULLAH, Qazi; a.k.a. CAIRO, Aziz; a.k.a. JHAN, Said; a.k.a. KHAN, Farhan; a.k.a. SA'ID JAN, Qasi; a.k.a. WALID, Ibrahim; a.k.a. ZAIN KHAN, Dilawar Khan; a.k.a. “NANGIALI”); DOB 5 Feb 1981; alt. DOB 1 Jan 1972; nationality Afghanistan; National ID No. 281020505755 (Kuwait); Passport OR801168 (Afghanistan) issued 28 Feb 2006 expires 27 Feb 2011; alt. Passport 4117921 (Pakistan) issued 9 Sep 2008 expires 9 Sep 2013; Passport OR801168 and Kuwaiti National ID No. 281020505755 issued under the name Said Jan 'Abd al-Salam; Passport 4117921 issued under the name Dilawar Khan Zain Khan (individual) [SDGT].
2. HAQQANI, Khalil Al-Rahman (a.k.a. HAQQANI, Khaleel; a.k.a. HAQQANI, Khalil Ahmad; a.k.a. HAQQANI, Khalil ur Rahman), Sarana Zadran Village, Paktia, Afghanistan; Peshawar, Pakistan; Near Dirgha Mundei Madrassa, in Dirgha Mundei Village, near Miram Shah, North Waziristan Agency (NWA), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan; Kayla Village, near Miram Shah, NWA, FATA, Pakistan; DOB 1 Jan 1966; alt. DOB 1964; alt. DOB 1963; alt. DOB 1962; alt. DOB 1961; alt. DOB 1960; alt. DOB 1959; alt. DOB 1958; nationality Afghanistan; Haji (individual) [SDGT].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5884-B, New Hire Retention Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Joel Goldberger, (202) 927-9364, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8944, Preparer Hardship Waiver Request, and Form 8948, Preparer Explanation for Not Filing Electronically.
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Joel Goldberger at (202) 927-9368, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, T.D. 9052, Notice of Significant Reduction in the Rate of Future Benefit Accrual, as amended by T.D. 9472, Notice Requirements for Certain Pension Plan Amendments Significantly Reducing the Rate of Future Benefit Accrual.
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Joel Goldberger at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 927-9368, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, REG-120168-97 (TD 8798), Preparer Due Diligence Requirements for Determining Earned Income Credit Eligibility.
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests copies of the regulation should be directed to Joel Goldberger at (202) 927-9368, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, PS-262-82 (T.D. 8600), Definition of an S Corporation (§ 1.1361-3).
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Joel Goldberger at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 927-9368, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 2553, Election by a Small Business Corporation.
Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Joel Goldberger, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 927-9368, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
In this document, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau adopts as a final rule, with some changes, a proposed revision of its distilled spirits plant regulations. The revision modernizes the requirements for operating distilled spirits plants and includes a number of organizational changes to improve the layout of the regulatory texts. These changes make the regulations easier to apply, thereby facilitating compliance by distilled spirits plant proprietors and allowing those proprietors to operate in a more efficient manner. The revision also incorporates plain language principles in order to improve the clarity and readability of the regulatory texts.
Christopher M. Thiemann, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 200E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-453-2265.
Distilled spirits taxation is a specialized area of Federal law. The following background material provides basic information about how distilled spirits plants operate and are regulated, and how taxes on distilled spirits are collected, under Federal law.
Federal law prohibits the manufacture or production of distilled spirits in the United States at other than a registered DSP for which a permit has been issued by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). While Federal law allows for the limited home production of wine and beer, no such provision exists for distilled spirits.
DSPs are regulated under the provisions of two laws, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the IRC, codified as title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.)) and the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, codified in title 27 of the United States Code (27 U.S.C.)). The IRC imposes an excise tax on distilled spirits, requires the registration of DSPs, mandates DSP proprietors to obtain permits not otherwise required by the FAA Act, and imposes strict controls over the operation of DSPs. The FAA Act imposes a requirement to obtain a basic permit and contains various consumer-protection provisions, including provisions related to the formulation, labeling, and advertising of alcohol beverages. The FAA Act also prohibits various types of trade practices within the alcohol industry, including DSPs.
Both the IRC and the FAA Act authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations to carry out and enforce their provisions regarding the establishment and operation of DSPs. Those regulations are administered by TTB. The TTB regulations that concern DSPs, which are the subject of this document, are contained in part 19 of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR part 19).
A DSP consists of one or more of the following: Production, storage, processing, denaturation, and bottling facilities for beverage and industrial use distilled spirits. A DSP may be a large and complex plant having all of those facilities or may be a simple storage facility consisting of only one building or a small bottling facility with storage facilities. Production facilities are usually accompanied by storage facilities. Bottling facilities are often accompanied by storage facilities, and in fact must by law be accompanied by either a production facility or a storage facility. However, large storage facilities are often not accompanied by bottling or production facilities.
• Distilling spirits;
• Rectifying, blending, or bottling (processing) distilled spirits; or
• Warehousing and bottling distilled spirits.
To maintain control over the industrial use of distilled spirits, the IRC requires that an operating permit be obtained before commencing the production, warehousing, or bottling of alcohol for industrial use. Specifically, a permit is required for:
• Distilling of spirits for industrial use;
• Bonded warehousing of spirits for industrial use;
• Denaturation of spirits;
• Bonded warehousing of spirits (without bottling) for nonindustrial use;
• Bottling or packaging of spirits for industrial use; or
• Any other distilling, warehousing, or bottling operations not required to be covered by a basic permit under the FAA Act.
Operations as a distiller, warehouseman, or processor may be conducted only on the bonded premises of a DSP by a person who is qualified to carry on such operations under 27 CFR part 19 and who has obtained the FAA Act basic permits required by 27 CFR part 1, or, as appropriate, the operating permit required by part 19. However, certain other activities, such as those of apothecaries, customs bonded warehousemen, manufacturers of nonbeverage products, and users of specially denatured alcohol (SDA), may be carried on outside DSPs.
The physical continuity of a DSP must be unbroken except for separations that may include public waterways, thoroughfares, or carrier rights-of-way. In most instances, DSPs are also prohibited from being located in a dwelling house, in a shed, yard, or enclosure connected with a dwelling house, on board a vessel or boat, on premises where beer or wine is produced, in a retail liquor establishment, or where any other business is conducted.
The bond is a legally binding, written agreement involving three parties—the taxpayer, the surety (insurance or bonding company), and the U.S. Government. The purpose of the bond is to protect the financial interest of the Government. If for any reason the taxpayer fails to pay the tax, the surety is then obliged to pay the tax, up to the face amount (limit) of the bond.
Currently, the Federal excise tax rate on distilled spirits is $13.50 per proof gallon. The term “proof gallon” is unique to this particular commodity and means: A liquid gallon at 60 degrees Fahrenheit that contains 50 percent ethyl alcohol by volume.
Although the tax rate for distilled spirits is $13.50 per proof gallon, many distilled spirits products are actually taxed at a lower rate. Many products contain added wine and/or flavors, and the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 5010 provides a tax credit for the wine and flavors content of the product. These credits effectively reduce the rate of excise tax paid on distilled spirits products that contain wine or flavors.
• Shipments of bulk (unbottled) spirits from one registered distilled spirits plant to another. (Bottled spirits are not eligible for untaxed transfer in bond between plants.)
• Shipments of bulk imported spirits from U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody to a distilled spirits plant. (Only bulk imported spirits are eligible for this type of transfer.)
• Direct exports of products from the United States.
• Shipments to users of industrial alcohol (certain permit holders who use alcohol for medical, research, or industrial purposes).
On November 30, 1998, TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), published in the
In addition to these proposed changes, ATF invited comments regarding the general recordkeeping system for distilled spirits plants prescribed in part 19.
In response to Notice No. 870, ATF received extensive comments from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), a trade association representing distilled spirits industry members with interests in the U.S. market. While DISCUS provided comments on the specific issues raised in Notice No. 870, it also asked that ATF consider a broad range of regulatory changes to part 19, essentially requesting the initiation of a complete revision of that part. In support of its request, DISCUS provided ATF with sample regulations that consisted of a “markup” version of the part 19 texts, along with numerous copies of variances (alternate methods or procedures) that ATF approved for members of the distilled spirits industry over the years. The amendments requested by DISCUS covered a broad range of issues and included reduced recordkeeping requirements for distilled spirits plants, greater use of commercial records, reduced reporting requirements, reduced requirements for reporting changes affecting the DSP's registration, liberalized use of DSP premises, storage of distilled spirits on bonded premises through “constructive segregation” based on commercial records, and inclusion of alternative method or procedure approvals in the regulations for universal applicability.
ATF also received comments from Equistar Chemicals, LP in response to Notice No. 870. Equistar is a producer of industrial ethyl alcohol, and its comments addressed issues in Notice No. 870 related to industrial alcohol. Equistar also commented on other issues affecting distilled spirits plants, such as the amendment of plant registrations, recordkeeping, denaturation, and gauging.
After reviewing the comments received in response to Notice No. 870, ATF concluded that the amendments proposed in that notice were not extensive enough to address the changes
As the successor to ATF, TTB undertook a comprehensive review of the distilled spirits plant regulations in part 19, taking into account the comments received in response to Notice No. 870, intervening statutory changes, and other issues that had come to the attention of TTB that appeared to warrant changes to the part 19 regulations. As a result of this review, on May 8, 2008, TTB published in the
The preamble of Notice No. 83 contained a detailed discussion of the proposed changes reflected in the revised part 19 texts. The following points are noted regarding the proposed changes:
1. Each section of the regulations was examined for clarity and rewritten as necessary, with application of plain language principles (use of active voice and shorter sentences and paragraphs, elimination of jargon and unnecessary technical terms, and use of gender-neutral language) where practicable. Many lengthy sections of the regulations were split into multiple sections to make them more understandable and readable. In addition, in some cases textual information was converted to a table format for easier reference.
2. The individual sections within part 19 were rearranged into a more logical order. In some cases this involved the reordering of sections within a subpart, and in other cases this involved the creation of a new subpart to set forth regulations involving the same general subject matter that previously was dealt with in more than one subpart. For example, prior to this revision, information regarding distilled spirits taxes was found in two separate subparts, subpart C (containing basic information about distilled spirits taxes) and subpart P (containing information regarding determination of taxes and the filing of tax returns); the revision combines these provisions in one new Subpart I, Distilled Spirits Taxes. In addition, duplicative sections were eliminated.
3. Amendments to the IRC made by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 were incorporated into the regulations, including provisions whereby: (a) Imported bottled spirits that were taxpaid through Customs may be returned to bond at a DSP and a claim for a credit, refund, or abatement may be filed for the return, (b) beer to be used in the production of spirits can be received at a DSP without payment of tax, and (c) taxpaid beer can be removed from a brewery and shipped to a DSP with refund or credit of tax.
4. The revised regulations allow for expanded use of letterhead applications and letterhead notices for purposes of amending a registration or permit in lieu of filing an entire new registration or permit application.
5. The regulations were revised to allow for the use of mass flow meters that meet certain volumetric tolerances for tax determination, as well as the use of other bulk gauges for general gauging, without prior approval from TTB.
6. In view of the increased number of limited liability companies (LLCs) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that own and operate DSPs, references to these types of business entities were included in the provisions that govern the qualification of DSPs.
7. The revised regulations include the addition of a provision that would permit the alternation of DSP premises with adjacent brewery premises.
8. The revised regulations require alcohol fuel plants (AFPs) to file an application in order to receive spirits in bond. This corrected an oversight in the regulations because 26 U.S.C. 5005(c)(1) establishes tax liability during a transfer in bond based on an application filed by the consignee. Under this change, AFPs would be required to file the same applications as regular DSPs.
9. The revised regulations eliminate the requirement that proprietors file form TTB F 5110.34, Change in Plant Status, when DSP premises are curtailed or extended. Under the revised regulations, the proprietor would document curtailment or extension with a record kept at the plant or by commercial records.
10. The revised regulations retained the requirement that the closure on each container requires breaking to gain access to the contents of the container. However, the requirement that a portion of the closure remain on the container after its breakage was eliminated, because that particular feature is not a requirement of the underlying IRC provision at 26 U.S.C. 5301(d).
11. The revised regulations clarify that required records may consist of documents created in the ordinary course of business rather than records created to expressly meet the requirements of part 19, if those documents contain the information that the regulations require. However, the revised regulations do not include a DISCUS recommendation that we eliminate most of the internal records of activities within a DSP, such as the production account, the storage account, and the processing/denaturation account, because the internal accounts are specifically called for in the IRC and they are discussed in the legislative history relating to “all-in-bond.”
Notice No. 83 invited the public to make comments on the proposed regulations by August 6, 2008. The comment period for Notice No. 83 was extended twice. On May 8, 2008, after a request from an industry member, TTB published in the
In response to Notice No. 83, TTB received 7 comments. Six of the comments expressed strong support for the revisions to part 19 and commented on specific areas of agreement and recommendations for further changes. One commenter asked a specific question regarding a particular regulatory requirement. Descriptions of the comments and TTB responses follow.
A comment from a manufacturer of nonbeverage products was supportive of TTB's efforts to modernize the DSP requirements. The commenter specifically addressed the application of part 19 to cosmetic and topical over-the-counter drug products such as instant hand sanitizers and skin cleansers. The commenter noted that its products are subject to several Federal laws and to regulation by the FDA as well as TTB.
The commenter stated that due to growth in the hand sanitizer product category, TTB should create category-specific regulations, similar to the regulations for vinegar plants and alcohol fuel plants.
The commenter also noted that it has several production and recordkeeping processes in place that have been validated by the FDA, but that are not recognized as meeting TTB requirements without other TTB mandated records and reports.
The commenter listed several proposed changes that it suggests apply specifically to cosmetic and over-the-counter producers:
• “Exempt companies from monthly reporting if they are only purchasing and using [specially denatured alcohol (SDA)] * * *. Document the yearly usage of SDA alcohol on the User's Report of Denatured Spirits (TTB Form 5150.18).”
• “Allow denaturants other than the specified SDA formulations based on pre-approval of the TTB through submission of formulas on form 5150.19.”
• “Maintain Special Tax Stamp (form 5630.6A).”
The commenter also stated that the quarterly physical inventory of denatured spirits required in proposed § 19.394 is unnecessary due to the records and systems maintained to coordinate inventory of raw materials and cosmetic and over-the-counter (OTC) products. The commenter recommended that manufacturers of topical OTC drugs and cosmetics be required to allow TTB to access inventory records and perform a physical inventory annually without a date stipulation. We note that DISCUS made a similar recommendation in its comments to ATF Notice No. 870, but we did not adopt this recommendation in Notice No. 83.
The commenter stated that the serial number for records required in various subparts should not include the requirement that the serial number commence with “1” at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year. The commenter proposed that as long as the serial or identifying number meets the requirements of § 19.572, concerning the format of records, it should be considered satisfactory.
Finally, the commenter recommended amending the regulations to allow for letterhead or single form notification of changes to the permit regarding an address change that does not involve a physical move.
A manufacturer of nonbeverage products stated that the changes proposed by TTB would indeed help streamline the many processes involved in the operations of a distilled spirits plant. The commenter listed eight specific areas of the part 19 revision that it particularly supported:
• The use of plain language while minimizing the use of jargon and technical terms;
• The restructuring of information to consolidate major topics and bring like information together;
• The expanded use of letterhead notices for reporting certain changes such as changes in officers and directors;
• The use of a single area operations bond to cover all of the proprietor's plants in the United States;
• The use of mass flow meters for all required bulk gauges at a DSP;
• The allowance for a unified process for denaturation and article manufacture;
• The allowance for a single gauge measurement when filling containers from tanks; and
• The ability to file computer-generated reports and forms.
In addition, the commenter noted three areas of regulation where it suggested further changes.
First, the commenter requested that TTB allow an average tare (that is, the weight of an empty package) to be used for gauging individual packages (drum, barrel, or similar container of spirits (see the definition of “package” in § 19.1). The commenter noted that the variance for package tare is often less than 0.25 lb.
Second, the commenter suggested that TTB allow minimum amounts of denaturants rather than specific amounts of denaturants.
Third, the commenter suggested that temporary permit delivery addresses be allowed through a letterhead notification process. The commenter noted that temporary situations, such as road construction or utilities maintenance, occasionally require deliveries to alternate addresses such as a side entrance, but that the current regulations require permittees to amend their permits for each address change.
TTB received two comments from a large ethanol producer that holds a number of DSP and Alcohol Fuel Plant (AFP) permits. The commenter noted that it supports the streamlining of procedures and the overall organizational improvements proposed in the revisions to part 19.
In its first comment, the commenter referred to two areas of the Notice No. 83 preamble with which it disagrees. Both areas relate to TTB's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 5181, which relates to AFPs. First, the commenter stated that it believes “the interpretation that an AFP permit may be granted to a facility that will solely receive and not produce spirits is inconsistent with the law that established the AFP.” Similarly, the commenter suggested that TTB should not allow the establishment of an AFP for the purpose of receiving imported alcohol.
In its second comment, the commenter raised specific issues that it believed should be addressed in the revision of part 19, and provided markups of the various regulatory sections involved in its recommendations. Specifically, the commenter's suggestions and TTB's responses to those suggestions are as follows:
• In addition to the performance limits for use of mass flow meters provided in the proposed regulation, suggested providing specific performance limits for volumetric flow meters and other equipment such as seals and density meters.
• Suggested that gauging by accurate flow meter and by accurate density meter, as proposed in Notice No. 83, be reflected in part 30 of the TTB regulations. The commenter recommended a direct final rule for part 30 to harmonize with the updated part 19.
• Made several suggestions about receipt of denatured spirits at a DSP and return to bonded premises. One such suggestion was that denatured spirits should be permitted on bonded premises for comingling, storage, or withdrawal even after they had been previously removed.
• Suggested that fuel alcohol produced at an AFP be considered completely denatured alcohol.
• Suggested the proposal of a direct final rule for part 21 of the TTB regulations dealing with completely denatured alcohol to harmonize the regulations for fuel produced by an AFP and CDA 20 produced by a DSP.
• Suggested allowing AFPs to send samples of undenatured spirits to a lab off the bonded premises similar to the procedures for DSPs.
• Suggested removing the requirement for TTB approval for sending samples to a recognized commercial laboratory.
• Suggested that TTB remove mark requirements found in proposed § 19.495 for bulk conveyances.
• Suggested changing proposed § 19.11 to allow time for verification of credentials in order to comply with potential site security and Homeland Security issues.
• Suggested changing the alternate method or procedure process to include approval for all permit holders.
• Suggested adding the phrase “on the bonded premises” after “All pipelines” in § 19.187.
TTB received a comment from DISCUS written on behalf of a coalition of DISCUS members and another industry member. TTB received an additional comment from the industry member which expressed support for DISCUS's comments and provided further details on how the proposed changes to part 19 would affect its operations.
Much of DISCUS's comment related to its suggestion that TTB adopt its concept of “constructive segregation” for various types of products (wine, beer, spirits, or flavors) or tax status (taxpaid, nontaxpaid, or in customs custody).
DISCUS also proposed that TTB eliminate the requirements to submit diagrams showing extended and curtailed premises, and that TTB not adopt the proposal to require submission of an application and/or letterhead notice for alternations and extensions of premises.
DISCUS repeated the comment it made to Notice No. 870 that suggested a 200-mile rule for continuity of premises.
DISCUS also commented on TTB's proposed changes to alcohol fill tolerances. It suggested that the Bureau eliminate the requirement that there be approximately the same number of overfills and underfills for each lot bottled.
In order to assist proprietors in determining the standards for fill tolerances, we proposed a specific standard of plus or minus 2 percent for fill. DISCUS and the industry member state that this tolerance is too small for small bottle sizes.
An individual commented on the provisions of § 19.387, “Ensuring the quality of denaturants.” The commenter suggested that TTB reapply an exception that appeared in the ATF regulations prior to 1979 for certain denaturants that were deposited in storage under direct supervision of the assigned ATF officer. The commenter noted that the prior regulation stated, in part, “Synthetic oils approved by the Director, essential oils as defined in Part 212 of this chapter, pure chemicals (liquid or solid), or U.S.P. or N.F. substances used as denaturing materials, deposited in storage under direct supervision of the assigned officer in the original sealed package of a reputable manufacturer of chemicals, bearing a label descriptive of the contents placed thereon by the manufacturer, need not
After careful consideration of the comments received in response to Notice No. 83, as discussed above, TTB has made several changes to the proposed part 19 regulatory texts contained in that notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed below, TTB is also making other changes to the proposed part 19 regulatory texts. These changes are technical in nature; they provide additional mailing options for industry members and reflect changes made to part 19 by final or temporary rulemakings issued after the publication of Notice No. 83. TTB also has updated cross-references to part 19 contained in other parts of its regulations in 27 CFR chapter I. In addition, TTB has made technical corrections or other nonsubstantive changes to the proposed part 19 regulatory texts to correct errors or inconsistencies in format, style, grammar, or spelling. None of these corrections or other nonsubstantive changes affects any regulatory or recordkeeping requirement contained in the proposed part 19 regulatory texts as published in Notice No. 83.
In light of the wide-spread use of private courier and delivery services by the public and government agencies, and in accordance with the IRC at 26 U.S.C. 7502(f), TTB is adding the option to send tax returns and remittances by private courier and delivery services to the requirements found in § 19.238, Payment by mail or courier. While this change to part 19 was not included in Notice No. 83, we believe this change will afford industry members, the general public, and TTB greater flexibility in choosing delivery methods for documents and other items while continuing to provide documented sending and delivery dates.
TTB will use the date of tender to the delivery service as the date of delivery if a proprietor sends a return or remittance to TTB by the use of traceable delivery services, provided those services are available to the general public and are at least as timely and reliable as the U.S. mail and provided the date on which items are given to the service for delivery are recorded by the service. These changes to § 19.238 follow the language used in 26 U.S.C. 7502(f) regarding timely mailing and the use of private delivery services.
Subsequent to the publication of Notice No. 83, TTB published two Treasury Decisions that amended regulatory provisions of part 19. Changes to the regulatory text in this final rule reflect these provisions:
• T.D. TTB-89, published in the
• T.D. TTB-84, published in the
The revision of part 19 contained in this final rule also requires the revision of the cross-references to specific part 19 subparts and sections contained in other parts of the TTB regulations in 27 CFR chapter I. Except for the regulatory changes inherent in the revision of part 19 contained in this final rule, the corrections to the cross-references described below do not change any recordkeeping or regulatory requirement outside of part 19; the changes to these cross-references are merely technical in nature.
The cross-references to part 19 requiring changes in 27 CFR chapter I are shown in the chart below:
By changing the part 19 regulations to provide for many of the methods or procedures formerly approved as alternate methods or procedures, these regulations have made a number of former approvals obsolete. However, there are some preexisting alternate methods or procedures that we did not make universally applicable and that we did not intend to revoke with this
It is the proprietor's responsibility to ensure that these existing alternate methods or procedures are not contrary to the new regulations, that is, that they remain consistent with the purpose and effect of the methods and procedures prescribed in this revised part. A proprietor may write to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, or the Director, National Revenue Center, as appropriate, to request that approvals in existence prior to the adoption of this final rule be reevaluated under the new regulations.
Any conditions in alternate methods or procedures continue to apply. TTB may revoke any alternate method or procedure if there is jeopardy to the revenue or if the method or procedure increases cost to the Government or hinders TTB's administration of part 19.
The following table shows the derivation of the new sections of regulations. It is cross-referenced between the new section numbers in the revised 27 CFR part 19 regulations contained in this final rule document and the section numbers in the existing part 19 regulations in effect at the time of publication of this final rule.
The collections of information contained in this final rule have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control numbers: 1513-0013, 1513-0014, 1513-0020, 1513-0030, 1513-0038, 1513-0039, 1513-0040, 1513-0041, 1513-0044, 1513-0045, 1513-0046, 1513-0047, 1513-0048, 1513-0049, 1513-0051, 1513-0052, 1513-0056, 1513-0080, 1513-0081, 1513-0083, 1513-0088, and 1513-0113. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604) are not applicable when a final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule restates existing regulations in plain language, makes certain variations currently granted to individual plants available to all plants, and adopts certain suggestions made by industry associations to reduce the burdens of regulatory compliance. This rule reduces the burden on members of the distilled spirits industry, including small businesses. Accordingly, it is hereby certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
We have determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires Federal agencies to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” We certify that this final rule does not have federalism implications. This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.
This notice was prepared by Christopher M. Thiemann of the Regulations and Rulings Division, along with several other employees of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Imports, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Warehouses, Wine.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Cosmetics, Customs duties and inspection, Drugs, Excise taxes, Exports, Imports, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Virgin Islands.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Caribbean Basin initiative, Chemicals, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Gasohol, Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Security measures, Spices and flavorings, Stills, Surety bonds, Transportation, Vinegar, Virgin Islands, Warehouses, Wine.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Caribbean Basin initiative, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Virgin Islands, Warehouses.
Aircraft, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Armed forces, Beer, Claims, Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Vessels, Warehouses, Wine.
Liquors, Scientific equipment.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Claims, Excise taxes, Exports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons explained in the preamble, TTB amends chapter I of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
27 U.S.C. 203, 204, 206, 211 unless otherwise noted.
26 U.S.C. 5010, 5111-5114, 5123, 5206, 5273, 6065, 6091, 6109, 7213, 7652, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
19 U.S.C. 81c, 1311; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5002, 5004-5006, 5008, 5010, 5041, 5061, 5062, 5066, 5081, 5101, 5111-5114, 5121, 5122-5124, 5142, 5143, 5146, 5148, 5171-5173, 5175, 5176, 5178-5181, 5201-5204, 5206, 5207, 5211-5215, 5221-5223, 5231, 5232, 5235, 5236, 5241-5243, 5271, 5273, 5301, 5311-5313, 5362, 5370, 5373, 5501-5505, 5551-5555, 5559, 5561, 5562, 5601, 5612, 5682, 6001, 6065, 6109, 6302, 6311, 6676, 6806, 7011, 7510, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
This part concerns the operation of distilled spirits plants in the United States. Topics covered in this part include: Permits and registration procedures; bond requirements; payment of taxes; filing of claims; production, storage, and processing operations; and maintenance of records.
As used in this part, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated unless either the context in which they are used requires a different meaning, or a different definition is prescribed for a particular subpart, section, or portion of this part:
(1) Produces distilled spirits from any source or substance;
(2) Brews or makes mash, wort, or wash fit for distillation or for the production of distilled spirits (other than making or using of mash, wort, or wash in the authorized production of wine or beer, or in the production of vinegar by fermentation);
(3) By any process separates alcoholic spirits from any fermented substance; or
(4) Making or keeping mash, wort, or wash, has a still in his possession or use.
(1) Is of a type that is eligible for drawback of tax under 26 U.S.C. 5114;
(2) Was not manufactured on the premises of a distilled spirits plant; and
(3) Was not subjected to distillation on distilled spirits plant premises such that the flavor does not remain in the finished product.
This part applies to all States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Other regulations relating to distilled spirits and distilled spirits plants are listed below:
Certain activities involving distilled spirits are not covered by this part. Instead, manufacturers who engage in any of the activities listed below are
(a) Use of denatured spirits, or articles or substances containing denatured spirits, in a process wherein any part or all of the spirits, including denatured spirits, are recovered;
(b) Use of denatured spirits in the production of chemicals which do not contain spirits but which are used on the permit premises in the manufacture of other chemicals resulting in spirits as a byproduct; or
(c) Use of chemicals or substances which do not contain spirits or denatured spirits (but which were manufactured with specially denatured spirits) in a process resulting in spirits as a byproduct.
(a)
(1) Medicines, medicinal preparations, food products, flavors, flavoring extracts, and perfume, conforming to the standards for approval of nonbeverage drawback products found in §§ 17.131 through 17.137 of this chapter, whether or not drawback is actually claimed on those products. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a formula does not need to be submitted if drawback is not desired;
(2) Patented and proprietary medicines that are unfit for use for beverage purposes;
(3) Toilet, medicinal, and antiseptic preparations and solutions that are unfit for use for beverage purposes;
(4) Laboratory reagents, stains, and dyes that are unfit for use for beverage purposes; and
(5) Flavoring extracts, syrups, and concentrates that are unfit for use for beverage purposes.
(b)
(c)
(d)
A TTB officer may enter any distilled spirits plant, any other premises where distilled spirits operations are carried on, or any structure or place used in connection with distilled spirits operations, at any time of day or night. A TTB officer may examine materials, equipment, and facilities, and make any gauges and inventories. Whenever a TTB officer states his or her name and office and demands admittance but is not admitted into the premises or place, the TTB officer is authorized to use all necessary force to gain entry.
The proprietor is required to provide TTB officers with the necessary facilities and assistance in order to gauge spirits in any container, or to examine any apparatus, equipment, containers, or materials, at the distilled spirits plant. Also, when requested by a TTB officer, the proprietor must:
(a) Open any doors and open for examination any containers on the plant premises; and
(b) Provide the exact locations (including the number of containers at each location) of all packages and similar portable approved containers within a given lot and the locations (that is, buildings, rooms, or areas) where spirits in cases are stored.
(a)
(1) The proprietor must obtain approval of the plant's hours of operations from the appropriate TTB officer;
(2) TTB may require the proprietor to submit a schedule of operations to a TTB officer; and
(3) TTB may require the proprietor to delay any distilled spirits operation until the proprietor can conduct it in the presence of a TTB officer.
(b)
Most of the regulatory authorities of the Administrator contained in this part are delegated to appropriate TTB officers. These TTB officers are specified in TTB Order 1135.19, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 19, Distilled Spirits Plants. Interested persons may obtain a copy of this order by accessing the TTB Web site (
(a) TTB prescribes and makes available all forms required by this part. Persons completing forms must furnish all of the information required by each form, as indicated by the headings and instructions on the form or as required by these regulations. Each form must be filed in accordance with this part and the instructions for the form.
(b) Persons may obtain TTB forms by accessing the TTB Web site (
If a proprietor wishes to modify a form prescribed by these regulations, the proprietor must submit an application for approval of an alternate method or procedure (see §§ 19.26 and 19.27) to the appropriate TTB officer. The proprietor may not use a modified form until TTB approves the application. The application to modify a form must be accompanied by:
(a) A copy of each proposed form with typical entries; and
(b) A statement explaining the need to use a modified form.
(a)
(b)
TTB officers are authorized to take samples of spirits, denatured spirits, articles, wines, or other materials from a distilled spirits plant for analysis, testing, or to determine whether the product complies with the law and regulations. When TTB removes a sample from a plant, TTB will give the proprietor a receipt for the sample.
If TTB determines that a proprietor's bonded storage facility for spirits is unsafe or unfit for use, or causes excessive waste or loss of spirits, TTB can require that the proprietor discontinue using the facility. Further, TTB can require the transfer of the spirits stored in the facility to another storage facility. The transfer will take place at such time and under such supervision as TTB may require, and will be at the expense of the owner or warehouseman of the spirits. If the owner or warehouseman fails to transfer the spirits within the prescribed time or to pay the expense of the transfer, as ascertained and determined by the appropriate TTB officer, the spirits may be seized and sold. TTB will first apply the proceeds of such sale to the payment of the taxes due on the spirits and then to the cost and expense of the sale and removal, and the remaining balance, if any, will be paid over to the owner or warehouseman.
The appropriate TTB officer may require the proprietor to install meters, tanks, pipes, or any other apparatus at the proprietor's plant if that officer decides that the equipment is necessary for the protection of the revenue. If the proprietor refuses or fails to install any such apparatus when instructed to do so, the proprietor will not be permitted to conduct business as a distilled spirits plant.
(a)
(1) Is not contrary to law;
(2) Will not have the effect of waiving an existing regulatory requirement;
(3) Is consistent with the purpose and effect of the method or procedure prescribed in this part;
(4) Provides equal security to the revenue; and
(5) Will not cause an increase in cost to the Government and will not hinder TTB's administration of this part.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Is not contrary to law;
(2) Is necessary to address the emergency situation;
(3) Will afford the same security and protection to the revenue as intended by the regulations; and
(4) Will not hinder the effective administration of this subpart.
(c)
(2) The proprietor must retain the emergency method or procedure approval as part of the proprietor's records and must make the approval available for examination by TTB officers upon request.
(3) The emergency method or procedure will automatically terminate when the situation that created the emergency no longer exists. TTB may withdraw the approval to use the emergency method or procedure if TTB finds that the revenue is jeopardized, that the emergency method or procedure hinders effective administration of the laws or regulations, or that the proprietor has failed to follow any of the conditions specified in the approval. When use of the emergency method or procedure terminates, the proprietor must revert to full compliance with all applicable regulations.
Whenever TTB finds it is necessary to meet the requirements of national defense or necessary or desirable by reason of disaster, TTB may temporarily exempt the proprietor from any provisions of the internal revenue laws and the provisions of this part relating to distilled spirits, except those requiring the payment of tax.
Except for the filing of any bond or the payment of any tax provided for in 26 U.S.C. chapter 51, TTB may waive any regulatory provision in this part for temporary pilot or experimental operations for the purpose of facilitating the development and testing of improved methods of governmental supervision (necessary for the protection of the revenue) over plants. For this purpose, the appropriate TTB officer may, with the approval of the proprietor thereof, designate any plant for such operations. Any waiver granted under this section must be in writing and signed by the appropriate TTB officer. The waiver will identify the provisions of law and/or regulations waived and the period of time during which the waiver will be effective. The appropriate TTB officer may terminate the waiver if he or she determines that the waiver jeopardizes the revenue.
(a)
(1) Sources of materials from which spirits may be produced;
(2) Processes by which spirits may be produced or refined; or
(3) Industrial uses of spirits.
(b)
(a)
(1) State the nature, extent, and purpose of the operations to be conducted;
(2) Describe the operations and equipment;
(3) Describe the location of the plant (including the proximity to other premises or operations subject to the provisions of 26 U.S.C. chapter 51); and
(4) Describe the security measures to be provided.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) State the nature, extent, and purpose of the operations to be conducted;
(2) Describe the operations and equipment;
(3) Describe the location where the operations will be conducted (including identification of the building or buildings, or the portions thereof to be used); and
(4) Describe the security measures to be provided.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) For transfer to the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant for completion of distilling; or
(2) As a byproduct which would require expensive and complex equipment for the recovery of spirits, and the mixture:
(i) Would be destroyed on the premises where produced; or
(ii) Would contain a minimum quantity of spirits, taking into account the procedure employed, would not be subjected to further operations solely for the purification or recovery of spirits, and would be found by TTB to be as nonpotable and as difficult to recover as completely denatured alcohol.
(a)
(1) The name and address of the producer;
(2) Chemical composition and source of the nonpotable mixture;
(3) Approximate percentages of chemicals and spirits in the mixture;
(4) Method of operation proposed;
(5) Bonded premises where the mixture will be distilled; and
(6) Any other pertinent information required by the appropriate TTB officer.
(b)
Except as otherwise provided in this part, the appropriate TTB officer is authorized to approve all documents, bonds, and consents of surety required by this part.
(a)
I declare under the penalties of perjury that this [insert type of document, such as report, or claim], including supporting documents, has been examined by me and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true, correct, and complete.
(b)
A person may not produce distilled spirits at home for personal use. Except as otherwise provided by law, distilled spirits may only be produced by a distilled spirits plant registered with TTB under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5171. All distilled spirits produced in the United States are subject to the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 5001.
A person who intends to establish a distilled spirits plant may not locate it in any of the following places:
(a) In any residence, shed, yard, or enclosure connected to a residence;
(b) On any vessel or boat;
(c) Where beer or wine is produced;
(d) Where liquors are sold at retail; or
(e) Where any other business is conducted except as provided in § 19.54.
As a general rule, the premises of a distilled spirits plant must be continuous except for separations by public waterways, roads, or carrier rights-of-way. However, the appropriate TTB officer may approve the registration of the plant where there are separations of the plant premises and all parts of the plant are in the same general location if:
(a) There is no jeopardy to revenue caused by the separation of premises; and
(b) The separation of premises does not create administrative problems for TTB.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) The appropriate TTB officer may authorize the conduct of a business other than that of a distiller, warehouseman, or processor on the premises of a distilled spirits plant if:
(1) The business is not prohibited by 26 U.S.C. 5601(a)(6);
(2) The business will not jeopardize the revenue;
(3) The business will not hinder TTB's effective administration of this part; and
(4) The business will not be contrary to law.
(b) A person who wishes to conduct another business at a distilled spirits plant must apply for such authorization in accordance with §§ 19.73(b) or 19.120(b) and receive approval from the appropriate TTB officer before operating the other business. The approval will specify whether the other business may be conducted on the bonded premises or on the general premises.
(a)
(b)
(1) The proposed location for the warehouse will not jeopardize the revenue; and
(2) The applicant provides evidence showing sufficient need for establishing such a warehouse.
(c)
The proprietor may move tax paid or tax determined spirits or wines across bonded premises. However, tax paid or tax determined spirits or wines may not be stored or allowed to remain on the bonded premises. The proprietor must keep tax paid or tax determined spirits or wines separate from spirits or wines on which tax has not been paid or determined. Spirits returned to bonded premises under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5215 may remain on bonded premises.
(a) The proprietor may move untaxpaid spirits or wines:
(1) Between different portions of the bonded premises at the same distilled spirits plant or across any other premises of that plant;
(2) Over any public thoroughfare by uninterrupted transportation; or
(3) Over a private roadway by uninterrupted transportation. The owner or lessee of the private roadway must agree in writing to allow TTB officers access to the roadway to perform their duties.
(b) The conveyance of untaxpaid spirits or wines under paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the following conditions. The proprietor:
(1) May not store or allow the untaxpaid spirits or wines to remain on any premises other than the bonded premises;
(2) Must keep the untaxpaid spirits or wines separate from spirits on which the tax has been paid or determined;
(3) Must submit to the appropriate TTB officer a description of the means, route of the conveyance, and the areas of the distilled spirits plant, public thoroughfare or roadways across which spirits or wines will be conveyed, and a copy of any agreement with the owner or lessee of a private roadway. The appropriate TTB officer must approve the proposed means and route of conveyance and any agreement; and
(4) Must provide a consent of surety on the operations or unit bond (TTB Form 5000.18) extending the terms of the bond to cover the conveyance of the spirits or wines.
A proprietor may move distilled spirits that are in customs custody across distilled spirits plant premises if the proprietor:
(a) Submits to the appropriate TTB officer a description of the means and route of the conveyance and the areas of the distilled spirits plant across which spirits will be conveyed and receives approval from the appropriate TTB officer for the method of movement;
(b) Does not store or allow the spirits to remain on the premises of the distilled spirits plant;
(c) Moves the spirits expeditiously, and keeps the spirits separate and apart from other spirits on the premises; and
(d) Provides a consent of surety on the operations or unit bond (TTB Form 5000.18) extending the terms of the bond to cover the conveyance of the spirits.
Except as otherwise provided in this part, a person may only conduct operations as a distiller, warehouseman, or processor of distilled spirits on the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant. In order to establish a distilled spirits plant, a person must register the plant with TTB and obtain an operating permit and/or a basic permit. This subpart covers the requirements for registering a plant and obtaining an operating permit under the IRC. Part 1 of this chapter covers the requirements
(a)
(b)
(1) The applicant must apply for registration on form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, and submit the application to the appropriate TTB officer;
(2) TTB will consider all written statements, affidavits, and other documents supporting the application as part of the application;
(3) If the appropriate TTB officer determines that the original application for registration cannot be approved because it contains incomplete or incorrect information, TTB may require that the applicant file an additional TTB F 5110.41, or submit other documentation to complete or correct the original application; and
(4) The applicant must file any additional forms or submit any other documentation within 60 days of the appropriate TTB officer's request.
(a)
(1) The serial number;
(2) The name, principal business address, and location of the distilled spirits plant if different from the applicant's business address;
(3) The operations that will be conducted;
(4) The purpose for filing the application;
(5) A statement describing the type of business organization and the persons involved in the business in accordance with § 19.93. However, if any of this information is already on file with the appropriate TTB officer, the applicant may advise TTB that the information on file is part of the application for registration;
(6) A list of any operating permits, basic permits, operations bonds, withdrawal bonds, and/or unit bonds, including the amount of any bond(s) and the name of the surety on the bond;
(7) In the case of a corporation, a list of the offices and officers authorized by the articles of incorporation or the board of directors to sign or act on behalf of the corporation;
(8) A description of the plant in accordance with § 19.74;
(9) A list of major equipment in accordance with § 19.75;
(10) A statement of the maximum number of proof gallons that will be produced in the distillery during a period of 15 days, stored on the bonded premises, and in transit to the bonded premises. This statement is not required if the operations or unit bond is in the maximum amount;
(11) A statement that accounting records will be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(12) A statement of plant security measures in accordance with § 19.76;
(13) The following information if the applicant intends to operate as a distiller:
(i) Total proof gallons of spirits that can be produced daily;
(ii) A statement of production procedures in accordance with § 19.77; and
(iii) A statement as to whether spirits will be redistilled;
(14) The following information if the applicant intends to operate as a warehouseman:
(i) A description of the storage system; and
(ii) Total amount of bulk wine gallons that can be stored; and
(15) The following information if the applicant intends to operate as a processor:
(i) A statement whether spirits will or will not be bottled, denatured, redistilled, and whether articles will be manufactured; and
(ii) A description of the storage system for spirits bottled and cased or otherwise packaged and placed in approved containers for removal from bonded premises.
(b)
(1) A description of the business;
(2) A list of buildings and equipment that will be used; and
(3) A statement of the relationship of the business to the distilled spirits operations at the plant.
(c)
As required by § 19.73(a)(8), the application for registration must include a description of the distilled spirits plant. This information must:
(a) Describe each tract of land covered by distilled spirits plant;
(b) Clearly distinguish between the bonded premises and any general premises;
(c) Provide directions and distances in enough detail to enable the appropriate TTB officer to readily determine the boundaries of the plant;
(d) Describe each building and outside tank that will be used for production, storage, and processing of spirits and for denaturing spirits, articles, or wines. The description must include the location, size, construction, and arrangement with reference to each by a designated number or letter; and
(e) Specify when only a room or floor of a building will be used for plant operations and provide the location and description of the building, floor, and room.
As required by § 19.73(a)(9), the application for registration must include a list of the major plant equipment. If the equipment is set up and used for the production, storage, or processing of distilled spirits, wine, denatured spirits, or articles, the list must provide the following information:
(a) The serial number and capacity of each tank in the plant. The list does not need to include any bulk containers having a capacity of less than 101 wine gallons on the plant premises if those containers do not meet the criteria of a tank under § 19.182 (perks, small totes, etc.);
(b) The serial number, kind, capacity, and intended use of each still in the plant. The capacity is the estimated maximum proof gallons of spirits capable of being produced every 24 hours, or for column stills a statement of the diameter of the base and number of plates; and
(c) The serial number of each condenser.
As required by § 19.73(a)(12), the application for registration must include
(a) A general description of plant security, including methods used to secure buildings or plant operations located within a portion of a building and outdoor tanks;
(b) A statement regarding the use of guard personnel;
(c) A statement regarding the use of any electronic or mechanical alarm system;
(d) A statement certifying that locks used will meet the requirements of § 19.192(f); and
(e) A list of persons, by their position and title, who have the responsibility for the custody and access to keys for the locks.
(a) As required by § 19.73(a)(13)(ii), the application for registration must include a statement of the step-by-step production procedure used to produce spirits from an original source. The statement must begin with the treating, mashing, or fermenting of the raw materials or substances and continue through each step of the distilling, purifying, and refining procedure to the production gauge. The statement must include the kind and approximate quantity of each material or substance used in producing, purifying, or refining each type of spirits that will be produced.
(b) If the applicant intends to redistill spirits in the production account, the applicant must submit and receive approval for such redistillation on form TTB F 5110.38, Formula for Distilled Spirits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.
An applicant or proprietor of a distilled spirits plant must execute and submit to the appropriate TTB officer form TTB F 5000.8, Power of Attorney, for each person authorized to sign or to act on behalf of the applicant or proprietor unless the authority has been granted in the application for registration.
Section 29.55 of this chapter requires that every person having possession, custody, or control of a still or distilling apparatus must register the still or distilling apparatus. When a person lists a still or distilling apparatus with the application for registration as required by § 19.75(b) and receives approval of the registration, that person has fulfilled the requirement to register the still or distilling apparatus. See § 29.55 of this chapter for additional provisions regarding stills and distilling apparatus.
A person may not operate a distilled spirits plant unless a notice of registration has been approved by TTB authorizing the businesses and operations to be conducted at such plant. When approved by the appropriate TTB officer, the application for registration constitutes the notice of registration of the distilled spirits plant. A distilled spirits plant will not be registered or reregistered under this subpart until the applicant has complied with all requirements of law and regulations relating to the qualification of the business or operations in which the applicant intends to engage. In any instance where a person is required to have a bond or permit and the bond or permit becomes invalid, then the notice of registration also becomes invalid. Another application for registration must be filed and a new notice of registration approved by TTB before the business or operation at such plant may be resumed. Reregistration of a plant is not required when a new bond or a strengthening bond is filed in accordance with § 19.167 or § 19.168.
The proprietor must maintain the registration documents on the plant premises in a loose-leaf file that is current, complete, and readily available for inspection by the appropriate TTB officer.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a person must obtain an operating permit under the IRC in order to:
(1) Distill for industrial use;
(2) Warehouse spirits for industrial use;
(3) Denature spirits;
(4) Warehouse spirits (without bottling) for nonindustrial use;
(5) Bottle or package spirits for industrial use;
(6) Manufacture articles; or
(7) Engage in any other distilling, warehousing, or processing operation not required to be covered by a basic permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (49 Stat. 978; 27 U.S.C. 203, 204).
(b)
(a) In order to obtain an operating permit, a person must complete an application on form TTB F 5110.25, Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d). TTB will consider all written statements, affidavits and other documents submitted in support of the application as part of the application.
(b) The application on TTB F 5110.25 must include the following information:
(1) The name and principal address of the business;
(2) The address of the plant if different from the business address;
(3) A description of the operation(s) to be conducted;
(4) A statement of the business organization and the persons involved in the business as required under § 19.93; and
(5) A list of trade names as required under § 19.94.
(c) A TTB officer may request that any person listed under § 19.93(a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(iii), (b)(1), or (b)(2) submit to TTB a statement as to whether that person has ever:
(1) Been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor under Federal or State law, other than a misdemeanor conviction for a traffic violation;
(2) Been arrested or charged with any violation of State or Federal law, other than an arrest or charge for a misdemeanor traffic violation; or
(3) Applied for, held, or been connected with a permit issued under Federal law to manufacture, distribute, sell or use spirits or products containing spirits, or held any financial interest in any business covered by any such permit, and if so, give the permit number, classification, period of operation and details regarding any denial, suspension, revocation or other termination.
(d) If any of the information required in paragraphs (b)(4) or (c)(3) of this section is on file with the appropriate TTB officer, the applicant may, by incorporation by reference, state that the information is made a part of the application for an operating permit.
(e) The applicant must provide any additional information that the
(a)
(1) If the applicant is a corporation—
(i) The corporate charter or other documentation that provides proof of corporate existence or incorporation;
(ii) Names and addresses of directors and officers;
(iii) Certified minutes, or extracts of board of directors meetings, that authorize specific individuals to sign for the corporation; and
(iv) A statement showing the number of shares of each class of stock or other evidence of ownership, authorized and outstanding, and the voting rights of the respective owners or holders.
(2) If the applicant is a partnership, a copy of the articles of partnership or association, or certificate of partnership or association if required to be filed by any State, county, or municipality.
(3) If the applicant is a limited liability company or limited liability partnership—
(i) A copy of the articles of organization;
(ii) A copy of the operating agreement; and
(iii) The names and addresses of all members and managers.
(b)
(2)
(i) The names and addresses of the 10 persons that have the largest ownership or other interest in each of the classes of ownership of the applicant and the nature and amount of ownership or other interest of each person.
(ii) The name of the person in whose name the interest appears. If the corporation is wholly owned or controlled by another corporation, the appropriate TTB officer may request the same information regarding ownership for the parent corporation.
(a)
(b)
TTB will issue only one operating permit for a distilled spirits plant. The permit will designate the operations that are authorized at the plant. The proprietor must post the permit at the distilled spirits plant and have it available for inspection by appropriate TTB officers.
TTB will conduct proceedings for the denial of an application for an operating permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in part 71 of this chapter if the appropriate TTB officer has reason to believe that:
(a) The applicant (including, in the case of a corporation, any officer, director, or principal stockholder, and, in the case of a partnership, a partner) is, by reason of business experience, financial standing, or trade connections, not likely to maintain operations in compliance with 26 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the regulations issued thereunder;
(b) The applicant failed to disclose any material information required, or has made a false statement as to any material fact in connection with the application; or
(c) The premises where the applicant proposes to conduct the operations are not adequate to protect the revenue.
If requested by the appropriate TTB officer, a proprietor must immediately return for correction any operating permit that contains an error.
The proprietor may conduct the operations authorized by the operating permit on a continuing basis unless:
(a) The proprietor voluntarily surrenders the permit;
(b) TTB suspends or revokes the permit pursuant to § 19.99; or
(c) The permit is automatically terminated under its own terms or in accordance with § 19.127.
TTB will conduct proceedings to revoke or suspend an operating permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in part 71 of this chapter if the appropriate TTB officer has a reason to believe that the proprietor or any person associated with the operating permit:
(a) Has not complied in good faith with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. chapter 51 or the regulations issued thereunder;
(b) Has violated the conditions of the permit;
(c) Has made a false statement as to any material fact in the application for the permit;
(d) Has failed to disclose any required material information;
(e) Has violated or conspired to violate any law of the United States relating to intoxicating liquor;
(f) Has been convicted of any offense under title 26 U.S.C. punishable as a felony or of any conspiracy to commit such an offense; or
(g) Has not engaged in any of the operations authorized by the permit for a period of more than 2 years.
This subpart explains the requirements for amending a distilled spirits plant registration and, if applicable, an operating permit. For information regarding amendments to a basic permit issued under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, see part 1 of this chapter.
If there is a change in any of the information in the proprietor's current, approved notice of registration, the proprietor must amend the registration within 30 days of the change unless another time period is specified in this subpart. To amend a registration the proprietor must submit in writing to the appropriate TTB officer any information necessary to make the registration file current and accurate.
(a)
(b)
(c)
If the name of the of the proprietor changes, the proprietor may not conduct operations under the new name before TTB approves the amended registration. The proprietor must file either an amended form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, or a letterhead application to reflect the change. However, the proprietor does not have to file a new bond or consent of surety.
The proprietor must notify TTB of any changes in the list of stockholders or persons with interest that was filed with TTB as required by § 19.93. If the change results in a change of control, the proprietor must file form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, within 30 days of the change. If the change does not cause a change of control, the proprietor:
(a) May file a letterhead notice to amend the registration;
(b) May file the amended notice on May 1 of each year rather than within 30 days of the change, or on any other date that the appropriate TTB Officer may approve; and
(c) Must incorporate all changes submitted by letterhead notice in the next TTB F 5110.41 filed.
(a)
(1) The proprietor must file an amended form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, or a letterhead notice to reflect the change;
(2) The proprietor must provide the name and address of each new officer, director, member or manager; and
(3) The proprietor must incorporate all changes submitted by letterhead notice in the next TTB F 5110.41 filed.
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Must file form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, and receive from TTB an approved notice of registration of the plant;
(ii) Must file the required bonds; and
(iii) May adopt the approved formulas of its predecessor in accordance with §§ 5.28 and 20.63 of this chapter.
(b)
(1) The fiduciary may furnish a consent of surety to extend the terms of the predecessor's bond instead of filing a new bond;
(2) The fiduciary may incorporate by reference in the application for registration on TTB F 5110.41 any information contained in the predecessor's application for registration that is still current;
(3) The successor must furnish a certified copy of the order of the court or other pertinent document showing the successor's qualification as fiduciary; and
(4) The effective date of the qualifying documents that the fiduciary files will be the date of the court order, the date specified in the order whereby the fiduciary assumes control, or if there is no court order, the date that the fiduciary assumed control.
(a) If there is a death or insolvency of a partner in the business registered under this part, the surviving partner or partners may continue to operate under the notice of registration if:
(1) The partnership is not terminated under the laws of the particular State but continues until the winding up of the partnership affairs is complete;
(2) The surviving partner or partners have exclusive right to the control and possession of the partnership assets for purposes of liquidation and settlement; and
(3) A consent of surety is filed where the surety and the surviving partner or partners agree to remain liable on the operations or unit bond.
(b) If the surviving partner or partners acquire the business upon settlement of the partnership, the surviving partner or partners must file as an incoming proprietor and receive an approved notice of registration of the plant in accordance with § 19.116(a).
(a) If the location of the plant changes, the proprietor must:
(1) File form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, to amend the registration;
(2) File a new bond or a consent of surety on form TTB F 5000.18; and
(3) Not begin operations at the new location prior to approval of the amended registration.
(b) If there is a temporary change of delivery address within a plant with no change in plant location, the proprietor may file a letterhead notice to temporarily amend the registration.
If the proprietor intends to extend or curtail any part of the plant premises, except under alternate operations that are covered by §§ 19.142 and 19.143, the proprietor must file form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, to amend the registration. The proprietor must not extend or curtail any premises or equipment before the amended registration is approved.
(a) If the proprietor wishes to conduct additional operations involving spirits, other than those approved on the current registration, the proprietor must:
(1) File form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, to amend the registration; and
(2) Not engage in the additional operations prior to approval of the amended registration.
(b) If the proprietor wishes to engage in another business that is authorized under § 19.55 the proprietor must:
(1) File TTB F 5110.41 to amend the registration;
(2) Include the information required under § 19.73(b); and
(3) Not engage in the other business until approval of the amended registration is received.
If the proprietor plans to produce a new product or make a change to the production procedure that will affect the designation of the product or substantially affect the character of the product, the proprietor must:
(a) File form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, to amend the registration;
(b) Provide a new statement of production procedure as described in § 19.77; and
(c) Receive approval of the amended registration before implementing the change in the production procedure.
(a) The proprietor must submit a letterhead notice before making any material change in the construction or use of buildings or equipment at the plant other than changes covered by §§ 19.119, 19.142 or 19.143. The proprietor must:
(1) Describe the proposed change in detail;
(2) Keep a copy of the letterhead notice on file with the current notice of registration; and
(3) Incorporate the change in the next amendment to the registration submitted on form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, unless the appropriate TTB officer requires immediate submission of an amended TTB F 5110.41.
(b) The proprietor may make emergency changes in construction or use of buildings and equipment without prior letterhead notice. However, the proprietor must promptly report any emergency change to the appropriate TTB officer.
If the proprietor makes changes to the personnel listed, or procedures contained in, the statement of plant security filed under § 19.76, the proprietor must:
(a) File a form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, or a letterhead application to amend the registration, in the case of any change in the description of plant security, employment of guard personnel, use of electronic or mechanical alarm system, or certification of required locks required under § 19.76(a) through (d);
(b) File a letterhead notice for any change in personnel who have custody and access to keys for the required locks as provided under § 19.76(e); and
(c) Incorporate any changes filed by letterhead notice in the next amendment to the registration on TTB F 5110.41 submitted, unless the appropriate TTB officer requires an immediate submission of TTB F 5110.41.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(a)
(1) If the operations that are authorized by the permit are leased, sold or transferred;
(2) If the company is dissolved on a certain date by an event specified in the laws of the State where the company operates; or
(3) In the case of a corporation, if actual or legal control of the corporation changes, directly or indirectly, whether by reason of change in stock ownership
(b)
If the name of the proprietor changes, the proprietor must file a letterhead application to amend the operating permit. The proprietor may not conduct operations under the new name before TTB approves the amended operating permit. However, the proprietor does not have to file a new bond or consent of surety.
If the proprietor intends to change or add a trade name that will be used in the operation of the plant, the proprietor must file a letterhead application to amend the operating permit. The proprietor may not conduct operations under the new trade name before TTB approves the amended operating permit. However, the proprietor will not be required to file a new bond or consent of surety.
The proprietor must notify TTB of any changes in the list of stockholders or persons with interest that was filed with TTB as required by § 19.93(b). If the change results in a change of control, the proprietor must file form TTB F 5110.25, Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d), within 30 days of the change. If the change does not cause a change in control the proprietor:
(a) May file a letterhead notice to amend the operating permit;
(b) May file the amended notice the May 1st following the change in control year rather than within 30 days of the change, or on any other date that the appropriate TTB Officer may approve; and
(c) Must incorporate all changes submitted by letterhead notice in the next TTB F 5110.25 filed.
(a)
(1) File form TTB F 5110.25 Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d) or a letterhead notice to amend the operating permit;
(2) Provide the name and address for each new officer, director, member or manager; and
(3) Incorporate all changes submitted by letterhead notice in the next TTB F 5110.25 filed.
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Must file form TTB F 5110.25 Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d) and obtain an operating permit;
(ii) Must file the required bonds; and
(iii) May adopt the approved formulas of its predecessor in accordance with §§ 5.28 and 20.63 of this chapter.
(b)
(1) The fiduciary may furnish a consent of surety to extend the terms of the predecessor's bond instead of filing a new bond;
(2) On TTB F 5110.25, Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d), the fiduciary may incorporate by reference any information contained in the predecessor's application that is still current;
(3) The successor must furnish a certified copy of the order of the court or other pertinent document showing the successor's qualification as fiduciary; and
(4) The effective date of the qualifying documents that the fiduciary files will be the date of the court order, the date specified in the order whereby the fiduciary assumes control, or if there is no court order, the date that the fiduciary assumed control.
(a) If there is a death or insolvency of a partner in a company that holds an operating permit under this part, the surviving partner or partners may continue to operate under the operating permit if:
(1) The partnership is not terminated under the laws of the particular State but continues until the winding up of the partnership affairs is complete;
(2) The surviving partner or partners have exclusive right to the control and possession of the partnership assets for purposes of liquidation and settlement; and
(3) A consent of surety is filed where the surety and the surviving partner or partners agree to remain liable on the operations or unit bond.
(b) If the surviving partner or partners acquire the business upon settlement of the partnership, the surviving partner or partners must file as an incoming proprietor and receive approval of the operating permit as required under § 19.132(a)(2).
If the location of the plant changes, the proprietor must:
(a) File form TTB F 5110.25, Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d), to amend the operating permit;
(b) File a new bond or a consent of surety on form TTB F 5000.18; and
(c) Not begin operations at the new location prior to approval of the amended operating permit.
If the proprietor wishes to conduct additional operations involving spirits, other than those already approved on the current operating permit, the proprietor must:
(a) File form TTB F 5110.25 Application for Operating Permit Under 26 U.S.C. 5171(d) to amend the permit; and
(b) Not engage in the additional operation prior to approval of the amended permit.
(a)
(1) A description of the areas, rooms or buildings, or combination of rooms or buildings that will alternate between proprietors;
(2) The method that the proprietor will use to separate the alternated premises from any premises that will not be alternated; and
(3) Diagrams of the parts of the plant that will be alternated.
(b)
(1) The plant number and the name of the proprietor filing the notice;
(2) Identification of the outgoing proprietor and incoming proprietor (by name and plant number);
(3) The effective date and hour of the alternation;
(4) Identification of any applicable diagrams provided with the registration of each proprietor filed under paragraph (a) of this section, showing the portions of the premises involved in the alternation;
(5) The purpose of the alternation;
(6) If distilling materials, unfinished or finished spirits, denatured spirits, or wine will be transferred to the incoming proprietor, a statement to that effect; and
(7) If denatured spirits or articles will be retained in the processing account in locked tanks during the period of alternate proprietorship, a statement to that effect.
(c)
(1) Completely process all distilling materials and unfinished spirits in any bonded areas, rooms, or buildings that will alternate unless the outgoing proprietor transfers them to the incoming proprietor; and
(2) Mark and remove all finished spirits in the name in which they were produced before a production gauge is made by the incoming proprietor.
(d)
(1) Transfer in bond any spirits or wines in any bonded areas, rooms, or buildings that will be alternated; and
(2) Execute a form TTB F 5000.18, Change of Bond (Consent of Surety), to continue in effect the operations or unit bond whenever operations of the areas, rooms, or buildings will be resumed by the outgoing proprietor following suspension of operations by the other proprietor.
(e)
(1) Before the effective date and time of the alternation, must process to completion and remove from the affected area all spirits, denatured spirits, wines, or articles located in any rooms, areas, or buildings that will alternate, or must transfer these spirits, wines, and articles in bond to the incoming proprietor;
(2) Must execute a TTB F 5000.18, Change of Bond (Consent of Surety), to continue in effect the operations or unit bond whenever operations of the areas, rooms, or buildings will be resumed by the outgoing proprietor following suspension of operations by the other proprietor; and
(3) May retain denatured spirits and articles in tanks locked with approved locks if the outgoing proprietor maintains custody and control of the locks and keys for the tanks. In this case, the outgoing proprietor must obtain a consent of surety on TTB F 5000.18 to continue liability on the operations or unit bond for the tax on the denatured spirits or articles that retained in the locked tanks.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(1) A description of the areas, rooms or buildings, or combination of rooms or buildings that will be alternated;
(2) A diagram of the parts of the plant that the proprietor will use for the alternation; and
(3) The method that the proprietor will use to separate the alternated premises from any premises not subject to alternation.
(c)
(1) The name and plant number of the proprietor filing the notice;
(2) The date and hour the alternation will take place;
(3) Identification of any applicable diagrams provided with the registration filed under paragraph (b) of this section, showing the portions of the premises involved in the alternation;
(4) The purpose of the alternation;
(5) If the alternation is for gauging or processing distilled spirits, a statement to that effect; and
(6) An indication of the class of temporary customs warehouse, if applicable.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(1) An adjacent bonded wine cellar;
(2) An adjacent taxpaid wine bottling house;
(3) An adjacent brewery; or
(4) Facilities for the manufacturer of eligible flavors.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(ii) Prior to alternation from wine premises to distilled spirits plant premises, the proprietor must remove all wine and spirits from the wine premises that will be alternated. However, the proprietor may keep wine on the premises if it is being transferred in bond under § 19.402(b)(1). Further, the proprietor may keep spirits on the premises if they are being returned from bonded wine cellar premises to distilled spirits plant bonded premises under § 19.454.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
The proprietor may temporarily extend or curtail the distilled spirits plant premises for alternate use with the premises of a contiguous volatile fruit-flavor concentrate plant. If a proprietor wishes to use all or a portion of the premises alternately as a volatile fruit-flavor concentrate plant or vice versa, the proprietor must comply with the requirements of §§ 18.39 and 18.41 through 18.43 of this chapter.
If the proprietor plans to permanently discontinue one or more of the operations listed on the notice of registration filed under subpart D of this part, the proprietor must notify the
(a) The permit covering each discontinued operation;
(b) A written request for cancellation of the permit(s);
(c) A written statement indicating whether or not—
(1) The proprietor has lawfully disposed of all spirits, denatured spirits, articles, wines, liquor bottles, and other pertinent items;
(2) There are any spirits, denatured spirits, wines, or liquor bottles in transit to the premises; and
(3) The proprietor has secured and returned to the appropriate TTB officer for cancellation all approved applications for transfer of spirits and denatured spirits to the premises; and
(d) A final monthly operations report, as provided for under § 19.632, for each discontinued operation, with each report marked “Final Report.”
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) An adjacent wine cellar bond covers operations at a distilled spirits plant and an adjacent bonded wine cellar;
(2) An area bond covers operations at two or more distilled spirits plant and any adjacent bonded wine cellars; and
(3) A unit bond covers both operations and withdrawals at one or more distilled spirits plants and operations at any adjacent bonded wine cellars.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
In order to change the terms of an approved bond, both the principal and the surety company that guaranteed the bond must agree to the change. TTB must also approve the change. All changes to the terms of a bond must be executed on form TTB F 5000.18, Change of Bond (Consent of Surety) by both the principal and the surety with the same formality and proof of authority as required for the original bond. The completed, executed TTB F 5000.18 must be submitted to the National Revenue Center.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) Any fraudulent noncompliance with any provision of any law of the United States relating to internal revenue or customs taxation of spirits, wines, or beer, or if the offense was compromised by payment of penalties or otherwise, or
(2) Any felony under a law of any State or the District of Columbia, or the United States, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, importation, or transportation of spirits, wine, beer, or other intoxicating liquor.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Such distilled spirits plant is qualified under subpart D of this part for the production of distilled spirits; and
(2) Such wine cellar and distilled spirits plant are operated by the same person (or in the case of a corporation, by such corporation and its controlled subsidiaries).
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
A person must determine the penal sums for the various bonds required by this subpart according to the following table: